Talk:2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike

Template:Maintained

Contract offered?

"On February 5, 2008, it was announced that the WGA had been offered a contract and that they had scheduled a meeting with members to see the feedback of the proposed contract on February 9, 2008.[62]" The article referenced does not state a contract was offered, and there has not been any statements of any kind from the AMPTP on this issue. It is possible the union is taking this action in order to create their own proposal, isn't it? Nothing about the wording there rules out that interpretation. Tactically, this seems like a silly time for the AMPTP to be reaching out. Five days before the deadline for this season isn't enough time to salvage anything, and once that deadline is passed, they can starve the writers out bigtime. None of my reasoning, of course, is worth the pixels on your screen-- but neither is the assertion that a contract was offered, when the article does not say that, or imply it. 70.91.235.10 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is

WGA leaders have scheduled a bicoastal powwow on Saturday, with membership meetings in Gotham and L.A. designed to sell the new contract agreement to the WGA's rank-and-file and end the 3-month-old strike.

No, it doesn't say a contract was offered but it does say they are getting together to discuss "the new contract" therefore stating that there is a new contract. I suppose you could argue that the contract wasn't offered but the WGA made one up and are trying to get that to pass but that's kinda thin. It also references

Bowman, WGA West president Patric Verrone and exec director David Young -- who crafted the pact over the past two weeks with News Corp. prexy-chief operating officer Peter Chernin and Disney CEO Robert Iger...

So I mthink it's pretty safe to say they have a new contract. Padillah (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Are those the people in charge of negotiating on behalf of the AMPTP? If so I agree with your conclusion, but without having ever had the formal negotiations reopened, and only two guys named in the "hammering out" process, it still could be an attempt to get the writers to temper their expectations. Those guys could just be helping them by telling them where the AMPTP is going to balk. I'm probably wrong, but IF the AMPTP actually WANTS the WGA to be broken, and I won't regale you with my reasons for thinking they really might, nothing seen so far is inconsistent with that hypothesis... a hypothesis I will willingly drop if any statement is made by the AMPTP. Anyway, if this turns out to be wrong, 70.91.235.10 called it baby. 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS PAGE

IT IS TOO MUCH IN FAVOR FOR THE WRITERS. It doesnt really say the other side of the issue being that the writers are trying to get to much money/unfairness of their beleifs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.113.12.3 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So change it. Find more sources that support the other side and edit them in. If this argument is really as lopsided as you say that shouldn't be too hard, should it? Padillah (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Unless 66.113.12.3 has specific suggested changes or evidence to support the assertion that the article is unbalanced, this is a useless criticism. -76.171.172.73 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, point taken, but saying that writers are trying to get "too much" money and using "unfairness" is absolutely your personal point of view. So, these kinds of comments should not be included in the article. But neutral sources, which may be pro-producers might be added. Personally, I just hope they will get this over soon, cause I want 16 episodes of Lost! ;-) 85.177.217.49 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't other people write?

Can't other people not affiliated with those 2 crappy unions offer to write stuff for the various shows or is something preventing them? 168.103.91.49 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been covered elsewhere. The WGA isn't a union, it is a trade guild. 'Crappy' is relative and certainly an opinion. I disagree with the WGA position, but mainly due to the WGA only telling half of the story. (They want a piece of digital distribution, but they want too big of a piece, studios do not make money from certain products, such as Innertube. The advertisements rarely cover the full bandwidth cost of streaming dozens or hundreds of terabytes of data monthly.) Being a scab effectively means that you will never see work again after the strike is over - unfair to the average joe who might want to take advantage of the situation to break into a field in which they'd never be looked at twice during normal hours, but there's no way to get around it. RvLeshrac (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RvLeshrac, do you have any support at all for your claim that studios do not make money from "certain products" such as innertube? Do you really think CBS would be running their shows with ads if they did not anticipate making money? Do you have any evidence for the claim that the ads "rarely cover" the bandwidth costs of streaming the shows? If you do, you might want to share that with Wikipedia readers (and the WGA who has thus far been unable to get the AMPTP to fully open their books.) How do you have access to such privileged information, and would you care to share your sources with the rest of the community? Because a widely-held opinion is that if the networks weren't expecting to make money from streaming online, they wouldn't be doing it. Can you provide data which demonstrates that the cost of purchasing a film from iTunes barely covers the network costs associated with delivering the film? I'm just a teensy skeptical of such a claim without evidence. Also, you assert that the writers want "too big a piece" of digital distribution- I ask you, since you obviously have connections with the companies-- what is an appropriately-sized piece, in hard numbers, and how do you justify those figures? Thanks. --Replysixty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like WP:OR. If there's any references to back that up, they should be used in the article ASAP. Common business sense would say that if the networks and studios don't anticipate eventually making a profit at any form of delivery, they wouldn't be doing it. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007

(UTC)

That is faulty reasoning. Look up how long Amazon lost money before they got the right way of doing things and attracted enough customers. Heck look up CBS, NBC, and ABC over the last 40 years and you will see periods when they lost huge amounts of money. Listen to the news or read a paper about stocks. Companies lose money all the time without immediately and dramatically changing what they are doing. Figuring out the right way to make money sometimes takes many experiments. In fact it is very common to lose money when you are changing how you are doing business to absorb new technology.

Yes iTunes makes money. But compared to quality video file sizes, MP3 songs use negligible bandwidth. Does iTunes make as much profit as CDs did in the 1990s? Almost assuredlly not, at least right now. The issue isn't so much the song actually sold as the number of copies pirated -- that is sales lost and never made. It is so much easier and faster to email an MP3 than to burn a CD and deliver it to a bunch of friends. Do Studio have any choice in the matter? No -- in this case consumers rule. iTunes makes a profit by being convenient for finding new songs and fast delivery, because it appeals to some people's sense of morality and fairplay, and finally as a means for fans to express support and encourage artists -- not because ITunes is an exclusive source of digital music.

Do the network studios think that the Internet is going to be the FUTURE way for making money via on-demand programs? Sure thing. Does the fact that they are sticking their toes in mean they are making a profit yet? No. The difference for video from iTunes is of course both that the cost of actual production is far greater and the size of files is 1000s of times larger. Why are they not yet making a reliable profit? Part of it is of course the fact the vast majority of audience still watch or record stuff via cable TV or off the air. So advertisers are paying like 0.1 cent per ad viewed. And viewers per show off studio websites are still generally in the hundreds or low thousands not millions. The networks also have a problem with torrents and the like. Yes given a choice most people would prefer to view a show some hobbyist has stripped the commercials out of. Given a fast UseNet download the preference will be even higher against going to a studio video that forces you to watch commericals.69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only a few shows, like Robot Chicken and South Park who's writers are not WGA members. British shows like Doctor Who are also unaffected. Also many writers are also actors on the shows (like Mindy Kaling, Tina Fey and B.J. Novak) which would be conflict of interest. Also, if the shows continued with non-union writers, they would lack many actors, who refuse to cross the picket lines. Doc Strange (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched it at all, but it would not be surprising in the slightest if streaming TV shows on their websites is operating at a loss right now. That's not to say they don't hope to make money off it in the future, but internet companies, such as Amazon, operated at loss for years.76.106.33.90 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Streaming content may be operating at a loss right now, but as noted in the article, the writers were asking for a percentage of the profits. According to my math, 2.5% of nothing is.....nothing. If there's genuinely no profit in new media, then the studios don't have to pay a single cent. I really don't see a problem there.Jeff-El (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, that's a good point. Good call, Jeff-El. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 2.5% of a loss is a negative something.76.106.33.90 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You state, incorrectly, "The WGA isn't a union." As a collective bargaining unit, it most certainly is a union as a matter of federal law. In fact, the Writers Guild of America, East is part of the AFL-CIO. 71.162.248.100 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'

Profit usually means gain. you can look it up on any dictionary. Usually they contain the words "An gain or return; benefit"

2.5% of no gain (no profit) is still zero. A loss by that definition would then not be profit. Noian (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Royalities or residuals are seldom connected to profit but instead assessed as flat rates per unit. In part because it is cheaper and easier from an administration standpoint. But mainly so that royalty (patent) owners make a profit regardless of the commercial success. On the other hand, when you have a hugely successful product where gross income greatly exceeds overhead, those royalty owners often get nothing extra from that profit windfall. However, the top stars and most powerful writers get paid more than "scale" rates which can mean anything from simply a higher flat rate per unit up to a percentage of gross income or any of several percentages of profit adjustable with how much profit is made.

So really both sides are being greedy. Writers don't want to share studio/stockholder's risk of losses or low return on investment and the studios and stockholders don't want to give up the windfalls of huge successes.

Realistically with modern computerized accounting, writers performing for scale should get paid a very modest flat fee (probably not too much different than now) plus a tiny percentage (potentially lots of stockholders and investment) of actual profits. Sort of like a low salary plus commission incentive for salesmen. Of course there would a whole series of issues to be defined on accounting definitions as to what is an expense versus hidden profit. What? you never heard of the games people play versus the IRS within legal limits? <grin> 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RvLeshrac. To tell the truth, they are so wrong doing the strike. I mean, we don't wanna watch reruns of Heroes and lots of other shows every day. The Internet is FREE MEDIA, not like television. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All the ISPs are kind enough to provide Internet service free of charge, and I've never seen a single ad anywhere on the Internet.--Father Goose (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. That's some industrial grade, high quality sarcasm right there. Nicely put. Snowfire51 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who says the "new media" like the internet makes no money is lying. Studio execs are now doing their back tracking and spreading the myth that this mkakes them no money, when, in reality, the execs have bragged that they are already making millions on these deals. Do you honestly think that taking a production that is already made and putting it on the network website cost them THAT much money? These guys sell a couple advertisement spots for the online showing, they make the whole showing sponsired by some company, and then we, the people who bust our butts making these shows, are supposed to believe they don't turn a profit on those advertisement sales? SO shady of the studios...so shady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.232.190 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes costs are lower but so are profits. That does NOT mean there are no profits. But so far profits are measured in millions versus billions for traditional media. More importantly Internet profits are UNPREDICTABLE. That unpredictably is why writers don't want the DVD per unit rate for "new media" where distribution is so hard to count and piracy rates are so fluid. You might get generous fans or get totally ripped off by people who feel it is wrong for studios or arrtists to get rich or activist who believe "information just wants to be free". There are many folk who back the idea that all intellectual works should follow the Linux model where activists are agaisnt studios which are compared to Microsoft and artists are like MS employees. Conceptually artists would perform for sheer love of their art & many amateurs do. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes other writers can do the work IF the production company is not based in North America. That is all production is done in Ballywood or China or New Zealand or similar location. Already a popular trend to avoid high costs of US labor. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not forget (New Years)

If nothing has been settled by New Years, RIGHT when the proverbial "ball" drops, this article should be MOVED to "2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.62.179 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2007-2008 or 2007-08? -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick perusal of Category:Labor disputes in the United States shows 2004-05 NHL lockout, St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 and (using an en dash) Westmoreland County Coal Strike of 1910–1911. Although technically correct, nearly nobody will type (or even notice) the en dash, making just about every viewing of the article via a redirect. All uses in the category that repeat the century digits follow the word of, so they are not parallel constructions. I think 2007-08 would be the most logical, and reader-friendly, choice. And of course it is very important to move the article right at the instant the ball drops, but that comes through because I did not turn on my sarcasm filter.—Twigboy (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should it be moved at Midnight EST or Midnight UTC? I think it should be UTC because most times on Wikipedia are displayed UTC -- Jamie jca (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt those five hours or so will make a difference, although the new year is a good time for starting a new deal. Something will be cited when the deal is made, and what is cited will be what's used, likely local time, so I'd say Pacific. MMetro (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's why I was being sarcastic. If the strike for some wild reason is settled on January 1, would it be wrong to say it was a 2007 strike? When its apparent that it will extend into the new year, make the change, regardless of the fact that half of the planet is in the new year or not. If it's 5 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday on 1/1/08 does it really matter? (However, I know that someone will be patrolling this.) If it changes now, knowing that there are no new talks until 2008, is it wrong either?—Twigboy (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that under the time-honored policy of WP:RAT'SASS, we can go ahead and make those changes. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some dude changed it already-- breaking a ton of redirects in the process. Replysixty (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Update: Happy New Year! Replysixty (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've went through a few pages and changed the redirects (predominantly the main pages relating to the strike).. but also a couple of randoms from What Links Here. I hope I started the ball rolling, and let's hope the strike doesn't continue into 2009 for our own sanity!!! - ǀ Mikay ǀ 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think the article title should be 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike (with an en dash). Robert K S (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events has the range expressed by a keyboard hyphen. However, there is a stale comment in the Talk page indicating a conflict with WP:DASH. Given the preponderance of hyphens over dashes in the article names of the Category:Labor disputes in the United States, I would be inclined to follow that for now. In the article space, however, the user has the ability to use &ndash to create the en dash, but that does not work in the article name. (And the century omission in the second-year number is acceptable per the above naming convention page.)—Twigboy (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Today is Dec 30, right?

I don't under stand 12 31 2007 reference.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio Guy (talk • contribs) 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were signed on the 31. Chances are it comes down to time zone differences. KV(Talk) 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

The article is creeping up around 95K again, and it seems really long and cluttered. Before I get bold, any ideas on where we can trime some fat? Two areas I'm concerned about are the lists of actors supporting the strike, and the strike pop culture section. Both sections could be spun off into their own articles. The former is just a long list, and the latter has a tendency to get bloated with every mention of the strike. Any ideas or suggestions here? Snowfire51 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: ReplySixty has chopped the actor's section off onto it's own page, good for him. I support that fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I support, however, a little bit of a consensus could have been built beforehand. And on a non-holiday. But thanks for not only spinning off, but also for providing a proper summary paragraph.—Twigboy (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other things

Should it be mentioned that thanks to the strike Americans are turning off the television and focusing their attention on more important things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.207.145 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Even the question is full of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The ratings impact of the strike is a valid topic and within the purview of this article. Such information is not in principle unsourceable. Robert K S (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "ratings impact" is discussible in the course of the article. Those numbers should really be important after the February book comes in and we see the effect on the entire nation. The term "more important things" just kind of set me off, sorry. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The soaps are still on. Maybe they're not members. Or they have a whole backlog of scripts.

I'm getting sick of this, as we all are. Something's gotta give! I was too young during the last strike to know what a strike even was. Twenty years later, it's back. Like the old proverb goes, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

These writers should get a rise, but now we have a possible recession looming over our heads, and maybe a SAG strike in July. Sweeps will suffer again. Even animated shows are going be visibly affected, especially Family Guy.Sposato (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Block quotes not NPOV

Two WGA block quotes, plus another in support, vs. one quote from the AMPTP. No way is that NPOV. The WGA quote up top should be cut, and the Robin Williams quote could be folded back into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the whole article seams very npov, it seams like a list of people that support the strike wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.234.92 (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, that would make it NNPOV (non-neutral point of view). Robert K S (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that in number there are mismatches. The AMPTP side has been fairly quiet, although there have been some recent statements that might be combed for quotes. I just looked back and found an anti-strike sentiment and its section are completely missing (Michael Eisner quote). I'm going to look back and see how it got lost, perhaps in an effort to reduce article size. But as for the balance of quotes ... please fix it—Twigboy (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the quotations should be removed from this article, it's practically reading like a tabloid.76.106.33.90 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Media executives added back in

I re-added the commentary from Messrs. Eisner and Diller based on the above NPOV discussion and for these reasons: (1) as Internet-entertainment executives, they have a unique perspective on new-media profit, (2) they are former studio mouthpieces, which helps when the studios are fairly mum on the topic, (3) they advance a unique position: against the strike but not showing favor to the AMPTP, and (4) they may be affected by such a strike in their new ventures. I placed it higher up than it was before, keeping actors, producers and agents (my thought: the "arm's reach" of those working with writers) first, followed by media execs. They should, at least, be higher than politicians and the general public who are not technically stakeholders in the strike. Wow, this rationale seems longer than the section itself!—Twigboy (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut this section as part of my culling for space "boldness" (remember, this article was 95k two days ago) because former AMPTP member's comments are not particularly notable (unless you think former WGA members opinions are too- NPOV) and are unlikely to affect the strike outcome one way or the other. Incidentally, any major change like that I've made has been posted here (although they have since been deleted out of the discussion in the last 24 hours) along with my reasoning and a request for consensus. I think we may need more input/insight on this "former executive" section from others. Replysixty (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not trying to contramand your effort to prune the article down. You have done well so far. I looked at it again with a fresh perspective. I have to say Eisner is quite entrenched in the Internet-distribution channel with Vuguru. I would say he's a major player in the space. He, as an direct-to-Internet production studio head, is saying there is no money in new media. That is a very compelling statement, and it's not being placed there as a straw man. On the other hand you have Barry Diller, who I was going to say is deletable. Even though he's invested in many popular online properties, it does not appear that online media is one of them—for now. But then I come to the quote, with my emphasis, We want to freeze this area until we can understand the revenues..., and then, essentially backing up Eisner's assertion: that the union was foolish to engage in the strike now, rather it should have waited a few years before negotiating on new media. I think it speaks volumes on its own. As for flagging the section {{npov}}. Of course it's POV—it's their point-of-view, just like the sections on actors, showrunners and politicians are representative of their POV. This does not mean that Eisner and Diller speak for the whole of all Media Executivedom, but they have prominently positioned themselves as voices for such.—Twigboy (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for the record I'm far less concerned about this section now that we have the space. So we can include whatever. When I meant NPOV I didn't mean the POV of the people quoted, just that I think we want encyclopedicly (to make up a word) "notable" POVs, ie ones that add something to the general understanding of the strike for the casual reader... For now though since we're cool with space I say might as well leave it. It was a matter of prioritizing content before. Replysixty (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article

Hi everyone, I haven't read the whole article word for word, but I'd just like to say, from what I have read, this is a great article, and well done to all who have contributed. It is about a fairly complex issue, with lots of background information, but it explains its terminology clearly, and gives just the right amount of explanation. So well done to everyone who has contributed. Briefplan (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

10 days late, but thanks :) (speaking on behalf of everyone) -Replysixty (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these the only issues being discussed?

The article was just changed and I want to make sure it still represents itslef correctly. are the following issues the only issues being discussed in this strike?: DVD residuals; union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers; compensation for "new media"; the desire for higher pay.
If not then the phrasing needs to continue "including". If the above issues are all-inclusive then revert to not using "including". Padillah (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other issues, but they are by and large considered less critical with respect to the strike. Among them are the right for the WGA to go on so-called "sympathy strikes", changes to enforcement rules (reporting of usage, residuals payments, etc.), adjustments to pension and health benefits, adjustments to make unionization easier, etc. You can find a summary of these issues here: http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2485 Replysixty (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Question-- is the above relevant enough to include in the article? Your thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probablly not. This article is bloated enough as is. That... and sympathy strikes are technically illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley That article also explains how the SAG is given special status to require workers to be in its guild and not break closed shop regulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.254.86 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POV debate

We are continually going down this road, occasionally with WP:DRIVEBY tagging of the article and its sections. I'm going to bring up a few points for potential follow-up, because I think this may help identify some of the problem areas of this article. I have broken them into sections so that they can generate individual responses.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much of the WGA side

Let us realize that this is an article about a strike. Therefore, the union side will appear to have undue prominence by the fact that the union POV is the reason for the strike. Conversely, there is no article for 2004 WGA Minimum Basic Agreement, because there was no notable amount of disagreement—both sides agreed without the need for a strike. So you have to portray the union POV to establish notability. It would then be followed by AMPTP's reason for status quo.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is too much on either side, and is fairly balanced. Frankly, the whole industry is stupid in fact (at least the "above the line" types). I mean, there are trade unions for writers and directors, most of whom are quite wealthy??? You'd think they were coal mining workers or something. Only in Kommie-wood would there be a union for rich people. It is very hard to feel sympathy for either side, and, given the crap they try to serve up to us as TV entertainment these days, I could care less if the whole industry dies off as long as people keep writing books and video games.Ndriley97 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough AMPTP side

This is partly due to the AMPTP's late entrance into the public-relations "game" for this strike. The AMPTP Web site has now taken a bloglike appearance, which makes it easier to cull public statements and properly link. It is still in its infancy, compared to the WGA's Internet campaigns. So, too, is the AMPTP content in this article.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Until recently the AMPTP hasn't had a side. The AMPTP is not opposed to the WGA so much as they are for the status quo. This makes for difficult presentation. Padillah (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side-note related to the AMPTP (and a caution for editors in reference citing): The AMPTP is running a statistic on lost wages, attributed to a Variety article. The Variety article sourced the figures to the AMPTP. It's a public-relations machine on both sides of the strike, so be aware.—Twigboy (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like editors are taking writers' side

An entitled opinion, however this article does not have any advocacy of a certain POV. I have found that placing pro-studio content in the article appears to give a straw-man appearance, given the general pro-writer public opinion. I don't think this can be helped. The statements should be taken at face value. Also, in any strike, the action is the strike, while the employer, especially in this instance, takes a passive role.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I like/don't like the fly-out quotes

Any strike is essentially a "war of words", and I find no better way to summarize a section on the issues then to use a direct quote. This does set the tone for the section, but I feel it does not detract from the quality of the article. Keep in mind that certain sectors of the industry will be overwhelmingly in favor of one side, so those sections of the article will tend to skew POV just by circumstance.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Quotes are, by definition POV. In as much as it's difficult enough for this article to remain neutral, the quotes don't help. They don't present any information in a new or pertinent manner so they should go or be limited to one per side that sums up (or comes close) that sides view point. The Patric Verrone quote regarding "If they gave us everything we had on the table right now..." is very propagandist and should be removed. Also, to have a quote from Tom Short in the article and then a blockquote on the side to boot is a little undue weight. The quotes need to be pruned at least, removed at best. Padillah (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Twigboy and strongly disagree with Padillah. The quotes very clearly represent the point of view of the speaker and not of the article itself- that's what attribution is for. Moreover, well-selected quotes (such as the Verrone quote mentioned above) capture the tone and tenor of each side's position in a way that mere summary does not, and modest use of quotes are certainly more notable, efficient, and illustrative than trying to attempt to qualify and distill into yet more "he-says/she-says" paragraph-based synopsis. Why even try, when you can present it in the original words? The quotes, provided they include notable POVs from multiple perspectives of this strike, should stay. Replysixty (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should certainly have quotes from all sides of the issue, but I've never liked the quote boxes as used here. They make the formatting of the article more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. What quotes are in the article should be presented within the body of the article, along with contextual information, not as little "gotchas" that the sides have been lobbing at each other.--Father Goose (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, then can we balance them? Not only in number but in content. The WGA has a great eye-opening comment about how little their demands would cost compared to one CEO - the AMPTP's quote is that the WGA is unreasonable. Not the stinging rejoinder I was looking for (it's also in a different place which looks weird to me). Padillah (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yesterday I think twigboy moved the Verrone quote down so it has less prominence. I now count five anti-WGA quote boxes (Nick Counter, AMPTP statement, AMPTP spokesman, Michael Eisner, Tom Short) and three pro-WGA (WGA Negotiating committee, Patrick Verrone, and Robin Williams). Just an observation I'll make without further comment...for now ;) -Replysixty (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I caught the move and the additional quote from AMPTP. Good work Twigboy, thanks for that. But you bring up a good point. Should we keep this to WGA and AMPTP quotes? As far as balance is concerned I think the overall article balance is better (it's hard when one side is so blatantly right). Padillah (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had to go through and count for myself -finding the same result of 5 to 3- because while I was reading through, it seemed like all the set-out quotes on the right represented the AMPTP. I kinda feel like the WGA-favoring quotes are understated by comparison. While there are several strong quotes in the article favoring the WGA side, the few in the boxes don't seem to have as much teeth as the AMPTP-side's quotes. Anyone have some spare time to find other quotes?Westleyd (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too much

We have been daughtering off content to other articles, such as actor's response and the effect on television. I think the issues might be best split off next.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Weakest part of the article. WP:IPC—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel this part needs to go. At best each entry needs to move to the relevant reference article. It is more relevant to 30 Rock that it has referenced the writers strike than it is to the strike. This also lends itself to POV because of the overwhelming portrail of the writers point of view. Padillah (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem removing or moving this section. Don't think any of the references are especially notable. If some pop culture event was big enough to reflect or affect public opinion or the outcome of the strike or was poignant or illustrative in some way, sure. But the majority of references are basically people saying "sorry that joke sucked, folks. The writers are on strike." A list of jokes referencing the strike doesn't seem especially encyclopedic to me. --Replysixty (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We're just chronicling passing mentions at this point, and almost every reference we've had listed could have the notability of the source questioned. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Time frame

This is just technically speaking, but who says this strike is just 07-08?. Rodrigue (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean that how do we know it will end in 2008. Short answer, we don't. But this is an accurately titled article, reflecting the strike was active in two calendar years. The title ddoes not presuppose that the event already concluded (for example, 2008 Atlantic hurricane season and NFL playoffs, 2007-08 have not concluded). If the strike extends into 2009, then we will retitle the article, just as July 2005 London bombing was prematurely titled, and therefore renamed 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can make these changes on the fly. But, no, the title is not misleading.—Twigboy (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Formatting.

The format of this page is quite alot different from other Wikipedia changes, for one, it seems to be lacking the basic summary panel to the right and the short blurb at the top. Anyone care to take up the mantle of restoring it (i can't as i'm a code idiot). Haracas (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all article types have an infobox that suits them, and some articles don't even need them. But maybe you can find one here; Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. --Svip_pong 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3 reverts and "force them to return to work"

First, the article never said that, so adding it is OR. In fact, the article says Fox said this (emphasis added):

"We sent out suspension letters to all our showrunner/hyphenates two days ago alerting them that we were suspending their deals. They have not been fired. Their deals have been suspended because they have failed to provide non-writing services on remaining episodes of their series. We have merely stopped compensating them for the simple reason that they have stopped working."

The article's point was that there's a difference between suspension and firing, and didn't argue with Fox's (or CBS's) reason for suspending them without pay.

171.71.37.203 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I say- you're right. --Replysixty (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you came here and said that. Really, not sarcastically. People doing stuff like that is good for Wikipedia. 171.71.37.203 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Front Page

Wow, due to the Golden Globes being canceled, this article made it to the english Main Page of wikipedia! -Replysixty (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We hit the front page when the strike began as well, and god willing, we'll be back when the strike ends.--Father Goose (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Longterm effect on Film industry

Are there any articles about the longterm effect of the strike on the film industry, Hollywood movies, ect? Most movies are written and completed a year or more before they are released, so will we see a delay in movies a year or so from now? There should be some mention about the effects of the strike on movies in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.87.18 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this a hard one to predict. My guess-- the effect will probably be a glut of crappy, unpolished movies (as opposed to zero movies) in 2009 that were rushed into production before the scripts were fully "cooked", but until we get closer to that date it is simply speculation to assume anything. So yeah, I'm not sure exactly how to characterize the expectations for that far in advance with a truly NPOV... --Replysixty (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The happy version of the above is that we see lots of well polished movies that were placed on the shelves at the last minute due to doubts about broad appeal of their subject matter -- i.e. original, non-formula stuff normally consigned to "indies" if rights were ever released. There ought to be a few gems in this "high risk" backlog. Also there are projects once shelved as unfeasible for technical reasons which had no champion to drag them out when special effects caught up. The real problem being that minor rewrites for history (e.g. no twin towers), actor looks (e.g. redhead versus brunette) will all have to be ad libbed or made by the director on the spot. And of course directors will be walking a fine legal line that normally they would have more leeway about when making such changes. And gasp! political correctness might well suffer especially if some 1960s or 1970s script gets dragged out. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The most likely outcome of the writers strike is that all production will move overseas like other US jobs - except those productions financed by actors. Of course as more Chinese, South American, and Ballywood actors take away star status from North American based actors expect all US production to dry up. This is not a new trend. This was already noticably started in the last 5 years though at low rates. However, studio financial losses to US labor strikes is a sure way to spur mass exodus of capital. Why? because the US believes that capital must be free to seek whereever in the world it can be assured the greatest return. Given that Hollywood was the US's greatest export, you are seeing the collapse of Rome. Just like the fall of the USSR. Read Tarantino for why he likes China for filming his productions. Now just extend the idea of low labor rates for stage hands, etc and freedom from their union strikes to the writer's arena.69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With a 3 months strike delay already, the major networks have already written off finishing the normal TV seasons. However, if both the writers and studios were smart the writers will still be writing episodes and we'll get a delayed partial second half of the season this summer. I say smart because writers are theoretically losing money too.

Now I know the normal union tactic is charge the employer back wages as if they had been working all the time strike was going on. The old double penalty for not just immediately accepting unilateral union terms or a close approximation. However, it would better for the writers to deliver work due for that strike time at the new negotiated rates and terms.

Why? Because combined with studio loses during the 3 months off and the bad economy...it quickly become feasible for studios to fire everyone and move production to non-union states or foreign locations. If the studios don't they might just go under like US airlines, with no excuse for public subsidies in sight. Mexico would be glad to see ABC, NBC, and CBS move all but news and sports down there. Movies are super easy not being tied to any established stage set. And its not like the current crop of Hispanic actors and actresses really exhausts the potential nor the potential of US citizens willing to move to get their shot. And I bet plenty of English speaking European writers would have no problem crossing pick lines in a country where WGA holds no charter. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why can't they be replaced? Will they get sued if people not in the union write for them? 67.40.33.157 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a little off-topic for this Talk page, but I'll try to answer anyway. Non-union writers (a.k.a. "scabs") are legally permitted to work during a strike for struck companies. However, the WGA has made it clear that it "can and will bar" any non-union member working for a struck company "from future Guild membership." (See section 13 of the previous link.) Once the strike is over and a company becomes signatory to the guild under a new contract, part of that agreement will contain an exclusivity clause, effectively saying the company can only hire union writers. So essentially, any "scab" caught writing during this strike will never be permitted to join the guild or write professionally for signatory studios and networks in the future. They will be able to write for smaller non-WGA signatory companies, but will not likely enjoy the benefits of a WGA contract such as residuals, health care, pension, etc. Hope this helps --Replysixty (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course this also depends on the state. California and New York allowing such union tactics. However, if a studio set up in say Missouri which is a "right to work" state, such clauses would be void. Of course said company and employee better not do any work in union states.

Plus of course there is the legal question of whether the current WGA contracts are still in effect for signatory companies. Usually contracts clauses include a renewal negotiation period and the union right to strike beginning well before the contracts actually expire. Thus scabs probably cannot work for any WGA company where the old contract is still in effect despite strike conditions...unless the company wants to lose major bucks through breach of contract penalties. I seem to remember from the 1988 strike that the WGA negotiations start a year before contract expiration. So wouldn't that mean the current contracts don't expire until May 2008? Anyone actually know?

I wonder if the WGA has clauses like the auto workers which probit the companies from moving their bases of operation out of state during the contract (and perhaps for some period after all other terms) without union permission. Again unions can kill the Golden Goose too (aka airlines and autowork and defunct steel mills). There are good ways and bad ways to get your fair share.

I have heard that at the network level this is why there is a trend towards more syndication of individual shows as their own production company -- custom or no relationships with WGA. But I don't know if it is that true yet for any programs except late night talk.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Template

Why can't the "current" template be used for this page? It is an ongoing event after all. Polarbear97 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's most useful when applied to "breaking news"-type subjects, as opposed to ongoing stories. The strike situation isn't changing much at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is a constantly changing story and the "current" template should be here. --Springreturning (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The "current" template is usually used for stories that are constantly changing, with multiple editors making near-simultaneous edits. The strike is an ongoing event, and we don't really have a problem with a lot of people working on the article at the same time. Hopefully, we will soon when the strike breaks. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Counter and "Gun to our heads" quote

Does this still belong: AMPTP negotiator Nick Counter has indicated negotiations would not resume as long as strike action continues, stating, "We're not going to negotiate with a gun to our heads—that's just stupid."? Right now the "conditions" for negotiation from Counter has to do with the WGA dropping certain proposals, not ending the strike. I think this quote has been here since before the strike started. Maybe we should remove or replace it with something that reflects current conditions (I think the WGA "marathon" prediction still has relevance (and given how long it's been, prescience), but the Counter one is a bit outdated...) Your thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's outdated. Do we have a ready replacement?--Father Goose (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does there need to be a replacement? Why not just remove the quote, as it is outdated and would reduce some of the bias tone of the article? Garffreak (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Archives?

Ok, this page has obviously been archived (either that or there was no discussion before December 19th). We have an Archive Box, but there's nothing listed in it. Can someone find the archives of this talk page and put the links back in it? --Scorp Stanton (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The archive page got stranded when the article title was changed to have an en dash in it instead of a hyphen. Fixed.--Father Goose (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And it has gotten stranded again with the move of the article to "2007–2008". Okay, are we done renaming the article now?--Father Goose (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the archive so that it matches the current main name. Sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Affect on advertisers

As a less then casual television viewer, I watch very few shows on TV. Now that the shows I watch are out of scripts I have stopped watching TV. Since I am no longer watching TV I am also no longer watching TV commercials and thus may be less influenced to buy things I see. I am sure I am not the only viewer like this.

Is this strike affecting advertisers, have they noticed any decrease in sales due to less viewership of their commercials? Can we have a section about this if it something that can be written about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.87.18 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have any actual figures to support this? For example, sales records of products that advertise on affected channels? The main thing is verifiable and reliable sourcing; if you could find some of those, we could probably integrate them in a section like "Affect on commercial industry" or something. Good idea though! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, are TV commercial script writers also affected by this strike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.87.18 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that one... they should be mentioned in there if they are, I think. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they are on strike. The WGA represents primarily literary writers (although the WGAE also represents news writers). I think advertising copy is written by ad agencies who do not draw from WGA talent (or at least don't do so under a WGA agreement). That's my understanding though. AFA figures for advertising, I remember reading somewhere that advertising dollars are flowing out of television and being redirected into the Internet, but I have no clue where I saw that reported. If someone else knows, it's probably valuable info. I do know there were a number of articles about "paybacks" from networks to advertisers resulting from worse ratings than promised. -Replysixty (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

real simple question, WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY ON STRIKE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is made sufficiently clear if you read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.6.52 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

why would we want to read,HAVE A SHOW ON TV ABOUT IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's put on a play!! I bet mom and dad would buy tickets! -Replysixty (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

so the grossely overpayed writers feel they're underpayed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Event

Shouldn't this have an Ongoing Event Tag? --ShortShadow (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no {{ongoing event}}. Under Category:Temporal templates, there is {{ongoing lawsuit}}, {{ongoing election}} and {{ongoing weather}}; {{ongoing}} was TfD'd...twice. We have established here that {{current}} is not appropriate, as there is little day-to-day updating. When there is a major break in the strike, or a resolution, the editing will be fast and furious. At that time, the reader is notified that the article is changing rapidly to reflect current developments. In the absence of rapid changes, the template misleads.

As an example: The Watergate informant Deep Throat was an "ongoing event" since 1974. When W. Mark Felt revealed that he was the informant in 2005, the article was then tagged as current, since recent developments caused the article to be in flux. As one section is updated, another might not be yet, and therefore they contradict. But, no, the purpose of {{current}} is not to point out that the event is in progress.—Twigboy (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's easy enough to fix. I've created {{ongoing strike}} and added it to the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kendrick7-- myself I don't really see the need for it, so I rm'd it until we have a consensus on whether it's warranted. I don't know that the strike is rapidly changing enough (although it may be soon, now that the DGA apparently has reached a deal) that notifying the reader up front "HEY THIS IS ONGOING" is necessary, since the body of the article does just that. Also, the template appears to be a copy/paste of the Template:Ongoing Lawsuit as it still refers to a "suit"... just sayin'. Also would ongoing "labor action" be more useful? I have no clue... just askin' --Replysixty (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, User:Replysixty, I fixed the typo. Anyway, as this is an ongoing strike, it's hard to argue that the template doesn't belong. It's not terribly different from the use of the ongoing lawsuit template. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Kendrick7^talk 05:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with Replysixty, I don't think it's necessary. There are probably thousands of articles detailing ongoing events on WP, and they don't have current tags. Right now, the details of the strike aren't changing on a daily basis. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the right question to be asking: why do we need it? The reasoning given for the use of template:current is, "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors." This article is not in that state right now, but we can (and do) apply the tag when something really major is happening -- like when it got started, and hopefully when it ends.

Other than that, there's really no need for a tag that reminds readers, "Omigosh! This is happening right now!"--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In line with others' and my comments, the templates placed at the top of articles — all of them — are maintenance templates. They refer to the state of the article, not the subject. The article is fairly stable, with a few minor POV issues being worked out. The {{ongoing weather}} template exists because things could change drastically in an instant; {{ongoing election}} exists because not every government holds elections on a single day (usually {{future election}} would suffice); and I would assume that {{ongoing lawsuit}} might help protect Wikipedia from litigation from having outdated information, otherwise it would be {{current}}. I don't think establishing a new template solves anything. Otherwise, we are asking for something like this (credit: Jtalledo):

This article documents a current pizzeria. Information may change rapidly as the pies bake and the cheese melts.

It is also inconsistent with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. And I also refer back to the two TfD's of {{ongoing}}.—Twigboy (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even {{ongoing lawsuit}} is rarely used. The template is there should you change your minds. Although, I would support adding this article to Category:Current events even without a template, it's not that serious. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"supporters"

Who wrote the original caption? Was it the author of the photograph? --VKokielov (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one "supporter" sign partially visible on the far left ("...ons ...nd ...ther ...ports ...rs ...d").--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I took the picture and wrote the caption. The crowd was writers and supporters (mostly SAG members, but also spouses, kids, fan groups, etc.) -Replysixty (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit. The American public should be allowed to sue the WGA for having a strike go on this far and ruin television shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.47.99 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare they not continue to entertain us for relatively low pay! How dare they.--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Or it like they get paid once and paid again. Now they want to get paid a third and fourth time. Well if these shows cancel, they get nothing. I would hate to see that my how is canned, but would love to see them proven the idiots they are... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.47.99 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page to discuss the article, not the strike. We all love to see idiots proven to be idiots. However, this isn't the place to debate the merits of the strike or personal viewpoints. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear -- Please fix this

Also Unclear whether the 4 cents per DVD goes to each writer or is split between them. This article has helped clarify some of the issues at stake but it is certainly critical to understanding the situation to know how the residuals are structured and distributed. I have heard that the deal was 4 cents on the dollar rather than 4 cents per DVD. Spiker 22 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

from: DVD residuals: Current proposals:

"WGA members argue that a writer's residuals, or profits made from subsequent airings or purchases of a program, are a necessary part of a writer's income that is typically relied upon during periods of unemployment common in the writing industry. The WGA has requested a doubling of the residual rate for DVD sales, which, according to the WGA, would result in a residual of approximately eight cents (up from four cents) per DVD sold.

"The AMPTP maintains that DVD sales are necessary to offset rising production and marketing costs. They have further insisted that the current DVD formula be applied to residuals in other digital media—an area also being contested by the Writers Guild.

"The WGA removed the DVD proposal from the table the night before the strike began. However, WGAW President Patric M. Verrone later wrote that the membership exhibited 'significant disappointment and even anger' when they learned of this, and as the removal was contingent on further concessions by the AMPTP (which did not happen), 'all bets are off' on the withdrawal of the DVD proposal."

[Emphasis mine -- Softlavender]

What proposal are you talking about? This is unclear. Are you talking about the request for 8 cents residual per DVD? Is this the "proposal" that was "withdrawn"? If so, WHY was it withdrawn? If so, WHAT was proposed in its place? If so, and if nothing was proposed in its place, why would a request be withdrawn? Does this mean the status quo of 4 cents residual per DVD was acceptible to the WGA?

Thanks in advance; I hope someone can clean and clear this up. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What's been reported was that on the evening of Nov 4th, as the clock was ticking down to midnight (the official beginning of the strike), back-channel negotiators informed the WGA leadership that if the WGA took the 4c->8c DVD proposal off the table, the AMPTP would then agree to begin negotiations on the new media proposals. According to Patric Verrone and others, the WGA responded to this by formally taking the DVD issue off the table, but the AMPTP did not agree to discuss new media as promised. Instead, the AMPTP refused to negotiate any further unless the WGAE (whose timezone would be crossing the midnight threshold first) called off the strike. The WGA refused to call off the strike, and the AMPTP then walked away from the negotiations. (For the full play-by-play, you might want to refer to Nikki Finke's reporting from that period.) Upon hearing that the WGA pulled the DVD proposal for essentially no reason, the membership's upset reaction prompted Verrone to say the proposal was back on the table and made the "all bets are off" comment. However, IMHO it's pretty obvious that this is a proposal the WGA is willing to sacrifice to get movement on new media- they've already shown their cards on what is a priority to them, and for all intents and purposes the DVD issues is a goner. --Replysixty (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks very much for explaining that. I will clarify in the article that "the proposal" is the request for the 8 cent residual. As far as the rest of this section, I don't think it's clear what "all bets are off" means (especially to non-Americans). If Verrone actually SAID the request was back on the table or back in play, that should be so stated in the article, not just the vague "all bets are off" (which is incomprehensible to a non-American) -- regardless (possibly) of anyone's opinions of how serious the request is to the WGA. This article needs to be as clear as possible, and right now that section is pretty vague. If the article wants to emphasize that the "new media" negotiations have become far and away the focus of the strike, that's fine ... but please be clearer -- no doubletalk -- in this vague section, if you would. I think a lot or all of what you just said should go into the section, to explain the blow-by-blow. Because right now, it's unclear, among other things, why the request was removed and whether Verrone is threatening or folding. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the way I interpret the "all bets are off" (& incidentally, you can read the full quote by Verrone in the linked reference) was a way of stating that the DVD is being put back on the table. That's how I read it anyway. As an aside-- there is quite a bit more that could be added to the article to better put things in context, I think. For example, one strategic reason the WGA would like to expand its jurisdiction to reality and animation is not simply altruistic concerns for the benefit of non-union writers w/o healthcare & benefits, but also that with the changes in the industry and the growth of reality/animation as a percentage of the overall market, the WGA is finding itself covering less of the industry. Which means that the WGA becomes far weaker. Imagine if the WGA did represent reality writers today-- networks wouldn't have reality as an option for alternative programming because those writers would be on strike too. So the battle of jurisdiction, like the WGA's desire for "sympathy strike" power, is partially about the ability to have effective strikes in the future..... .Does anyone think this or some of the other strike issues I wrote about earlier warrant inclusion in the main article? -Replysixty (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending the link. I changed the section to more accurately reflect what Verrone wrote (which itself is a little garbled). I needed to remove and/or clarify "all bets are off" because non-Americans (who are the ones reading this article, because they don't understand what the strike is or what it's all about), and indeed many Americans, have no idea what that phrase means, and thus it has no place in the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but now the "Background" and "Current Proposal" sections don't agree with each other. The "Background" section states that the hold over of 0.3% from VHS is currently in effect, but the "Current Proposal" section says they are asking to go up to "eight cents (up from 4 cents) per DVD sold". That math doesn't track, 0.3% = P * 0.003 = $20.00 * 0.003 = 0.06per DVD sold as the current number (not 4 cents). Someone needs to work on that math. Padillah (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you're over-estimating the average DVD cost, which is $15 or less these days, especially when you consider huge discount markets like Walmart, Amazon, Best Buy, and on and on and on and on. Brokeback Mountain is $9.99 new on Amazon. [Also, maybe ??? they compute from gross WHOLESALE prices rather than from gross RETAIL prices. ??? Maybe the residual to the writers is based on the gross income the STUDIO makes from the DVD, not the gross income the DVD-burners/distributors make. (???)] Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the four cents is intended as a round figure because it is determined by the 0.3% on the price of the DVD (up to first $1M of gross, then .36% after), and DVD prices tend to vary. It many cases it can be less. It might also be noted that the 0.3% is the residual rate for all the writers combined, so if there were two writers, they would each get 0.15%, four writers would get 0.075% each, etc. The four cents is meant simply to illustrate that "it ain't much". For fun, ask an average person unfamiliar with the strike how much they'd expect the writer to make off a $20 DVD. (In my completely unscientific sampling of about three people, two guessed $1.00 and one guessed $5.00.) -Replysixty (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to put the amount into hard cash but unclear math is no better than faulty math. If we're going to use hard figures they should have a basis 4 cents per DVD (avg. cost $15; split among all writers), compared to $2.40 for a $80 VHS tape in 1980 or something like that. On the other hand I don't think we want this turning into an article about the specifics of the current MBA, we just need enough to know that it's untenable. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I solved the problem by reverting it to percentages only, per the exact wording of the proposal itself (see the citation link for all of the exact proprosals and requests by the WGA). People can now do their own math as to what 0.6% of a DVD is. (I'm not going to add the slight increase after $1 million, because that's just too much confusing info for one rather unimportant paragraph.) Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Current Status section

The article looks OK I guess, the thing that bugs me is having to read the entire article to see what has happened. Now, I understand that Wikipedia is not a nwespaper, but one thing that occurs to me is "If I can't figure out what the status of this conflict is can someone else?" Granted, Current Status might be a bad long term title for the section but seeing as how it is current that's the best I could come up with. When the conflict resolves this section would turn into Conflict Resolution. I just think it would do wonders for the article organization if we had a beginning, middle, and end. Padillah (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I Support the addition of a Current Status section. A lot of people turn to Wikipedia for their first info about the strike, and want to also know how it is shaping up and so forth. The article does need to keep current. If needed, we could add one of those banners about "This section/article is about a currently ongoing situation and may not be up to date blah blah blah." Also, do we have enough constantly updated news links in the External Links section for people who want to double-check the current news? Softlavender (talk)

There's a potential peril in that all the "latest strike info" might end up being put into this proposed section instead of being put into the most relevant portion of the article. This is useful for those, like you, that want updates, but not good for the article overall. I'd like to suggest a counterproposal: add a very spare "timeline" to the article that will not become obsolete over time, but will still highlight the major changes.--Father Goose (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that any updates about the strike since the date of the strike itself are buried in the middle of the article, in Section 2: "Negotiations and strike activity." Which is kind of unfortunate for people who are looking to Wikipedia to inform and update them, but who find a massive overwhelming article and don't know where to look for a detailed event account or any updates. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I think we should have a "Timeline [Chronology] and Current Status" section, preferably at the end of the article. The info from the current Section 2: "Negotiations and strike activity" can also be moved there. When the strike ends and all the dust has completely settled, we can simply delete the words "and Current Status." At that point, we can add a "Repercussions" section. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism in the article. I can't find it in edit, so someone please remove. Thanks! 69.250.70.234 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to tell us where it is. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

To facilitate template above, this thread is based on discussions in #Do not forget (New Years) and #Time frame above.

I think we should keep the title as this until the strike ends. Then we can classify it as "2007-2008", or possibly "2007-2009". The term "present" is most appropriate. — Steven Evens ^(contribs) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you think we should change the title? I believe you mean, "I already changed the title so there is nothing to discuss." Or perhaps this was to start discussion? I appreciate being bold, but even WP:BOLD says that you should reach consensus before redirecting. This now needs admin intervention ... again ... to fix. Please refer to the discussion already on this page (under Time frame and other places), then feel free to respond in this new thread here.—Twigboy (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"2007-2008" is invalid. It has not ended in 2008 (yet), so we cannot assume that this is the end date. Just because something is obvious, does not mean we can assert it. This all has to do with neutrality. This is like saying, i.e., "John (1977-2008)", when he is dying in 2008, but not yet dead. It's not yet accurate. — Steven Evens ^(contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because if for some odd reason the strike were to extend beyond December 31, 2008, we would simply change one digit in the title. Please don't mess with titles of the articles -- it messes up all the Wikilinks to the article and all the citations of this article that others have made in hundreds of posts all over the internet. What you CAN do is add a banner that this article refers to a current, ongoing event and may not have up-to-the-minute late-breaking news. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Evens, 2007-present is more accurate. It's the same thing with TV shows that are ongoing "original airdate: 2007-present", putting 2008 in the title makes it look finished. 61.69.3.77 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)D

And it appears that the archives links are broken. Again. Seriously, if you're going to go ahead and Boldly change the article title, at least have the decency to do the hard work the change entails yourself, rather than dumping it onto the refular editors of the page. 81.132.177.142 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no archives. Someone has just placed that template there prematurely. — Steven Evens ^(contribs) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an archive. It's on a subpage of the old article title. Find it and fix it, please.--Father Goose (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way: If the title reflects 2007-08, it is absolutely correct. There is only one Writers Guild strike that existed in 2007 and 2008. The title does not have any implication that the strike is constrained within two calendar years, just like when it was titled 2007 last December, it did not imply it was over. If someone has the impression that the strike is over, the lede clears that up: The current strike has lasted.... There is no need to overload the title, lest it goes to Writers Guild of America, West and Writers Guild of America, East strike with the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers from 2007 to present. The 2007-08 is there to disambiguate only.

Also, consider this: 2007-present will never be the permanent title of this article. This ensures that there will be at least one more page move in the process. When the strike is resolved, there is a good chance it will be on the Main Page in the In The News section. Not only is there going to be a flurry of activity on this page, but now we have a title that is clearly inaccurate and will take administrator intervention to fix. It should be left as 2007-08, and should there be no resolution come Dec. 31, 2008, then we will quietly rename the page 2007-09, sip some champagne, and watch some unscripted television.—Twigboy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concerns raised here, but we must hold accuracy and NPOV above possible future difficulties with the title. The simple fact is that this strike began in 2007, and continues to the present. I think this simple fact is what makes the title obvious. — Steven Evens ^(contribs) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Steven Evens's version of the title. Robert K S (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Equally valid, Steven, the strike started in 2007 and continues in 2008. There is nothing POV with the 2007-08 title. I just have trouble reconciling 2007-present with anything, anything, in WP:NC.—Twigboy (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong (and certainly nothing NPOV) about calling it 2007-2008. Using the word "present" seems a bit redundant, the present is 2008 which makes 2007-2008 more accurate. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing the word "present" in favour of 2007-08 is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia - if you want to do that you would have to go through and individually edit everything that uses "date-present" in it - you would have to change The Simpsons from "December 17, 1989 – present" to "December 17, 1989 – 2008" for instance. 210.9.136.224 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent? Please show an example of an article title with the -present construction. The Simpsons article has -present in the article (infobox), which is indisputably appropriate.—Twigboy (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. History of the People's Republic of China (2002–present) War in Afghanistan (2001–present) War in Somalia (2006–present) Colombian armed conflict (1964–present) History of the Netherlands (1900-present) and there are plenty more. I think the wars are particularly good examples. If you want to change the title of the article to Writers Guild of America strike (2007–2008) then you should change every ongoing conflict, for instance rename War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to War in Afghanistan (2001–2008) for consistency. 210.11.147.253 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)D

But many of those are examples of articles about wars; no one can estimate how long a war will last. Most people are making a logical assumption that the strike will end in 08 so would rather leave it 2007-08. I personally prefer 2007-08. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it isn't worth warring over, 2007-2008 is the most sensible title. There's a very good chance it'll be the permanent title (not many strikes of any sort last longer than a year), and this claim that it's "not neutral" is loony. It wasn't non-neutral when we called it the "2007 strike" (although it hadn't ended yet), so why is it non-neutral to call it 2007-2008? Putting "the present" in an article title is just a bad choice.--Father Goose (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Father Goose on this one. Leave as is! If we're proven wrong come 2009, then change the name to 2007-09, but until then leave it alone. -- 82.46.237.197 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

People, please, get with it... the only sensible article name is "2007-now". Oh, I kid. I'm gonna go with 2007-08 as my choice. There doesn't seem to be any particular consistency with this, I have not seen anything to convince me one way or the other on the merits alone. But 2007-08 seems to have had the mo. Honestly I don't think this is really that important except insofar as for every new incarnation, we're gonna have to go back and make sure that we're keeping ALL the previous names ("writers strike", "WGA strike", "2007 writers strike", "2007-08 writers strike", "2007-2008 writers strike", "2007-2008 WGA strike", etc etc.) pointed at the new name. Because once they're established, you KNOW people are linking to 'em... -Replysixty (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can live with both "present" and "2008", but it would have to be "2007–2008", not "2007–08". —Nightstallion 16:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto; I can't see why there seems to be active support on the part of some editors for the truncated-year version, which is ambiguous. (Have we forgotten Y2K already?) Robert K S (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes! Y2K! There may be some confusion in a hundred years- was this the 2008 one-year strike or the 2007-2108 101-year strike? Of course we're assuming this is AD. It could be the 2007 BC writers guild strike, in which case the "-08" would probably refer to 1908 BC. Key issues included the right to fresh papyrus and sharper chisels. -Replysixty (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH says it's okay to do that without any ambiguity.—Twigboy (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

08, 2008 whatevers. "-present" just looks silly though. I'm pretty sure if it comes to Dec 31st this year and their still striking we'll be able to update; it's not like we'd be watching TV.LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The only judgment WP:MOSDASH makes is an implicit one by way of example; there is no guideline saying it's a preferred form. It may just be saying that the en dash should be used in quoted material that uses the two-digit year form. It's easy to be cynical, as in Replysixty's comment, but such doesn't take the long view. Would the editors of a 1911 encyclopedia have imagined text they were writing would later be incorporated wholesale into an encyclopedia in the 21st century? I, for one, have little doubt that some of what we're writing today will still be in more or less its present form a century from now, on Wikipedia or whatever succeeds it. Two digits is a small price to pay for removing ambiguity. Robert K S (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Replysixty's cynicism, if paired with "2007" the two-digit "08" leaves little to be determined. As a stand-alone year "08" could mean anything, as a pairing "2007-08" means "from one year to another" I see no ambiguity in understanding that a writers strike did not last a hundred years. With the line of logic you are presenting we should use "02007" to make sure that in ten thousand years they don't get confused again. Also, has any of the information in the 1911 EB been mistaken for information from a 2011 version? Or a 1611 version? No, as readers in context we understand the issue in question and can adjust our understanding of the material accordingly. Very few people forget that time goes forward. Padillah (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the current name. All this move could potentially do is save the trouble of doing it later. Since the date could theoretically go on into 2009 or later, it makes sense to keep it the same. Furthermore, I consider it a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR to make the claim that the strike will end in 2008, inherently in the title. KV(Talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed?

Since discussion had moved to whether we have it 2008 or 08, can we call "present" off the table? Seraphim ^Whipp 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe -present can be called off the table. If anything, there should be a solid reason given for the suggestion to change it to -08 or -2008, since I did give examples of articles titles -present, and as yet we've not received examples of other articles documenting an ongoing event that end in -08 rather than -present. I think Evens said it best in his original message: 'I think we should keep the title as this until the strike ends. Then we can classify it as "2007-2008", or possibly "2007-2009". The term "present" is most appropriate.' --210.11.145.178 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)D

Examples have been supplied showing the use of "present" in articles of other ongoing conflicts, and no argument against "present" based in guideline or precedent has been elaborated. Is "present" being opposed on anything more than aesthetic grounds? User:Twigboy notes: "2007-present will never be the permanent title of this article. This ensures that there will be at least one more page move in the process." It also ensures there will be at most one more page move in the process. Renaming to something else now will not involve such a guarantee. So that argument is null. Robert K S (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should leave it as present, it'll be more accurate, no matter when it ends, and we can change it after it does end. Why change it more than is neccessary? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't bother me. I prefer 2007-2008/2007-08 but I don't care if it ends one way or another. What is annoying is that the article was at 2007-08, was moved and then we had to start a move discussion to move it back. The original move was what should have been discussed. So what Robert K S said about another page move being necessary was because someone decided unilaterally before consulting the rest of the editors. Seraphim ^Whipp 13:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR would both be violated by ending it in a year. KV(Talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said above, I don't care which title is used and now I have no preference at all. The section break was purely to gauge consensus since suggestions about 2007-present had stopped and discussion was continuing with 2007-08. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• 2007-Present - as it is the most correct and factual, no matter when the strike ends. We cannot verify the strike ending this year, and if the strike does not end this year, we won't be needed to move the article to ANOTHER page. It also will not confuse any reader who is not keeping up with the strike. If there is an end year, then a reader might assume that the strike has or is scheduled to end. I don't believe ending with a year makes the title any more professional, though I do think since having a year makes the assumption that it will end this year, and becomes less professional. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who moved this article and why?

Was a consensus reached that I don't know about? I don't see anything on this talk page that indicates the page should move and NO ONE was even discussing this particular rename. I think this needs to be moved back and a real consensus reached. This move was completely inappropriate. Padillah (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can tell, and I don't think 2007/2008 was ever even on the table. It appears someone has been BOLD yet again. I'm still in favor of 2007-2008, but I'm not willing to hijack the page to impose consensus. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was moved by User:Dalgspleh KV(Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should have stated "2007 - present". I disagree with the move to "2007/2008". In any case it should have been "2007-2008".--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No one was discussing a naming using a slash and it seems to be unprecedented as a naming convention for timespans. There was real disagreement and it was going to be difficult to reach consensus, but this action does not help either case. Robert K S (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who edited this article early on and watched the page, the nearly dozen moves of this article are plain silly and unproductive. I say we reach a consensus once more and have an admin lock the page from moves for the foreseeable future. --William Graham ^talk 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SENSE. Hello? Common sense abound? This article should be 2007-present Writers Guild of America strike. Why was it moved? And the move really should be reverted, IMO. It may have been a good faith edit, but that's about it. --Son (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Addendum. I support either 2007-present or 2007-08. However, I add that 2007-present is the logical thing to do; the strike has not ended. While this would mean the page would have to be moved again, there's nothing wrong with there having to be another page move. For that matter, if the article is named 2007-08, but then it continues into 2009, there would have to be another page move anyway. So changing it to 2007-08...those who are arguing against -present because there would have to be another page move...should be hoping the strike doesn't extend to 2009. --Son (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I sysop-moved the article back to the original before this latest move (please also refer to my comment to the user behind the move, here). Please do not move it until the move request is concluded. I protected the page from moves in the interim. Thx, everyone, for your patience. El_C 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's play Roshambo

The following discussion 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.

---

The outcome of the poll was "Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present)". When the strike ends, we should probably hold another discussion on whether the date should be at the beginning or the end of the title.--Father Goose (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Although voting is evil, this constant pagemoving is pointless. Let's just take a head count and take what comes. (We'll have to do another pagemove when the strike ends or if it goes past 2008, but I can live with that.)

I left out "2007–08" to avoid the possibility of a well-meaning stickler moving it to "2007–2008" again. I'll give the poll four days unless someone requests a longer period or a fight breaks out over the polling (given that this is Wikipedia, that's a distinct possibility).--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the following discussion out of the poll. --210.9.136.174 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)D

I believe it's logical to assume that the strike will end in 08 simply because of the precedent set by the other strikes and because the industry is haemorrhaging money so fast that they'll give in. Seraphim ^Whipp (see below)

But why "assume" when '-present' can be used? Other "assumptions" aren't allowed on Wikipedia so why should this be any different?

Because -present and -2008 amount to the same thing. Both are currently referring to the year of 2008. I prefer 2008. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't assume; -present and -2008 do not amount to the same things. -present means it's on going; -2008 does not. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL --Son (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If, by reading the title and the title only, the reader has drawn his/her own conclusions, they would be equally confused that Gori, Georgia is not in the southeast U.S. In any case, the discussion is above, this is Seraphim's conclusion.—Twigboy (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. I think Gori, Georgia is a terrible title - when I look at it, it looks like it is referring to Georgia, not to a US state. I would be in favour of changing the title to reflect that. --210.9.136.174 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)D

The discussion for all of these points is above, actually. This is just a place to vote after reading the discussions. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Gori, Georgia is aside from the point. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The issue at hand is WP:CRYSTAL, which (2007-2008) would violate until the strike is announced to end in 2008. --Son (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See 2007 Writers Guild of America strike — the original title of the article. No problem there before the new year, and it even got main-page exposure. Suddenly when we flip the calendar, there is some implied new meaning.—Twigboy (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike

• Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Snowfire51 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Twigboy (talk) • Voting may be evil, but WP:VINE applies with the discussion above. —04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Replysixty - So wait, is 2007-08 out? -Replysixty (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Seraphim ^Whipp 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Jamie jca (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• —Nightstallion 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

2007–present Writers Guild of America strike

• --Charleenmerced ^Talk 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) so that we can have some integirty in the naming of these events. We should follow the example of 1988 Writers Guild of America strike and have the year at the beginning and then present because it has not ended.
• ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 08:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC) the most correct and factual, no matter when the strike ends. We cannot verify the strike ending this year, and if the strike does not end this year, we won't be needed to move the article to ANOTHER page. It also will not confuse any reader who is not keeping up with the strike. If there is an end year, then a reader might assume that the strike has or is scheduled to end. I don't believe ending with a year makes the title any more professional, though I do think since having a year makes the assumption that it will end this year, and becomes less professional.

Though, I don't care whether the years come before or after the WGA strike. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per QuasiAbstract and WP:CRYSTAL. Although placing 2007-present may look strange, it is best to be consistent by placing years in front of the name since the previous Writers Guild of America strike articles follow that custom. Whatever the custom is — whether the years come before or after the name — I don't care, as long as consistency is maintained. —Mirlen (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Consistency all the way ;-) 85.177.210.115 (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present)

• Robert K S (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Son (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) - Agree with QuasiAbstract in that someone who is not keeping up with the strike might think it has ended or is ending if they see and end date in the title.
• Padillah (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

- Again, agree with QA that specifying an end date might give people the impression it's ended.

• Steven Evens ^(contribs) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC). Most accurate title at present time.
• KV(Talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC). If it mentions it ending in 2008 before it ends, that is a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR, there is no assurity it is ending this year.
• 210.9.136.174 (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)D - I have consistently defended this title, and I sign it with my non-static IP (followed by a "D", as is also consistent in this talk page).

<-- this is not true, I just don't edit under an account. I have made many edits to many pages accross Wikipedia. Watch, my IP has changed! 61.69.24.36 (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)D I have edited Tonsillitis, Wolf Creek, and many other pages that are not coming to mind right now.

• I like it, kind of like how we organize stuff like film remakes. Although there is some lack of consistency with the other strike articles (1988 and 1960). --William Graham ^talk 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support "Present" is the most accurate description until the strike ends. At that time it should be moved to 2008 (or 2009, heaven forbid...) Garffreak (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Polarbear97 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) - Makes the most sense.

Writers Guild of America strike (2007–2008)

Other (specify)

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.

Other Shows

Have any shows, other than the ones listed in part of the article, been affected by the strike?

Breakthrough in Writers Talks???

Thought I give everyone a heads up on some recent progress with the strike: it looks like an end may be near

• Wired News
• New York Times
• msnbc
• LA Times
• E!Online
• The Hollywood Reporter
• Hollywood Today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88wolfmaster (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I can't edit this page, it's protected - so can someone else please remove this P.O.V. crap?

The February speculation of an imminent end to the strike mirrored similar reports in mid-December which did not pan out. However, should a contract proposal be recommended by the negotiating committee and accepted by the WGA board of directors, the full WGA membership will need to review and formally vote for approval before the strike can be said to be officially over.

I'd also like to add that not only is it both unreferenced and is against WP:CRYSTAL, but it also directly contradicts the following paragraph in the article! Remove it please! --210.9.141.137 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)D

Future date/time referenced?

Quote: On Sunday, February 3, 2008 it was announced in numerous newspaper websites that says that new episodes of television series could be produced as early as March, if the information that is swarming the media at the moment is correct.[citation needed] If the strike is resolved, shows like Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives, Private Practice and Brothers & Sisters could finish their seasons before the 2007-08 United States network television schedule ends. Unnamed sources say representatives of the Hollywood studios and striking writers with the Writers Guild of America reached a preliminary agreement around 9:00PM Pacific Time.

Unless I'm mistaken, today is February 3. 2008, I'm at Pacific Time, and its only 7:12PM here. Noian (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When something happened on Feb 3 and it is Feb 3, then how is this a FUTURE date? It's the PRESENT day, isn't it? And you said it was already 7pm (Pacific Time). So I don't really see a problem there. Maybe you could tell me what you mean with "future date", cause I don't really see what you mean. 85.177.215.155 (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would kindly read the entire text (which yes, today is the 5th, but still, when I posted it, it was still the 3rd of febuary, 7:12 PM PST.) It says: Feburary 3, 2008 and at the end around 9:00 PM Pacific Time. Now if my math isn't wrong, 9:00 PM PST is AFTER 7:12 PM PST. so that was a future time....I'll rename it, but still , it was referencing a time that hadn't passed yet... It might have been EST, but if it was, the text needs to be changed.Noian (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of events

I think a Timeline of the Writers Guild of America strike (2007-present) article could really benefit the whole subject matter of the writers strike. Does anyone agree that one should be made? -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, I advocated creating just such a section within this article. Go for it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "Negotiations and strike activity" section seems to be a pretty decent timeline as it is. What differences do you have in mind?--Father Goose (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all notable activity, leading up to, during and the aftermath (when its over obviously) of the strike. -- Jamie jca (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Error concerning the scheduled meeting on Saturday!

In "Negotiations and strike activity" the last paragraph begins with "On February 5, 2008, it was announced that the WGA had been offered a contract and that they had scheduled a meeting with members to see the feedback of the proposed contract on February 10, 2008." The source which is posted (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117980231.html?categoryid=2821&cs=1) indicates that there is a meeting scheduled for Saturday. Saturday is February 9, not 10! February 10 would be Sunday. As I can't correct this myself I would really appreciate if someone could change the date in the article to "February 9". 85.177.223.156 (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)