Talk:WE Communications

Request edit on 19 April 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not even a tiny row of Criticism in article?

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA status and gutting

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

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

Requested move 28 January 2022

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

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

---

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

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

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.