# Talk:Branch Closing

I am going through several articles and changing instances of "Dunder-Mifflin" to "Dunder Mifflin" (no hyphen) as it is the proper "spelling" of the company name (see Talk page at Dunder Mifflin). Just leaving a note to say that I've gone through this page. :) Fieryrogue 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Notes section seems to be full of original research/irrelevant bits. For example, sometimes, like today for example, I do not feel like going to locations that are five minutes away. Lots42 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

About the 13 people getting fired, Todd Packer would count as he is still technically employed by dunder mifflin scranton. I believe he has his own desk. I don't want to be the one to change it cause I am not good at writing these things.
I think the Notes are good and interesting.  They should be sourced of course but not removed. I removed the trivia tag.GreekParadise (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how "interesting" you think the pieces of trivia are, WP:TRIVIA states how pieces of useless trivia should be handled quite clearly. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I read wp:trivia and it also says"This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations."  Look, this "complaint" about trivia has been up for almost 2 years, since 2007.  If you have a plan to fix it without deleting any content, go to it!  But I think the fact that neither you -- nor anyone else in 20 months -- has any idea how to incorporate the material in a "non-list" section strongly suggests that this is the exception to the rule.  I like the content, but like you and everyone else, have no idea how you put this interesting content in a non-list format.GreekParadise (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of it needs to be deleted.  It's simply unencyclopedic, and is more suited for the Dunderpedia. Some of it is factually verifiable, and that information can be put into the article, but the majority of it isn't suitable for article use.  Mastrchf (t/c) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea the "Dunderpedia" existed.  Please don't delete anything without at least citing an exact link to Dunderpedia where all this information can be found so that people who want it can find it. I'm a firm believer in every wikipedia article I edit that no verifiable, relevant, non-redundant, and interesting information should be deleted.  If you can't find a better way to present it, you can just leave it as notes.GreekParadise (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm really glad I don't edit frequently anymore, just for this reason. If I see fit to delete the useless trivia, I'll delete it.  If it serves no purpose in the article, whether as a plot point, a production point, or a reception point, I'll delete it.  Useless is useless, verifiable or not.  If you want the information in, you do the digging and find where it can be put.  It's not my job or anyone else's to save poorly presented and sometimes useless information for what could be.  I understand your point, but frankly, interesting isn't encyclopedic.  We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a repository of trivia.  I've had as much if not more experience with The Office articles than anyone else, and although seniority doesn't bring one a "deeper" understanding of the rules or the automatic victory in a discussion, it does bring me personally a knowledge of how Office articles are supposed to be.  Perhaps it's through the many GA, FL, and FT/GT discussions I've been through that have helped mold the format or some other reason, but it's a pretty good understanding that trivia isn't needed.  I apologize if I sound harsh (and in the same breath, please do not take this as me apologizing solely to be able to speak harshly, I simply hate coming across as a jerk or a bully), but we've had trivia debates a number of times, and every time the result has come up with "save what's needed and good, and trash the rest".  Mastrchf (t/c) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is your definition of "useless", "needed" and "good" is entirely the subjective opinion of Mastrichf91.  You give no reason to exclude other than you don't like it, even though it's admittedly interesting and verifiable.GreekParadise (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
These particular notes fall into the above categories:  "References to Real-Life Scranton"; "References to Other Office Shows"; "Pop Culture References"; "References to Cut Scenes"; "Commentary by Actors";  and "Goofs".  I think it's fine to have them as "Notes" but if you want to put them in six separate categories so as not to label them "triva", I'm OK with it. However, I always oppose deleting verifiable, relevant, interesting information merely because people disagree on the format in which to present it. There are many other "Notes" sections in many other episodes of the Office. And when a tag has been up for two years and no one has fixed it, I think it's a sign that the tag -- not the information tagged -- is useless because people appear to like the presentation as it is.  
But I guess the compromise solution is to leave the tag alone, leave the notes alone, and leave the article unimproved. I'm not saying you're a jerk or a bully.  I'm saying that the purpose of wikipedia is to combine people's collective wisdom and that verifiable relevant non-repetitive and interesting information should not be excluded merely because someone dislikes the format in which it is presented. Please feel free to change the format.  Please don't delete the appropriate material, even if you think it "useless" and "unneeded" and "not good"  (Useful for what? Needed for what?  Good for what?) If you don't delete the verified and relevant material, however, I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie.GreekParadise (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And in the same way, you give no reason to include the random notes aside from they're "interesting".  You say they're relevant, how?  You say they're verifiable, how?  I see 2 sources.  WP:TRIVIA clearly states "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined."  If I was still active and going to make this article a GA, I'd have no qualms with wiping through the article and removing all of the points of trivia.  Like I said, I'm not going to leave something poorly presented for "what could be".  If it's important, it'll find its way into the article, and if not, it won't.  Frankly, I'd pull a WP:ILIKEIT here, as that's what your argument amounts to.  As for this statement, "And when a tag has been up for two years and no one has fixed it, I think it's a sign that the tag -- not the information tagged -- is useless because people appear to like the presentation as it is.", I'll leave that up to if you really believe that.  I'd also ask you to look over at any of the featured articles of other TV show episodes, and you'll find that NONE have trivia sections.  So, don't tell me not to delete the information, especially if it isn't verified or relevant.   Mastrchf (t/c) 02:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing irrelevant, but let me know if you think you do.  Feel free to delete anything unverified. If you prefer to change "Trivia" to "Amusing Details" or to put it in any other section, that's OK with me too. I believe in making an article better, but clearly, you're not interested in improving the article. So I would ask that you please do not delete any verified, relevant information so that those who are interested in making this article better can do so. We're at an impasse because I don't believe relevant, verified material that is not presented in the best possible manner should be deleted, and you believe it should be deleted instead of repaired. So let's leave it alone and both go our own way.GreekParadise (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"I believe in making an article better, but clearly, you're not interested in improving the article." I lol'd. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Branch Closing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot: "soon spills the beans" that might be a bit too euphemism-y
Fixed
Plot: "they celebrate their success, unsure exactly how they accomplished it." -> "they celebrate their success, believing, erroneously, that they accomplished it."
Fixed
Production: "In her blog on MySpace" -> "On her MySpace blog"
Fixed
Reception: Is there any rating/share info, or is the numbers the only thing out there?
All I could find was that Daily Variety link (about the original broadcast ratings) and the OfficeTally link (about the 2007 rerun). I admit that I didn't dedicate hours to finding more, as these types of searches often end in fruitless wastes of time. :/ If I find anything, I'll be sure to add it in.
Reception: Add a cite after the "wonderfully bookended the conflicting emotions Michael inspires." line
Fixed
Reception: The TV Without Pity grade should be in parenthesis, I think
Fixed
That's all I could find. Good, solid article. Images and sources check out fine. On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! I have addressed all your concerns. Are you still planning on expanding the rest of the S2 articles? Ruby 2010/2013 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I'll pass. Yeah, I am, I've just taken a break to get all The X-Files articles done (we only have, like 14 left). I'll start up real soon. ;)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured :) No hurry of course, I know how important TXF is to you three! You guys really are doing a fantastic job. Ruby 2010/2013 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Branch Closing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329175151/http://www.tvguide.com:80/celebrity-blogs/Episode-7-Branch-19742.aspx to http://www.tvguide.com/celebrity-blogs/episode-7-branch-19742.aspx
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/the-office/branch-closing.php?page=8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)