# Talk:Dunder Mifflin Infinity

"In a scene that was added to the episode's repeat airing on NBC, Toby comes into work with a woman he says is his girlfriend and makes out with her right in front of the reception desk and Pam."  The girlfriend isn't mentioned in the article.

There really doesn't need to be more than 40 lines of "notes". Wikipedia is trying to eliminate "trivia" sections that doesn't mean rename it that means put it in the synopsis or dump it.  This is a half hour TV show people(1 hour for this episode) the page about it doesn't need to be more than 3 screens full. The brief page about this episode should easily fit into one page maybe a page and a half since it is a two parter.  It should be a review of the episode NOT telling people everything they missed if they haven't seen it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.117.88 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 

Michael is not initially dismayed. He is overjoyed at Ryan's return, spins it in his favor, as though Ryan, his protege, is still beneath him in the corporate ladder, though this is untrue. His joy turns to dismay only after Ryan assures him the new changes are not "business as usual". 209.213.218.7 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone make a better synopsis? Thanks in advance  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.202.215.80 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

I don't think that Wallace meant that Scranton had not lost any clients when he said "You didn't lose a single client in the merger." This seems to mean that the merger did not directly cause the loss of any clients. Scranton could still lose clients for other reasons.Captainbeah 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Or the losses could've been before the merger, or since The Job.  I deleted the note that said this episode's claims that they lost some clients contradicts The Job's claims that, at the time, they hadn't lost any clients since the merger. - Shaheenjim 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
These alternate explanations really don't make much sense.  The interview with Wallace suggested that Michael's track record of keeping clients while (inadvertantly) cutting staff was the primary reason he was being considered for a promotion.  He wouldn't give that indication if the merger had been immediately preceded by the loss of seven clients in quick succession.  Likewise, it doesn't make any sense to keep Michael around if, in the two months or so since "The Job," he's managed to completely trash his record while continuing to be a legal liability for the company.  I'm not going to bother putting that note back in because I have no way of firmly disproving your theories, but I must make the point that they are pretty implausible.  It seems clear to me that the writers decided to fudge on this, and the discrepancy could be confusing to people who are comparing this synopsis to the one for "The Job."  --68.155.166.198 01:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If the losses were before the merger, they weren't necessarily "immediately" before the merger.  They could've been slow losses over the course of a year.  Also, you seem to be under the impression that 7 clients is a large percentage of their business, and that the record of the entire branch could be trashed with the loss of just 7 clients.  I submit that 7 clients is actually pretty insignificant. - Shaheenjim 08:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor a dead issue, but that still doesn't make much sense.  If you go on the assumption that the events of the series take place sequentially and somewhat chronologically, then the merger happened approximately one year before "The Job."  So any presumed pre-merger job losses that happened "in the past year" would have been shortly before the merger.  I don't know whether seven clients would be considered a lot or not, but such losses are obviously worrying the company enough to give Ryan the go-ahead for his overhaul.  Furthermore, any pattern of recent losses logically would be enough to worry corporate about Michael's abilities since they already know him to be incompetent in every other area of management. --72.152.77.72 14:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Before the merger OR after The Job.  Maybe it was the latter.  It's been a few months since then.  Maybe it was some of each.  In any case, the point remains that 7 clients could be insignificant.  It didn't say that Ryan's overhaul was related to the 7 clients, did it?  And if 7 clients is an insignificant amount, then losing them wouldn't worry corporate. - Shaheenjim 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The current synopsis indicates that Dunder Mifflin's former clients will not return "unless the company improves its technology".  Although there is a reference to the convenience of a competitor's website, it would be more appropriate to say that the primary concern is not with Dunder Mifflin's technology (or lack thereof), but rather with its prices - a concern mentioned in both this and previous episodes. Elcobbola 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed we still don't have a picture for this one yet. I acknowledge the choosing of the appropiate picture requires a consensus and just wanted to recommend a shot of Ryan when he's explaining DMI in the conference room. 
Cheers Navex 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a picture of Pam.  On this article, and on all articles.  The main article for The Office, the articles on individual episodes, Wikipedia's article on World War 2, whatever.  But some people might say I'm biased. - Shaheenjim 07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version makes a comment that when Michael drives into Lake Scranton, he "should have seen it coming." This seems very be an obvious case of POV. I could make an argument that Michael drove in on purpose, merely to prove that the "machine" was wrong (even though all he had to do was listen to Dwight). I think if we put in a comment that Michael didn't know it was coming, we should at least offer another side to it. Or just take out the comment on what Michael was thinking all together. - Dolfan1349

Even if he did see it coming, that doesn't contradict the fact that he should have seen it coming.  If anything, it reinforces it. - Shaheenjim 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think something like "despite Dwight's warnings" might be more appropriate.  The current wording seems to be judgmental and a personal opinion inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Elcobbola 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this yet until there's some discussion on it, but I would very much like to know where the poster was coming from who says the idea that Toby was trying to shame Jim and Pam by exposing their relationship was "unjustified, incorrect, and unnecessary."
It's quite clear from Toby's body language that he has ulterior motives in releasing that information, particularly given the private way Toby normally prefers to handle things.  Add to that the awkward response he gives to the idea that he was trying to surreptitiously congratulate them, and it becomes even more clear.  Add to that his bullheaded insistence later on that the relationship is not "serious," and it is crystal clear.
It seems to me that an appreciation of why Toby would do response with such a memo is important for someone reading the synopsis who has not seen the episode.  If his motive was not to shame or embarass them, what else could it possibly be?  If you think this is an "unnecessary" inclusion, that's certainly worth discussion.  But unjustified or incorrect, it is not. --207.230.144.240 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Toby didn't initially intend to tell people that the memo was about Pam and Jim.  He only did it because Michael assumed it was about him and threw a fit about it.  Second, the reason Toby sent the memo in the first place wasn't to shame anyone.  It's because he also has a crush on Pam, and he's jealous, and he doesn't want to have to watch Jim's and Pam's PDsA. - Shaheenjim 23:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunder-Mifflin Infinity → Dunder Mifflin Infinity — Previous discussions, including those referencing NBC's website, have shown that Dunder Mifflin should be spelled without the hyphen. NBC's website lists the episode title, as well as all current references to the name of the company with no hyphen. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the following entry:

This is the second episode in a row in which Creed lies about his age.  In "Fun Run," he claims to be nearing his 82nd birthday.  In this episode, he claims to be nearing his 30th.

There is no documentation to support the idea that Creed was lying about being 82. That would appear to be the joke, that he is a lot older than people assume because they know so little about him. At any rate, there is no source for this assertion so I moved it here until there is.  SteveCoppock (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the following entry:

When the guys are sitting around the office and Jim has the the idea of sending out a "Cash Basket", Andy says to Jim "Nice work John", ("John" refers to the actor that plays Jim: John Krasinski)

Here, Andy's line is misheard.  As shown in the subtitles, Andy says "Nice work, Tuna."  Thus, this part of the dialog is not notable because this is just the nickname Andy has always used for Jim.
--Java410 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunder Mifflin Infinity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I have gone off and passed the article to GA, as I did not find anything troubling while reading the article. As a fan of the show, everyone who contributed to the article did a fine job with describing the episode. Congratulations on everyone for their hard effort.
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dunder Mifflin Infinity. 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/20080710034227/http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/episodes/season4/4004/ to http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/episodes/season4/4004/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113212608/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/dunder-mifflin-infinity/episode-403/59525/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/dunder-mifflin-infinity/episode-403/59525/
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) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)