# Talk:Money (The Office)

There really doesn't need to be so many "notes" and "references to other episodes". 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) 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 

When Jim and Pam are reading their review of the Shrute Farm, during the part "you will never want to leave your room" you can see their beds have been pushed together. Where does/can this go?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.194.253 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 

I’m not sure that is worth mentioning.  Just about any couple would push the beds together in that situation, so it seems to be more of a detail than a plot point.  It should only really need to be mentioned if it becomes pertinent to a future plot.  If you do insist on adding that reference, perhaps the “relations” section on the Pam page would be the best place in which to do so. Elcobbola 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Cute details aren't encyclopedic. Those sorts of observations are more suitable for a fan site. Wikipedia is not a fan site. -- Raymondc0 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, the difference between Wikipedia's articles on a TV show and a fan site of that TV show is that a fan site would have opinions about it and discussion of it.  Those things aren't appropriate for Wikipedia.  But I think cute details from the show are.  They're not the sort of thing you'd find in most encyclopedias.  But most encyclopedias don't have articles about TV shows.  Clearly Wikipedia has some things that wouldn't normally be considered encyclopedic, and there's nothing wrong with that.  In fact, it's a good thing. - Shaheenjim 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia contains articles not typically found in encyclopedias, those “atypical” articles are still subject to the same content expectations as “typical” articles. Good episode pages contain the following: 1) brief plot summary, 2) critical reception, 3) production and casting information and 4) real-world factors (see WP:EPISODE).  The bed types and their position relative to one another do not satisfy any of these guidelines.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Elcobbola 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Typical encyclopedia articles do not include plot summaries.  If we required everything in an article on a TV show to be encyclopedic, then we'd have to eliminate every single line.
It's true that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as an indiscriminate collection of information.  But the bed positions is not indiscriminate. - Shaheenjim 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You stray from the issue at hand; whether or not episode articles are encyclopedic is not what’s being discussed.  “Bed positions” are merely a “cute detail” and are not substantive to the plot or other aspect of the episode.  You fail to assert relevance and the detail’s inclusion, therefore, is indeed indiscriminate information. Elcobbola 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not we should allow things that are not encyclopedic.  If the whole article isn't encyclopedic, but we allow it anyway, then that establishes a precedent of allowing things that are not encyclopedic.
It's true that the bed positions are not significant part of the episode, but they are an interesting part of it.  And that's enough to warrant inclusion.  It's not indiscriminate to add information to an article if the information is about the subject of the article. - Shaheenjim 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Angela say "no vegetables" or "no shellfish"?  The closed caption stated "no vegetables", but that seemed odd.  Did anyone else hear "no shellfish" like one of the other editors? Alanraywiki 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely heard "no vegetables".  I don't know if it was a goof or not; I just thought it was strange, you know, because Angela is strange.  Saucemaster 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing fancy or foreign, no bars, no patios, no vegetables and no seafood"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.194.253 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 

The article says, "It turns out Michael isn't really responsible for the debt; it's Jan that [sic] keeps buying the non-essential items for their household".  I got the impression, however, that Michael was the one purchasing the non-essential items (e.g. two magic sets, "core strengthening" machine, etc).  The Porsche aside, isn’t Michael actually the one purchasing the non-essential items? Elcobbola 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Porsche aside?  The Porsche aside?  Porsches are not aside.  Plus, at the start of the episode they were arguing because Jan wanted to spend a lot of money to refurnish the condo.  Anyway, my conclusion was that they were both spending a lot on non-essential items, but that if Michael wasn't spending money on Jan, he would be able to afford the non-essential items that he was buying for himself. - Shaheenjim 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the reason therefor (Jan), Michael was the one doing the actual spending.  That they are both needlessly expending funds, however, certainly seems to be the appropriate conclusion.  The concern was that the synopsis, in its previous state, attributed the spending solely to Jan, when she was likely the lesser of two evils.  Porsche Boxters are always an aside.  911s, on the other hand... Elcobbola 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis for this article is excessively long.  There is no need to retell every insignificant joke.  In fact, it's inappropriate to do so, since it might be copyright infringement.  A couple hours ago I shortened the plot synopsis, but someone reverted my edit.  I propose it be reshortened.  Comments? - Shaheenjim 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "television episode" guidelines specify that the summary should not exceed ten words per minute of screen time. A one-hour episode has 40 minutes of screen time, so the cap is 400 words. I've been going through and cleaning up all the episode synopses (and enforcing the cap when people go back and break it); haven't gotten to this one yet. I'll get to it in the next few days. -- Raymondc0 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The 400 word cap is reasonable, and I'm all for shortening as long as the resultant synopsis makes sense and raises all points that are necessary to understanding the plot or could be significant in the ongoing storyline.  The Million Dollar Baby bit was a throwaway gag, for example, and I'm glad it's been removed.  However, it's an exaggeration to suggest that "every insignificant joke" was in previous versions.  For example, at no time did anyone include the attempts of Phyllis to use pop psychology on Angela, even though that was very funny and took up a significant amount of screen time.  And in any case, it's certainly not copyright infringement... that's really exaggerated. --74.184.151.205 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I might have been exaggerating.  But I was still right.  The current synopsis is excessive.  Even if it's under a 400 word cap, it's still excessive.  There is no need to retell any insignificant jokes. - Shaheenjim 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In this episode Andy said, "I come from a line of WASPs so long it leads back to Moses."  Which is strange, since Moses wasn't a WASP.  It has been suggested that Andy was speaking metaphorically, but I see no evidence for that suggestion.  Andy is regularly depicted as someone who is stupid enough to think that Moses really was a WASP.  Comments? - Shaheenjim 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seemed clear to me that Andy was exaggerating. He's done it before, e.g. "I'm going to kill you for real". -- Raymondc0 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to have exaggerated in the past, but still not know that Moses was not a WASP.  Also, the reason that we should explain in detail that Moses was not a WASP is that some people don't realize that he wasn't a WASP.  Like Andy.  That's what makes the joke funny. - Shaheenjim 02:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to note that "this denomination did not exist then."  Duh.  Hence the humor.  Let's keep the "notes" relevant.

The point is that if Protestant Christianity had existed in Moses's time, maybe Moses would have been a Protestant Christian.  Since he didn't have the option, we shouldn't imply that he consciously rejected it, and the note keeps us from making that unfounded implication. - Shaheenjim 03:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the entire note is unnecessary. It's just stating the obvious. -- Raymondc0 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I bet there are plenty of people who wouldn't find it obvious, and wouldn't have gotten the joke if it wasn't explained it them.  Have you ever seen Jay Walking on the Tonight Show? - Shaheenjim 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize Wikipedia had to explain things for people as stupid as those shown on Jay Walking. -- Raymondc0 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it should.  Jay Walking is actually a pretty accurate representation of the public.  All historical references should be explained. - Shaheenjim 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll let you explain all the Ben Franklin jokes in "Ben Franklin". -- Raymondc0 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember any.  I might need someone else to explain them to me.  But it doesn't matter.  My point is:  if someone else adds explanations of them, I won't delete them. - Shaheenjim 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Money (The Office)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead
I think the lead needs a bit of a re-write. The first four sentences are all very short, and the last three all start "It ..." with it referring to the first words of the first sentence. At the moment it's a very dry opening. It needs livening up. I'd also suggest removing the brackets - if it's important enough to mention, particularly in the lead, it's important enough to mention without brackets.
"condominium" Either this needs wikilinking or explaining - I'm not sure it's a very common term.
"In the episode, Jan, now living with Michael in his condominium, forces costly changes in Michael's life, he worries about his financial situation." This sentence doesn't make sense - it has two main verbs without any conjunction.
"Bed and Breakfast" I think this should be lower case letters
Plot
Are there wikilinks for "beet" and "wine-making"?
"Jim is quietly pleased when Dwight returns to his desk, his annoying and overbearing personality having returned." I think the second phrase needs a qualifying word to introduce it. At the moment it's two sentences which don't have an obvious link. It might be a simple "because ..." but I'm not sure at the moment.
"Jan speeds to the office and Oscar tells her which direction Michael ran in, she runs to the train yard." Another sentence with two main verbs but no conjunction. Possibly change "and Oscar" to "and, after Oscar ..., she runs ..."
Reception
"The show recieved some good reviews from critics." The word some makes this sentence very vague, it could suggest it got a lot of bad reviews, or on the whole good reviews. I think it's needs further clarification or rewording.
There's quite a bit to work on, but apart from the start of the lead, it's quite good, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated points
The start to the lead is still very dry and contains the brackets. I'd try amalgamate it into two sentences, and please drop the brackets.
*The reception still says "some". It looks very vague. Peanut4 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking out my own comment. The reception section on second thoughts looks okay. Just tidy up the lead, and we should be there. Peanut4 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Final review
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I've made some minor changes to the lead. Remember the lead is the article's shop window, and should sum up the article and act as a catch to potential readers. I'll pass the entry, but if you have any more questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times article covering the episode's impact on TripAdvisor if someone wants to incorporate it into the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Money (The Office). 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/20121113212551/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/money/episode-407/59585/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/money/episode-407/59585/
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) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It says it's 7th and 8th, but my sources (Netflix..) says it's S4E04. Cornelius (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The episode numbers shown here are NBC's, the original broadcaster. Hour-long episodes are considered two episodes, in this case 7 and 8. See also tv.com. —Bruce1eetalk 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The excerpt read by Dwight is from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, not from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. 2601:482:8001:F520:1C93:405F:2ED3:C2B (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)