Talk:Pointy-haired Boss

message: ===-Section title: Other fictional characters with some PHB traits===
*John Armstrong (The Armstrongs)
*Henry Blake (M*A*S*H)
* David Brent (The Office, BBC original)
*Julius C. Dithers (Blondie (comic strip))
*Jack Donaghy (30 Rock)
*Gordon Jump as Arthur 'Big Guy' Carlson (WKRP in Cincinnati)
*Bill Lumbergh (Office Space)
*Mr. Poe (A Series of Unfortunate Events)
*Alan Roy (Made in Canada)
* Michael Scott (The Office, NBC adaptation)
*Frank Waturi (Joe Versus the Volcano)
===-History of article and questionable removal===
After researching the history of this article and all relevant inclusions, the section approximately looked as above until it was removed on 2007-04-07 T06:01:58 by TKD for the reason "rm comparison list involving other unrelated characters; such analytical comparisons are original research unless sourced"  While we may understand his sentiments, I respectfully contend it was overly strict adherence to a guideline. I further believe this resulted in a seemingly snap decision which was out of sync with the nature of this and other useful articles.  In any case, such a section deletion should have gone through discussion and allowed other editors to weigh in.  
===-Proposed reinstatement===
For that matter, I propose reinstating it.  It was a long-running and helpful section in this article.  By the same token, I think the floor should stay open for a little discussion, first.   I personally do not believe the very minor "analytical comparisons" were over-reaching for the scope of wiki editors.  Additionally, any sources to support the list (in whole or in part) would be appreciated.
grubbmeister 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments, then sign with "~~~~".
* A few points here: No original research isn't merely a guideline; it's a policy. Part of it states that original research includes the introduction of "an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Giving a list of PHBs, without citing a source that calls them such, advances an unsupported argument/position. Character trait analysis and comparisons are not exactly incontrovertible material. The fact that another article does something isn't necessarily reason to follow suit in other articles. Indeed, in addition to the policy against original researrch, there is a guideline that exhorts editors to avoid trivia, which these lists of comparisons tend to bem, especially without reliable sources and eithout further context. As far as prcedure, this article wasn't very heavily edited, so I was being WP:BOLD and tried to improve it. It really wasn't a source of ongoing controversy at the time, and there's no reason to discuss every single edit to articles that don't otherwise receive a lot of attention from editors. — TKD::Talk 07:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indicate whether you support or oppose reinstating the section. Indicate *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with "~~~~".
Example:
*Support - the section was relevant and helpful grubbmeister 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to reinstate section:

message: For that matter, I propose reinstating it.  It was a long-running and helpful section in this article.  By the same token, I think the floor should stay open for a little discussion, first.   I personally do not believe the very minor "analytical comparisons" were over-reaching for the scope of wiki editors.  Additionally, any sources to support the list (in whole or in part) would be appreciated.
grubbmeister 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -Proposed reinstatement

message: :Add any additional comments, then sign with "~~~~".
* A few points here: No original research isn't merely a guideline; it's a policy. Part of it states that original research includes the introduction of "an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Giving a list of PHBs, without citing a source that calls them such, advances an unsupported argument/position. Character trait analysis and comparisons are not exactly incontrovertible material. The fact that another article does something isn't necessarily reason to follow suit in other articles. Indeed, in addition to the policy against original researrch, there is a guideline that exhorts editors to avoid trivia, which these lists of comparisons tend to bem, especially without reliable sources and eithout further context. As far as prcedure, this article wasn't very heavily edited, so I was being WP:BOLD and tried to improve it. It really wasn't a source of ongoing controversy at the time, and there's no reason to discuss every single edit to articles that don't otherwise receive a lot of attention from editors. — TKD::Talk 07:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -Discussion

message: :Indicate whether you support or oppose reinstating the section. Indicate *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with "~~~~".
Example:
*Support - the section was relevant and helpful grubbmeister 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -Voting

message: "In the Dilbert TV series, in which he was voiced by comedian Larry Miller, the character was notably smarter..."
:IMHO he is every bit as stupid in the TV series, if not more so. Lee M 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a big fan who owns the DVD boxsets, I agree that the TV version of PHB was as stupid as the cartoon strip version. Should be removed as it's incorrect. Notorious Biggles 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed claim

message: This page is a perfect example of why we shoudn't use lists: every other person that comes along feels the need to add to it.  Someone needs to reformat it (Read: delete half of it) into a coherent paragraph.the1physicist 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and Their Evils 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Goyston 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: At the time I found this, "Heck" redirected to "Hell". Since a few words down "Hell" already has it's own wikilink and a few words above "Phil" already has his own link I have changed the link portion to Heck(Dilbert) as the natural place if such an article is created. Jon 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Heck" link

message: I understand Wikipedia needs to use free images, but surely there's a picture we can use for this article. NoobixCube (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture?

message: After staring blankly at the "Related Acronyms" section for a bit, I realized was was bugging me about it.  It's about stuff that really isn't related to Dilbert at all, except in the "If you enjoy Dilbert, Amazon recommends the following: ________" sense.  It repeatedly used weasel words to build an after-the-fact connection when no real, verifiable connection ever existed.  It was entirely about another strip/cartoon/whatever, by another artist, with no connection with Scott Adams's work.  It was as if you put a whole section about Radiohead, and only Radiohead, in the Pink Floyd article.  Oh, and on top of all that, it was purely original research.  At first, I thought about rewriting it . . . but then, I realized I couldn't figure out any good reason for it being in the article at all.  As if we need help recognizing when one acronym is reminscent of another?  Or that we needed to be told the PHB is a "suit"?!?  Can anyone justify this section's reinstatement?  I think the article's much better without it.  --63.25.252.165 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the weaselly-named "Related Acronyms". 

message: The following images can be used in the article, showing the Pointy-Haired Boss's portrayal on Dilbert book covers:
:Here
:and Here
These images show relevance in the article. With the first one, management itself is portrayed as a bald person with pointy-hair, regardless of gender. And with the second one, the symbol of pointy-hair is referred to negatively as a pile of manure. (Hence the term "Don't Step In It," as well as the shovel.) I feel that these images should be shown in the article, and that someone should add Non-Free Use Rationales to them, permitting them to be used in this article. Please comment.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Covers 

message: actually last appeared Sunday 1st December, 1991.  How sad am I ;) Calum (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jowly boss 

message: There was a strip in the past year where he stated something that was actually a good idea in terms of business but was once again shot down by the pompous ass that Dilbert is - and this was all supposed to be funny because Dilbert is never wrong (even if he's an idiot in terms of business sometimes). 99.240.141.220 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not entirely incompetent 

message: due to the popularity of the comic strip, describing people as "pointy haired bosses" as a reference to the characteristics of the original is becoming more common.
am i right in thinking their should be a section on this?
Magicalbendini (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section on the description of people as "pointy haired bosses" 

message: Is he referred to as Pointy-haired Boss in the Dilbert world, or is that just what fans have decided to call him? the article doesn't say  74.108.54.119 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he called PHB in the strip?