Talk:The Office (American TV series)/Archive 3

message: He is realy more like a sub character and should be moved to section of sales--SoldierOfColbert 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan Howard status as a Main Character 

message: So, should I add this in? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 02:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmy=Yes 

message: Both Northern Attack and OfficeTally are extremely active fansites that update regularly. They're both notable enough to have been mentioned on the Season 2 DVD commentary and as far as I can tell, they're both very reliable. Apparently, when these links do get added, they are constantly getting deleted, so I think we should at least try and come to a difinitive answer on the matter.
So, should there be a "Selected fansites" section with these two websites? Pele Merengue 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (laconic, I know). --Liberlogos 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Arrested Development has a subsection in its external links section titled simply "Fan Sites". You're right about Northern Attack, at least, it's a very active, notable fan site for this show. I'm not familiar with the other (though I'm not disagreeing with including it, either). · j e r s y k o talk · 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. I think there are cases in which fan sites are informative and frequently updated. --Jeremy Butler 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. I tried to get OfficeTally added a few months ago. I brought it up on this Talk page and no one had an issue (or even bothered to reply), but within a few days of finally adding it, it was removed. If we put it under Selected Fansites and limit it to those two (and maybe Give Me My Remote) which offer exclusive content and are promoted by the cast and crew of the show, I definitely agree.Williamnilly 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is an unaffiliated fansite, it is likely that hosting entire transcripts of Office episodes is a copyright violation.  I'm removing the link.  Additionally, I don't think the site meets the standard at WP:EL. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think 'The Office Wiki is worthy since it collects "The Office" information that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. -- Raymondc0 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Selected Fansites" section in External Links: Yes or no? 

message: I think :Image:TheOffice.jpg should go back to the infobox instead of :Image:Office us cast.jpg that replaced it. The first has a beautiful picture composition with diagonal lines and differences of distance from the lens for the subjects. It shows the main characters, which is more than enough (having all characters in the infobox picture is far from a requirement: often the picture is the logo of the show, which I believe is the best choice when available). The second picture loses the group in the middle with too much space between them and the border, and the background is unpleasant. The angle and positioning of the subjects is rather unimaginative and dull. That picture can be used below and/or on the character page. I suggest that either we put back the other picture or we get the logo there. --Liberlogos 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both instances (either bring back the original picture or just use a logo). It's nice to have an updated Season 3 cast photo, but I don't like that it's so obviously a promotional photograph (with people sitting on stacks of paper and whatnot). When it comes down to using the original picture or the logo, though, the logo would be best. Can anyone get a screenshot of it? Pele Merengue 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that between logos, one from official promotional publicity is probably better than a screenshot. The logo that seems to be the main official seeme to be the one if the typewriter-like font. Which brings me to another question: does anyone know what font this is? It resembles Courier and Prestige Elite, but not quite. A nice version is on the Season 2 DVD but "Season 2" is next to it.  The NBC forum has a clean one but it is a bit plain.  Anyone has a nice looking Office official logo? --Liberlogos 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I realize now I was thinking more of the title card from the opening credits than the logo. But the logo from the NBC forum looks nice, too. Pele Merengue 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the current one, as it shows the whole cast as opposed to just the main five. --DrBat 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture change 

message: I think the first episode should have its own paragraph. Then make one paragraph for what happens with Jim at Stamdford, then another one with what happens in Scranton.
:The first episode having its own paragraph is a bit much, as the main plot revelations, as you can see, can be explained fairly briefly. And it's unlikely Stamford will last long (you don't have to look hard, but there are some credible sites where there are more than obvious clues about what's coming up). In any case, I can't see Stamford having plots that need a paragraph of description. -- Viewdrix 17:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A paragraph for one episode in a season of 22 is going a bit overboard. This article is getting big enough as it is. Pele Merengue 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the case were that she or someone else high in the company received the e-mail, and she only pursued him because Michael was to be fired, Michael be fired by now. -- Viewdrix 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 3 Synopses

message: I believe User:Abu badali is currently trying to remove all of the office images. So far, he's labelled almost all of the cast photos as copyvios, and I believe he may go after the others as well. --DrBat 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not doing it to be vicious. He's got a point. What is the original source of these images? Fansites are not the original photo. Although all of the images are © NBC Universal, Inc., they need to be retrieved from a source, too. Where did these fansites get these photos? Williamnilly 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://nbcumv.com/ --DrBat 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  user trying to get all the images deleted 

message: I think on the episode list, Season 3 should be before the webisodes, even though in time the webisodes were before the Season 3 episodes, they really were not part of the series. If anyone objects to me changing this, please do, if not I plan on changing it in the near future. Thanks!
:I agree with you, but this topic is already being discussed in Talk:List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. Don't forget to sign your posts too! Thanks! Williamnilly 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 before the Webisodes 

message: In the characters section, the following sentence exists:  "[Jim] has a crush on close office friend and pretty receptionist Pam Beesly, who has broken off her three-year engagement to Roy Anderson."  In my opnion, the second half of that sentence (about her breaking off the engagement) could be construed as a spoiler, as I haven't seen all of thr 2nd season yet and I assume that this only happens in one of the last episodes of the season.  Would we want to either consider rephrasing this sentence to get rid of the spoiler, or perhaps add the spoiler tag to thid section?  Thanks, Rahzel 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And don't add in Roy's downward spiral or his DUI arrest, Pam's wedding reception lunch food for the next five months, Oscar's homosexuality, Angela's homophobia, Jim's move to Stamford or "Big Tuna" nickname. BabuBhatt 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God, we're going to need spoiler tags on the talk page soon ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, or someone paranoid abot seeing spoilers could not read the page until they're caught up on the series ... Who am I kidding, it's a ridiculous suggestion. BabuBhatt 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Through your sarcasm, you actually bring up a good point about the philosophy of spoilers in general: At what point in a TV series does material presented in the show stop becoming a "spoiler" and start becoming common knowledge?  For example, most would consider it common knowledge at this point that Jan and Michael slept together, since it occured way back in the middle of season 2, but I doubt that whatever happened in 3.03-3.04 would be anything but spoilers at this point.  So, I think that this article should consider where to draw the line, in terms of what we consider spoilers.  I'm not suggesting that material from 3.01 is or isn't a spoiler, I'm just putting this thought out there.  Perhaps material from the most recent 2 or 3 episodes could only be added to the article at first in the spoilers section, and then rotated into the article after a few weeks?  Thanks, Rahzel 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and BabuBhatt, I did stop reading the page once I realized that whoever wrote this page may have put spoilers in sections that weren't denoted as spoiler sections.  I've only come back to this page because I got a chance to see 3.01.  Rahzel 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny in context (to me anyway): "most would consider it common knowledge ... that Jan and Michael slept together" - well, no, they didn't, technically, but Michael has continued to brag about and puff up what did happen. But more to the point: We're all going to have to learn to write like TV marketing writers here, implying but not stating outcomes of all these plotlines!  Rousse 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler in Characters Section? 

message: I added a link to TVRage.com's page for The Office.  The guide for the show is more in-depth at TVRage than the guide at Tv.com, which we have a link for.  But don't take my word for it, go look at both guides and compare.  I think you'll find that TV.com is nothing more than stolen material from TVRage and QuotesFromTheOffice.com.  This isn't just some tactic to give a site promotion, this site does in fact have valuable info.  And if you take down TVRage, then TV.com needs to come down as well.  I don't care how high on the foodchain of traffic hits they are, their guide is not constructed well and often has info C&P'd from other websites.  If you're going to allow their bad work on here, then TVRage deserves a place.  JohnQ.Public  20:32, 14 October 2006
No wonder this site is on the Meta: Spam Blacklist as yet another attempt to promote it's site by spreading lies. If you do an internet search for "The Office", whether it is on Yahoo, Google, whatever, TV.com will always be one of the sites shown on the results page. The same can't be said for TVrage.com as they rarely if ever show up on the results page for any show. TVRage needs a lot of improvement from overall look/content and staff to even begin competing against a far more developed and complete product in TV.com. Makowsky 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems from his User Talk page that he's a staff member at TVRage.com, too, and attempted to make an article for the website, violating Promotion rules. -- Viewdrix 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TVRage.com Link 

message: Here is an article about the actual city of Scranton's feelings about "The Office". You can look through and see if there is anything worth mentioning in the article. Nehrams2020 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scranton link

message: Why is my blurb about Dwight telling Kelly "Only Angela is allowed to do that" getting deleted? I appreciate those who made revisions to the sentence so it reads better, but I think the info belongs in the section about their relationship  because, at the time of the episode, Pam and Kelly would be the only two people that could know about Dwight and Angela's relationship. I added the sentence back. --Undertow87 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what episode did Dwight say that line?  I'm not sure I remember Dwight saying that, though I am by no means an expert on that show.  Thanks, Rahzel 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Rahzel here.  When did he say that?  (I"m not doubting you, I just don't remember it at all) · j e r s y k o talk · 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's during the Christmas party episode, after Kelly kisses Dwight in the cafeteria. Right after that, Dwight says, "What are you doing? Only Angela is allowed to do that!" He says it pretty quick and kinda low; I barely caught it the second time I watched the episode and rewinded it to make sure I heard it right. --Undertow87 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the Christmas party episode this morning, and unfortunately I didn't hear the line in question (regarding Angela).  I heard the line "The man is supposed to do that!" but nothing regarding Angela.  Perhaps you could tell me where, in reference to the line "the man is supposed to do that," the line about Angela is?  Thanks, Rahzel 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Rahzel's right, I just watched it too.  An obviously inebriated Kelly kisses Dwight, who says in response, "what are you doing!?  The man is supposed to do that!"  Dwight obviously believes that women are not supposed to make the first move.  Anyway, I could understand why you would think he said "Angela" instead of "the man", as he is speaking somewhat frantically, but he definitely says "the man". · j e r s y k o talk · 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, I don't think he would utter such a thing, in light of the great pains he takes to hide the relationship - ("Yes ... totally single" from Diwali). BabuBhatt 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. Thanks! --Undertow87 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dwight/Angela relationship info in Season 2 section

message: I removed this from the product placement section:
"Both Rainn Wilson and John Krasinski have appeared in episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. "
Did they appear in character or as themselves?  If they were just acting in different roles in CSI, it's not really product placement.  Also, which episode was it? Tazzy531 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Placement - CSI? 

message: I'm not sure whether to edit this page or not, because I have a feeling "The Office: An American Workplace" is it's official title in the UK. However, it is never referred to as such, thus the phrase "known in Britain" does not apply. At least, I have never heard it referred to like that, and I am a massive Office (UK) fan, and regularly discuss comedy and all simlar things with many others who are also comedy geeks, and no one knows more than geeks. Anyway it is always referred to as "The American Office" over here. Discuss?
:From my experience with British relatives and a recent visit, it's officially called "The Office: An American Workplace" in the UK. The subtitle also shows up on UK airings. -- Viewdrix 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also, if you look at the BBC America site, its called "The Office: An American Workplace" (Jerciuss 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known in Britain 

message: I think if you search for the office the US  version should be the first to come up, not the UK.
:I think you'll find "The Office" leads to a page discussing all the versions in the world, not from any specific country. The British version is at The Office (UK TV series). BabuBhatt 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Office disambiguation

message: I added a comment in the Miscellanea section about the fact that the sound of a ringing telephone is heard at the start of most episodes.Spec ops commando 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of Episode- Phone Ringing. 

message: It is way too long when compared to the second season's synopsis.  Could someone shorten it?  --thedemonhog 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, I find, is typical of season synopses on Wikipedia when we're halfway through a season. Once the plot develops, it's easier to know what's important enough to be included, what plot points can be lumped together to condense it all, etc. As long as it doesn't get longer than necessary (or season 2's synopsis as a rule of thumb), or overly trivial even without the ability to use hindsight, it'll be fine. -- Viewdrix 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third season synopsis 

message: Who put that Michael invited Pam's mom to Jamaica in the Season Three summary? I've replaced it with Jan as that is what seems evident from the promos for the next episode. I also reordered the paragraphs, as they did not reflect the proper order of events from the episodes. 24.245.35.148 06:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pam's Mom?! 

message: How important is this section to an understanding of the subject? It's mostly minutiae; the information about restaurants that are featured not actually being in the Scranton area should be moved to the product placement section. Otherwise, it should just be noted that the show makes a number of references to Scranton. Any individual mentions, such as a real restaurant, should be mentioned in the article for that episode. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  geography section 

message: Why was the mention on Las Vegas removed from the trivia section? Is it untrue? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas 

message: did anyone else catch that Wikipedia mention on last night's (02/01/07) episode?  It came from Jim...regarding Michael's understanding (or MISunderstanding) of the term, "Prima Nocta."
--HatchetFaceBuick 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have been added to the article on Wikipedia references in popular culture, but I saw dat too! And rushed immediately to my computer to see! 66.51.146.139 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikepedia mentions 

message: The major characters are profiled once on this page, again on Characters from The Office, and a third time on the individual pages (e.g. Michael Scott (The Office)). This seems excessive. Other popular shows like Lost (TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) do not repeat character profiles in this manner.
I propose following the lead of those other shows and moving the list of characters off the main page and also removing the mini-profiles from Characters from The Office and linking to the character's pages. That way, people don't have to update three places. -- Raymondc0 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, as per Lost, it would be a good idea. Also, why aren't Karen/Andy in the characters listing. For a featured article this is page is far from perfect. Tphi 12:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We also have to add to the Corporate characters in, as the only person in there right now is Jan. The CFO (forgot his name) and Josh, at the minimum, should be in there. (Jerciuss 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've started consolidating the profiles. I did the five leads last weekend, will plow through the others over time. — Raymondc0 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversion complete. -- Raymondc0 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are characters profiled three times? 

message: I'm not sure how to add the reference in for the ACE award the office won. The site for it is http://www.ace-filmeditors.org/newace/eddieNominees.html (Jerciuss 19:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACE Awards 

message: I made some fairly large changes and additions to the character section before I gave my support for the main page featured article request of this page. I wanted some feedback, but my main thoughts at the time were that much of the information provided recapped character specific plot lines already in the Season synopsis section, and less their actual personality and tendencies. I tried to shift focus from the actual story that any character undergoes, to their motives and reactions to said events. I also added information for Roy beyond what was already in Pam's section. I might have been wrong to mess with the section so much, though. Any thoughts? -- Viewdrix 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character sections. 

message: add the wiki. the office wiki aka dunderpedia.--Needsbills 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki 

message: I had a thought, I don't know if it should be mentioned in the article or not:
It's quite clear that the characters acknowledge the fact they're being filmed for a documentary series (IE: they talk to the cameras and so on), but... to the best of my recollection they never actually acknowledge the series itself. What I mean is, none of the characters ever mention watching themselves on the show, being recognised in public from the show, etc. By contrast they did this on the UK Office christmas special - David Brent talked about how his life had changed since the documentary was aired.
I can think of one explanation for why the US characters never acknowledge their own stardom: all three seasons were filmed before the first season ever went to air - fictionally speaking of course.
I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this, and whether it's notable enough for the article (I wouldn't know how to put it in any more encyclopedic terms than I have above, anyhow).
Tredanse 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article about this that emerged over the summer, I believe one of the ones being used as a source about the British cast and how they were going to be used, and then had to cancel. But it also doesn't make total sense that the series was entirely filmed before season 1 began airing: in "Boys and Girls", for instance, Dwight references a specific Lost episode where the main characters meet "The Others", and that aired in late 2005/early 2006. -- Viewdrix 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters don't acknowledge their stardom 

message: Recently people have been updating areas not in the spoiler "areas" and then their constrictive edits are reverted. By having outdated information on our page, we create an incorrect page. We should move the spoiler markers so that we can have all information up to date. The average wikipedia reader, (which is not an editor that is intimate with all the policies of wikipedia), will not say to him self, "Hey, since this sections is not covered by a spoiler warning, it may be out of date and incorrect." We must keep wikipedia up to date. YaanchSpeak! 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling us where that spoiler marker belongs would be a great help. I added it the only place I could reasonably think was necessary, surrounding the details of Andy going to anger management in the Deleted scenes section. I considered placing spoiler markings around where it notes the new season 3 cast members, but no plot is given involving them, so I decided against it. -- Viewdrix 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that we move the spolier warning up so it includes the character's section. That way that section can have correct and updated information. Thoughts? YaanchSpeak! 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a viewer of the show and a Wikipedia user, I think the spoilers should before characters, and thus keep the characters section updated. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The section isn't out of date, it purposely states the positions of the characters when they're first introduced, as it says at the beginning of the section. This is because when characters are promoted, it is original research to update their job title unless it is specifically mentioned on the show, such as Jim's case, and because it makes sense going into the plot summary. If I was told Jim was second in command before I read the summary, I would be confused when I read he was promoted in the season 3 summary. The format now is much easier: we state what positions the characters were (another example: Ryan the temp), and then in the summary state their promotions if important (which is key. Ryan's promotion was plot important. Dwight's was not). -- Viewdrix 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you create a vertical spoiler boundary? We'd need one to separate the non-spoiler columns from the spoiler column. -- Raymondc0 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry to reply to myself.) Alternatively, we could just give up and put a spoiler marker at the top of the article. Anybody coming to learn about this show they just discovered will just have to suck it up. -- Raymondc0 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i like your idea. We can spoiler marker everything after creation and casting. If someone wants to learn about the show they are probably going to have to read something about the show. YaanchSpeak! 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler marking just about everything does not make a good Featured Article. If we want to keep this article at that class, I would highly discourage changing the spoilers markings from where they are now. -- Viewdrix 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how can we write the characters current occupations? Its a pretty important subject. YaanchSpeak! 14:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The same way we we're doing it now. There's a quick summary of major changes after the spoiler marker, and you can click through to the biography page for more details. -- Raymondc0 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isnt a quick summary after the spolier markers. Unless you are saying that the 1,500 word season show synopsis is a quick summary of major changes. YaanchSpeak! 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quick summary of changes to character occupations is in a small table directly after the spoiler marker on the Characters page. We don't need to repeat every piece of information in three places. -- Raymondc0 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have that table here too? To me, it seems that not having an organized area showing the characters current positions on the show is a bad idea. And about having the same information three times, the information i am petitioning to add is basic information. YaanchSpeak! 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would prefer just to remove the character list from the main page entirely, leaving simply a link to the Characters page. The main page is too big as it is; we shouldn't be making it bigger. -- Raymondc0 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we have a wikipedia page about a TV show without any of the characters? Its a fundamental piece of the show. YaanchSpeak! 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you wanted to shorten it you chould consider something less important and unreferenced, like the whole product placement section! YaanchSpeak! 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply put, we need some sort of character list on this page because most of the article is hard to make sense of without the knowledge of, say, Michael being the boss, etc., and it's not a good idea to expect someone to leave the main page, go to the Characters page, and come back in order to have them understand the rest of the article. However, we shouldn't list their most recent positions because it's simply unnecessary. It's already found in the plot sections and on the characters page, and repeating the information more than that would be extraneous, especially if we just copied and pasted the exact same table from the Characters page here. Plus, there should be an option for people who want to learn who the characters are in general but don't want plot points like promotions ruined for them. Besides, in the case that a new viewer who wants to start watching the show wanted to know the character's current positions, they'd read the plot summaries anyway to catch up and understand the episodes they've missed. The current set-up serves that: character list of old positions without spoiler warning, plot summaries with spoiler warning, table with spoiler warning on a different page for more analysis. -- Viewdrix 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how about at the top of the characters section we put a link saying: You can find the characters current positions at Characters from the Office. YaanchSpeak! 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what it was like when you started this discussion; I ended up removing it because of the policy to avoid referencing the page or Wikipedia itself. -- Viewdrix 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean guideline, rather then policy. My problem on this page is that i want the reader to be able to easily access the current positions of characters in an organized manner. Its a fundamental concept, the current positions of the characters. And before, it is not referencing, its saying that you can find more information on this topic in another place. YaanchSpeak! 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under a list of policies, so I wasn't incorrect in saying policy. Saying in prose to "go here for this specific information" or "see farther down this page" is self-reference, because it acknowledges that you're on Wikipedia. What isn't breaking the policy of self-reference is the "Main article: Characters in The Office" template. We already have that, so I see no need for change. -- Viewdrix 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The List of Policies does not include self referencing and the page for self referencing states clearly that it is a guideline not a policy so i do believe that you were incorrect in saying that it is a policy. Back to the topic at hand, I feel that a link to Characters from The Office is not a sufficient way of informing people of the current position of the characters. If someone visited this page wanting to find out the most up to date information on the characters they will not find it in the characters section where it would be most easily found. Having their current positions buried in the long plot synopsis is not an acceptable way of showing the current positions. Adding the chart of the character's current positions under the spoiler warning would fix this fundamental problem. YaanchSpeak! 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was under a list of policies somewhere, and in any case, it states that "this policy is about such and such" in the introduction paragraph. In any case, if someone visited and wanted to find up to date information about the characters, one would think they'd have the sense to read "Main article: Characters from The Office" (meaning "hey, there's far more information here"), followed by "this is the character's position when he/she was introduced" (meaning "hey, not all information is here") and put 2 and 2 together. It seems simple enough. I don't understand how someone would want specifically up to date information on the characters, and give up when they didn't find spoiler information in a non-spoiler section that clearly pointed to an article that elaborated on the characters. -- Viewdrix 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia..."
If some unknowing editor used the word policy once in the text, that page does not become policy. So I am sure that you were wrong in saying that it is policy. YaanchSpeak! 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that not every reader is assumed to know of Wikipedia policies, they are assumed to udnerstand English. So when the page says "this is their position when they're introduced as a character", the reader is expected to think that "this is their position when they're introduced as a character", and it is not the fault of the article if the reader incorrectly extrapolates that the character must have remained at that position. To clarify, I added that "characters may and have had changes in job status and position throughout the series". As for policy vs. guideline, I never stated that policy meant it had to be followed. It is just strongly, strongly recommended, and I defended the fact that it was correct to use the word "policy", since the policy refers to itself as a policy. -- Viewdrix 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the policy issue, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not wikipedia policy in anyway. Policies are listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. Avoid self-references is not there. Further, if it is a policy it would be included on Template:Policylist, but it is not. The header on Wikipedia:Avoid self-references says that it is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style which makes it a guideline. It does not have the header for an offical wikipedia policy. Another piece of evidence is that it is on the page Wikipedia:List of guidelines (It is part of the manual of style). One mistaken editor used the word policy once in the text of the page. This is no basis to say that it is an offical wikipedia policy. YaanchSpeak! 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet at the top of that page, as part of the Manual of Style template, it says "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." My take, based on that, is that this Wikipedia article should heed this guideline. As for the main topic, I don't see the logic in you arguing that we should put a spoiler section up for Characters to help people coming to Wikipedia who don't understand Wikipedia conventions, when marking the introduction to these characters with a spoiler warning would bar many readers from knowing the general positions and relationships of these characters, and thus make much of the article make less sense to most readers, regardless of whether they knew Wikipedia conventions. I also want to state again that it is redundant to put promotions of characters in the Characters section when it is located on the Characters in The office page, their individual character pages, and the Plot summary on the show's main page. As you said yourself, if they want to learn something about the show, they're going to have to read, and in this case, they'll have to read the summary section. Besides, again, if they wanted to know the character's current positions, one would think they were trying to catch up and start watching new ep0isodes, and thus read the plot summary anyway. -- Viewdrix 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They can find updated information on this page. It's in the Plot section. -- Viewdrix 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot section contains over 1500 words. We dont expect the readers to learn about the characters from the plot section. YaanchSpeak! 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that this means that the plot section is too long. -- Raymondc0 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We can perfectly expect that readers learn about changes to a character from a Plot section. If a character died far into the story, would you write that in a a one-sentence introduction to the character, the kind we have in the Character section, or would you put it in the Plot section? In all honesty, it's not uncommon to not write anything about the characters of a piece of fictional media if the Characters have their own article page. We could easily just leave the section solely as "Main article: Characters in The Office", as many articles do with their character sections. But it's too important to have a spoiler-free introduction to them in order for the article to make sense. Look at Arrested Development (TV series), another TV show Featured Article. Though they use the spoiler warning before the Characters section as an over-precaution, here's my point: they don't ruin plot twists in the character introductions. There's no mention of (spoiler) Buster having his hand eaten by a seal, Lindsay being revealed to be adopted by Stan Sitwell, or that because of it, George Michael's and Maeby's romance is perfectly acceptable, since they aren't cousins by blood, though these all factor importantly into the plot and character development after they occur. -- Viewdrix 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not saying that we move the spoiler marker anymore but i do recommend that we just simply move that chart about the changes to this page too. It would be placed right below the first spoiler warning, that way the rest of the article is unchanged, and the characters section will not have any spoliers (execpt for the chart below the marker). So is this a compromise? YaanchSpeak! 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea only because it would be redundant when the table is on the Characters page, and it would essentially list each character twice. Not specifically copying and pasting the table, put perhaps making a new table that ONLY has the people who have been promoted, and their new jobs, would work. -- Viewdrix 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that sounds great. Thanks for discussing this with me and thanks for keeping a cool head. Its been a long talk. YaanchSpeak! 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Dwight's promotion of "Assistant Regional Manager" from "Assistant to the Regional Manager" be included, maybe with a new column for notes that states the position was admitted to mean nothing in "Dwight's Speech"? Maybe even that security responsibility he got assigned in "Drug Testing", I think it was? -- Viewdrix 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the spolier marker. 

message: There's afew of them that exsist through this series.. do you think we should add them? Nocarsgo 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recurring/running gags 

message: Anybody know when the season 3 DVD will be releaed? What month? Flap Jackson 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 DVD? 

message: Not all episodes are 22 minutes.  Several episodes, dubbed "super-sized," have aired in 40 minute blocks, making the minimum length at least 29 minutes.  That should be reflected in the infobox.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. I'll change it. -- Viewdrix 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode length 

message: Is this really necessary for the main article? Pele Merengue 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a defensive move. Otherwise people keep putting spoilers in the character list. -- Raymondc0 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, couldn't we just put a warning (<(!)-- -->) in the section stressing the fact that the positions are as of when the characters are introduced? The table works fine for the characters article, but it just sort of eats up unnecessary space here.Pele Merengue 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried that. Didn't work. Even today people make edits and ignore the warnings right next to them. -- Raymondc0 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it simply doesn't make sense to put something in the article as a convenient way of deterring editors from including unneeded or unwanted information. Then it's just battling useless information with more useless information. Pele Merengue 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make an alternate proposal for addressing the problem. -- Raymondc0 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, besides getting rid of the section, putting up a warning and keeping an eye on the article? Because other than that, I've got nothing. Pele Merengue 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Move the Spoiler Marker" on this Talk page. We went over this for a long time. -- Viewdrix 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Should Devon be included? He was part of the staff and was fired in "Halloween." Firings are indicated I'm sure, because Roy is included for his status of being fired. *EDIT: nevermind, he is on the main article, along with Hannah, Tony, Martin, and other characters who had worked in the office at one time.* 24.209.175.115 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Job status changes" section 

message: I am trying to revert vandalism on this article but can't because the computer won't let me and it said something about blacklisted links or something. NHRHS2010 Talk  00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Someone reverted the vandalism. NHRHS2010 Talk  00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert vandalism

message: This is the link to the new Creed Thoughts blog on nbc.com: http://blog.nbc.com/CreedThoughts/.  Should it be added to the article? Yavoh 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creed Thoughts Blog

message: The "Geographical references" section is starting to turn into a comprehensive list of all Scranton references rather than a quick summary. Which direction should we take it? (1) Keep it short and highlight only the most important references. (2) Break it into a separate article and make it comprehensive. -- Raymondc0 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical references

message: The article fails FA criterion #3, because :Image:Theofficeuss1.jpg and :Image:Theofficeuss2.jpg have no fair use rationales for this article. – Ilse@ 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented out the images. – Ilse@ 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the images as orphaned non-free images. They will be deleted after seven days. – Ilse@ 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tagged the image as fair use rationale missing. It will be deleted after seven days. – Ilse@ 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed both images. – Ilse@ 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fails FA criteria 

message: For the people that miss the list of songs featured on The Office article, there's a new site out that has been featured on some of the popular Office fansites: i.e. Office Tally, Life in the Office & Northern Attack.  The site is at http://scrantonesfan.wordpress.com/  I would like to nominate it for inclusion of the "Selected Fansites" CJMylentz 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music of Dunder-Mifflin Site 

message: Per the production codes found on the episode list page, one-hour episodes, and for that matter 40-minute episodes, should probably be referred to as one episode. That means "A Benihana Christmas" is one episode, and "The Job" is one episode. This makes Jenna Fischer's numbering claim that "Beach Games" is the 50th episode true, and brings the episode counts to this:
*Season One: 6 episodes
*Season Two: 22 episodes
*Season Three: 23 episodes
*Total: 51 episodes
As for Season Four, it's best to just quote the '30 episodes with 5 one hour episodes' line verbatim, since different third-party sources are interpreting it differently (such as IGN, I think, saying this meant 25 episodes totaling 30 half-hours). Does this seem a good idea? -- Viewdrix 01:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no... that doesn't say anything we didn't already know. We've already known there would be 30 episodes, what's being debated is the definition of an "episode", which seems to be that 1 episode equals 30 minutes. Therefore, a one-hour broadcast equals 2 episodes. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unambiguous in the original press release: "The network has ordered 30 half-hours of the hit series The Office, including five hour-long episodes." -- Raymondc0 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode counts 

message: Just to end the debate, this was taken directly from the press release from NBC...
So therefore, 30 Half-Hours = 5 one-hour episodes + 20 30/40-minute episodes. There is no mention at all of "30 episodes" - it's "30 half-hours" —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 Episode Count 

message: There's a new official Dunder-Mifflin website here, which I added to the external links yesterday. Since it got removed (though that was quickly reverted), I wanted to put a note here clarifying that this is NOT a fan site; it's created by NBC. thanks! Calindigo 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my bad. I went to the page and didn't see any NBC or production company copyright notices and assumed it was not real. I've now found the link off of NBC's page. Sorry 'bout that. I'm usually a lot more careful. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Dunder-Mifflin Website 

message: From NBCs Youtube account:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDXIyRdwG0
--Spikeleefan 03:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 Details