Talk:The Office (US TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star The Office (US TV series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
The Office (US TV series) is maintained by Wikiproject The Office (US), which is building a comprehensive, informative, and interesting guide about the TV show The Office, on Wikipedia. Please, edit this article to improve it! All are welcome to join our project and we invite you to do so! For general discussion on this topic, feel free to go to the Water Cooler.
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. November 2005 – March 2006: Primary topics: Image and external link discussion.

Contents

[edit] Old Picture

Why was the old picture from season one put back instead of a season three picture.--72.146.210.253 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product Placement

Just cut it out, see the argument in the "Stop Vandalizing Product Placement" discussion article. Looking at re-formatting the non-main character section, as it is a mess. (Jerciuss 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC))


I read the product placement section of the article. Isn't Chili's from Season 2 (The Dundies & The Client) also product placement? Did they have any formal agreement with that company? ~ Rollo44 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea i think they agreed.

Merely agreeing to be used in an episode doesn't reach the level of product placement. -- Raymondc0 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apple's use

The company Apple uses clips from the office to premote the iPod video and even now the new iPhone at http://www.apple.com/iphone/ipod/ I think we should also include that Steve Jobs said that he is a fan of the show 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhh, i disagree. Just because there is a business deal between Apple and NBC, we dont know for sure if Steve Jobs is a fan of the office. He may or may not be. YaanchSpeak! 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webisodes

Starting from July 13 this summer there will be short (2-4 minute) episodes of the Office availible to watch on NBC.com. This will continue for ten weeks with a "webisode" appearing every week on Thursdays. I would add this info to the article but I am not familiar with it and am not sure where to put it. If someone familiar with this article could update it with this information it would be great. 132.203.54.60 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Created a Webisode section under DvD/Online, to include everything I know from reading about it. I still cannot remember the other writers name(s) for the Webisodes, just Toby's (Paul Liberstein?)

[edit] Synopsis

I would like to do a synopsis like the one for Two and a Half Men. Any thoughts? I'll do it later today or tomorrow, unless someone has anything to say about it or does it first. --Eric Jack Nash 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violations in the Trivia Section

Much of the trivia material has been lifted directly from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386676/trivia . It should be rephrased or deleted. I replaced one comment about the set with information from Videography. --Jeremy Butler 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that this has been corrected. Mrtea (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That's true. There are still a couple that refer to the same travia as IMDb does, but the wording is different. --Jeremy Butler 17:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganize?

I'm sure many of us have seen the recent featured article on The West Wing (TV series). I think The Office page looks great, but I would really like to try to organize it more. Tables and whatnot seem to be starting to clutter this fine page. Would anyone object to an attempt to reorganize this page more to the format of The West Wing (ie. history, plot, critical response) so it can start being a serious contender for a featured page? Williamnilly 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hyphen or not?

Is it "Dunder Mifflin" (as appears in this article) or "Dunder-Mifflin" (as appears in many of the episode articles)? There's no hyphen in the logo, and NBC.com uses both but appears to go with "Dunder Mifflin" more often (for example, on the About and Newsletter pages). References to the company on the Season 1 DVD's cover and a couple menus are sans hyphen. — Hedgey42 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was named after two people named "Dunder" and "Mifflin", like "Wernham-Hogg" is in the UK version, hence requiring the hyphen. But maybe, like even I've been guilty of, people have just gotten lazy with it? Or I'm mistaken? Williamnilly 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you're mistaken. Dunder Mifflin should have a hyphen but even on the show itself the company name has appeared without a hyphen. That's an error on the show's part. Throw 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Dunder-Mifflin is the correct way to spell it but on the show it’s spelled Dunder Mifflin without the hyphen, I think we should go by what the show calls it correct or not. --68.154.22.149 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Makeover

Okay, just so everyone's prepared, I'm planning to give the page a mild makeover starting this week by starting to include critical response, show history, season summaries, history, etc. a la the Arrested Development page. That page is apparently the format Wikipedia is shooting for with television comedies, hence the featured article status. I'd like to see The Office join those ranks. One plan is to reduce trivia (I know I'm responsible for a lot of it, but many of them can be put into a paragraph about the show's history) and removing neat but ultimately useless tables (I think we can probably just simply link to the episode lists and character pages. Why feature the same info on two different pages?) Anyway, that's all. I plan to start as soon as tomorrow! Thanks! Williamnilly 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks awesome. I check The Office wiki page every day at work for updates, and this was a pleasant surprise

Good work on the makeover, you must have had to dig to find some of those references. I've done a once over on the new page and made a few changes that I think improve the page. As always, other opinions welcome. Qutezuce 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages in quotation

Surely we oughtn't to have an edit war over this, so perhaps we might ascertain what the preferred or consensus usage might be. In sum, the dispute in several reverts today has been between the two versions in this diff, scilicet, that which, for the Novak quotation, employs the same formatting as in the article whence it comes (viz., 20%, 10%, 100%), and that which employs the preferred Wikipedia formatting (at least inasmuch as "per cent" or "percent" is spelled out; surely the numbers needn't to be written out, per the MoS). Were we quoting the Television without Pity article, the Novak quotation would, of course, appear in single quotation marks as a nested quotation (probably even were no other info from the TwP article, but surely if we were to include language from the article in precedence to certain quotations), and we would then be ill-advised to alter the quotation as given on the site. We, though, are giving here the quotations as provided by Novak in the interview, with only a cite to TwP; it seems appropriate, then, that we edit the quotation in order that it should be consistent with the MoS. To put the discussion differently, if the TwP article had what was clearly a typo--e.g., the insertion of a semi-colon into the middle of a word--we would, if quoting the article, do best to leave the semi-colon in and attach a [sic], but, if we were, as we are here, simply providing the quotations, we would do best to remove the semi-colon, inasmuch as it was not, we would surmise, part of the oral quotations given by Novak. That said, I will surely defer to those who edit this page more frequently than I, and I don't think this is an issue about which a great deal needs to be said. Joe 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should the Wikipedia style guide apply to the words that someone else has said? Qutezuce 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Because we're quoting the words, not the article quoting the words. Surely Novak didn't say "20 percentage sign", he said "20 "percent. A less-than-encyclopedic online publication might think it appropriate to use the percentage sign, but surely in formal or encyclopedic writing, we do not; the question is not so much whether the TwP substitution was alright as a matter of preserving the quotation (surely it was), but whether the format is encyclopedic. Joe 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we are quoting the article. It is the article that is putting forth the assertion that Novak has said these words, not Novak. The reliability of the quote lies entirely with the publication; if the publication later on is revealed to have made up the entire interview the quote goes out the window, but Novak's reputation would be untarnished. Qutezuce 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For the reasons I explain above, we are absolutely not quoting the article; we are giving the Novak quote as though we witnessed his saying it to TwP. That may be what we mean to do, and you may be correct to suggest that we ought simply to quote the article; if we are to do the latter, we need to nest the quotation and format accordingly. (Edit, after some consideration: Not having previously looked at the TwP page--tsk, tsk--I find now that the page is simply an interview, not, as I'd imagined, an article within which quotations from an interview appear. Even as I think that a nested quotation is still required if we are to quote the interview itself, I surely do not think such a formulation to be undesirable and wonder if others might express an opinion relative to the implementation of such a solution.) Joe 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just checked the Wikipedia Manual of Style on the subject of percentages, and the only thing it has to say on the matter is "The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent." So it appears that Wikipedia does not have a preference of how to write percentages, unless there is another Wikipedia policy page that I missed. So based on this there doesn't seem to be any reason to change someone's quote to conform to the Manual of Style because the manual of style does not express a preference on that matter. Qutezuce 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
On this point, Qutezuce is entirely correct; having followed the percentage edits to the article, I assumed that the writing out of "percent" was occurring consistent with the MoS. I see that our Manual of Style differs on this point from, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style, which urges that, in humanistic copy (such as this), the number be given as a numeral but "percent" be written. Even as I still think it's good for us to have this discussion here, given that there was a bit of a revert war going on, I'm sorry for having made an incorrect assumption apropos of our MoS (why we'd permit the inelegant "%" in non-scientific articles is beyond me, but...) and for having taken so many words to argue the point (I still believe that, if our MoS prescribed that "percent" be written out in humanistic copy, we would be correct to change it, but that discussion is surely moot). If BabuBhatt, who made the first two edits of "%" to "percent" is in accord, I think we can safely return the Novak interview section (since our MoS expresses no preference, we're surely best to leave things as they were) and continue our work on making an FA. Joe 05:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia trivial

Looking at our trivia section, I think we can significantly cut it down. Not all these points are all that noteworthy. I've crossed out the trivia I think should go.


  • In the kitchen of the Dunder Mifflin office there is a black no-smoking sign displaying the text Sec 6404.5. The Office , is set in Pennsylvania, where no s. 6404.5 exists. There is, however, a s. 6404.5 in the Labor Code of California, the state in which the program is filmed, that restricts smoking in the workplace.
  • Dwight has a Froggy 101 bumper sticker on his office cabinets. In reality, Froggy-101 is a country-western radio station in Scranton.
  • Producer Kent Zborkak comments about the set: "During the first season, we worked in an actual office space. For the second season, we went onto a soundstage — Chandler Studios in Van Nuys [in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley] — that replicates the environment of the first season."
  • Long before The Office, stars John Krasinski and B.J. Novak both attended Newton South High School in Newton, Massachusetts. Novak even wrote the first play in which Krasinski performed.
    • I don't think it's that noteworthy. We're not listing every connection two actors have together.
  • Rainn Wilson based Dwight's hairstyle on his own style he had when he was sixteen.
  • There is a Homer Simpson stuffed doll that is featured in the background of the office in almost every show. Office executive producer and writer Greg Daniels wrote and produced for The Simpsons series from 1994–1996.
    • We're making the assumption that's why there's a doll in "almost every show." Should be removed just on the basis of original research.
      • There are two dolls in the UK version, where I believe this is influenced from. The reason for it being there has not explained in the US version however.
  • A sign seen in the episode "The Alliance" gives Dunder Mifflin's address as 1725 Slough Avenue, a reference to the UK The Office locale in Slough, Berkshire, England.
  • During the week leading up to April Fool's Day 2006, NBC aired fake public service announcements featuring the cast of The Office, based on their real The More You Know announcements. They can all be viewed online here.
    • We could probably include this someplace in the article, but not in the Trivia section.
  • Michael's desk has a Union Jack on it as a reference to the original UK version of the show.
    • Again we're drawing conclusions here.. I'm tied though.
  • The certificate behind Michael's desk says, "Michael Scott is the proud owner of a Seyko Timepiece." (They intentionally misspelled Seiko on the certificate.)

Let me know what you think. And please, argue my points if you feel we should include these points. I'm not going to go deleting until I receive some support. Mrtea (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Krasinski/Novak connection is better left to the actor's individual articles. The last one makes no sense. Why is it mispelled purposely and where is source anyway? I would like to see the April Fools PSAs integrated somewhere and linked to while still active links. BabuBhatt 09:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) Although I like some of these tidbits, I suppose they aren't suited for Wikipedia and I'm not going to argue over the triviality of it. I will, however, pout, and hope we will still find someplace for these little facts to live together on the Internet in peace and harmony without fear of discrimination. :) I'd say I should make a fan site, but there's already TONS out there. Williamnilly 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't understand why the BJ Novak/John Krasinki connection is not allowable trivia for the show. It seems rather arbitrary for you not to count it.
Some of them could be moved to the page for the episode where that specific trivia is visible. Qutezuce 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Additionally, this one...
In "The Fire" Michael tells Ryan he "bought" his convertible. In "The Coup" Dwight refuses his offer of the corporate-leased Chrysler Sebring, suggesting Michael does not own the car.
... While Michael does suggest he doesn't own the car at that moment, he clearly states that it is HIS car shortly after Dwight turns him down and insults the vehicle. He was doing it to trick Dwight.
I think John Krasinski and B.J. Novak's high school play should be re-included. What triggered this in me was the recent addition of trivia that Phyllis Smith (I think) and Brian Baumgartner (sp?) both being on Arrested Development (which I have not removed though I think it probably should be) and then seeing this list and the rationale for removing the original Krasinski-Novak link. Now, while I agree that not every connection should be noted (Steve Carell and Ed Helms would be another obvious one at this point), what sets the Novak and Krasinski trivia apart is that they worked together as far back as high school, and not as professional actors who were cast at different times on a previous TV show, as is the case for Smith/Baumgartner and Carell/Helms. -- Viewdrix 01:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

A userbox for the Office, if you want it for your user page. --Nehrams2020 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is a fan of The Office!



I'm going to feel like a jerk for asking instead of trying to find it on one of the new member pages, but how do you put one of these on a profile? --Mumbaki 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Just copy the following text and paste in on your userpage (if you need further formatting help, let me know):
{{User The Office (U.S.)}} · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Mumbaki

[edit] Season 2 synopsis

This section seems to be very long. I think it could be shortened to about half of its current length. It should give an overview of the second season, not cite specific occurances in specific episodes (that is what the episode guide is for). Any other thoughts on this? Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. It was written as the season progressed and we didn't know what storylines would affect other things. Now that the season is over, minor events that have nothing to do with the plot could probably be removed. Williamnilly 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It got quite bloated as the season progressed. Cutting it down would be good, we have individual episode pages for longer synopses. Which reminds me, some of the summaries on the List of episodes page have gotten a bit long for that page too. Qutezuce 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more!! Williamnilly 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, what do you guys think about combining the Season synopses and Episodes sections? I like the way that it is done in the Lost (TV series) article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I likes it. :) Williamnilly 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Themes section

This entire section seems to contain numerous subjective opinions. It was created in its entirety by 24.60.17.123 on 12 May 2006, and has only been edited with minor spelling/grammar changes since then. I think it should be removed entirely, or pared down to a bare NPOV minimum. CalebNoble 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds like someone was answering an essay question in a high school english class about the themes of The Office. It doesn't seem to add anything to the page. Qutezuce 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, it seemed like a high school essay to me, too! I agree to remove. Williamnilly 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree to delete are pare down. Here's an example of POV that should go: "Dwight and Angela are in a bizarre relationship". --Jeremy Butler 11:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kill the MySpace Stuff?

I'm not so sure about the value of the "Myspace.com Cast Blogs". E.g., Craig Robinson's doesn't even mention Dunder Mifflin. Are they encyclopedia caliber? --Jeremy Butler 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For the links section? Honestly, I think we can keep Jenna Fischer's and we'd be fine. The other blogs can be linked from the individual actor's entries, plus Jenna is linked to everyone else's MySpace page on her own MySpace.Williamnilly 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the blog stuff absolutely belongs on this page, as the grassroots campaigns are a huge part of the allure of this show. The cast members' presence on MySpace is extremely innovative, and has become, in a way, a part of the show itself for many people online. Perhaps some of this should be mentioned as well, however - Sensorium 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is why this article succeeded as a featured article with a trivia section, and why the featured article Arrested Development also has a trivia section. Qutezuce 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep the trivia section. It's fun and entirely appropriate for a comedy like The Office. I do understand that it's "bad Wikipedia form" but it's also wildly popular on WP. I would argue that as long as the information is properly labelled "trivia" then it's appropriate. I'd like to see WP change its policy to allow for trivia sections. SnappingTurtle 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There is actually no policy against it — it is just one users' pet peeve. Qutezuce 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Then if its a pet peeve than users should not be deleating them just because they "annoy" them.

"Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form" ... says who? I say leave it in, but keep it reliable, interesting and brief. -- UnknownCity

[edit] Houghton Mifflin

The trivia section has an entry stating: ‘The name of the firm "Dunder Mifflin" appears to be a derivative of the real publishing company Houghton Mifflin.’ I find that very puzzling; perhaps it's possible that Dunder Mifflin could be a reference to Houghton Mifflin, but in my view it's unlikely. Unless there is some other justification I'd suggest deleting that sentence. --Mathew5000 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I believe the Mifflin Avenue info part of the sentence should remain. Williamnilly 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I added it because the similarity between the names of the fictitious paper company and the real publishing company seemed pretty obvious, and it wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the entry. I consider it trivia, and indeed it may be untrue, hence the use of the phrase "appears to be" instead of simply "is". Certainly the inspiration for the name of the company is of interest, but since it's only theoretical at this point, it could be removed. -Loadmaster 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see much similarity between a publishing company and a paper-manufacturing company, and "Mifflin" is a common enough name so I would be very surprised if it were more than mere coincidence. As for "Mifflin Avenue" in Scranton, I left that in the article but I have my doubts as to whether that too is anything more than mere coincidence. In the show, the company seems to be headquartered in New York City with Scranton being just one of several branches, so why would the name of the company have any relation to a street in Scranton? The first governor of Pennsylvania was named Thomas Mifflin; I imagine that the street in Scranton is named after him. --Mathew5000 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The writers etc. are pretty diligent about referencing actual Scranton elsewhere in the show, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did it with the company name, even in spite of your NYC issue. Call it artistic license, or an oversight. I think the combination of 1.) the real paper supply company, 2.) its real location a block away from Mifflin Ave., and 3.) the fact that the real paper supply company's real building is shown at the beginning of every episode makes it more than a coincidence. If there were only two of those things, it probably wouldn't have enough significance to be mentioned, because there are indeed plenty of "possible" origins of the Mifflin component of the name. Even if it is just a coincidence though, I'd say it's sufficiently interesting to keep.Mls393 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any speculation on the origins of "Dunder Mifflin" would be appropriate for this article. Wouldn't that constitute original research?--Jay Litman 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music?

I would question the validity and necessity of this particular section. It takes up a LOT of room (almost an eyesore) and I would argue that music is not a vital part of the series. It seems more like a fan-based list rather than encyclopedic. I vote for its removal. Williamnilly 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definately too big to stay on the main page, it could be moved: either to it's own page, or to the individual episode pages. Qutezuce 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I vote keep but move to Music of The Office (US TV Series). BabuBhatt 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My biggest issue is how big the table is. Is it really necessary to be formatted as a table? Williamnilly 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably not, as some episodes likely contained no reference to any song at all ... BabuBhatt 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the table is an eyesore theres too many empty gaps in the table because the episode did not contain any music. Most of the info on this table is already on the individual episodes article and if it isnt then it should be added. The table has got to go.

[edit] Outbound Links

I would like to apologize for linking two a couple of Office fansights earlier today in the "Outbound Links" section. I didn't read it carefully enough to see the instructions to visit the discussion page first.

What criteria do you go by when selecting links for the outbound links section? Why are some office fansights included, and some are not? Just curious. Thanks!

May I or someone else add the GOOGLE CALENDAR of The Office that I made and maintain. I list up-coming reruns and new episodes along with other information. You can see it The Office Google Calendar. Thanks, --Jeff 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think that OfficeTally should be added to the links section. Not only has it actually been endorsed by cast members Jenna Fischer and Angela Kinsey, I'd say it has the most comprehensive news and updates than any other fansite. Over the past year, it's become so much more than a favorite episode ranking site. Williamnilly 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one objected (or responded) in nearly two weeks, I've added it. Williamnilly 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request permission to add The Office at TV Squad to the External links section. The link has relevant news and episode reviews that I feel will be helpful to readers. I'll check back in a week for any objections. Gudlyf 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a month with no objections. Adding link. Gudlyf 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the TV.com - The Office site should be added. It has user reviews and detailed information about the show. Bdotdub 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TV.com - The Office Link is already available in the Infobox hence doesn't need to be added again to the outbound link Makowsky 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request permission to add OfficeQuotes.us to the fansite section. While it is fairly new, it is unique in that it has every quote, every line ever said on the show. There are a million fansites with a funny quotes section, but none of them are all-comprehensive like OfficeQuotes.us. I do understand that popularity plays a role (it's new), but I was hoping that the nature of this site might be an exception. Please state any objections you might have. Adamsblueguitar 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "filmed in the style of a documentary"

Why does the article's second sentence say "It is filmed in the style of a documentary...", rather than simply "It is a mockumentary"? The way it's worded is incorrect because the series certainly isn't filmed in the style of a documentary, although it is filmed (and written and edited) to look like a documentary. The way the sentence is written suggests that the actual process of filming is done the same way a documentary is filmed. Let's just say that the series is a mockumentary (unless somebody wants to argue that it is not). --Mathew5000 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By "it is filmed in the style of a documentary" the sentence means exactly what you said ("it is filmed (and written and edited) to look like a documentary"). One reason to use the word "documentary" is that everybody is familiar with documentaries, while not everyone is familiar with mockumentaries. Qutezuce 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "filmed in the style of a documentary" does not mean "filmed to look like a documentary". The first purports to describe the actual methods they use when shooting the show; the second describes the effect they are trying to achieve. --Mathew5000 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that "filmed in the style of a documetary" is the proper way to present it. Besides, if you're going to get all technical about it, "filmed to look like" would be wrong, and need to be replaced with "edited to look like." However since the filming often includes of documentary stylings, "filmed in the style" is indeed correct. --Embattledseraph

How do the outside references refer to the show - as a mockumentary or documentary? Do we even have an outside reference for this statement, or is it merely original research?--Jay Litman 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mockumentary", mostly. The Mockumentary WP article even lists it as an example. -- Fru1tbat 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal activity at Dunder Mifflin?

On the opening credits, I notice the employees using liquid paper on documents and using paper shredders to shred documents. Is it just me, or does this show Dunder Mifflin trying to evade taxes ?--198.53.110.105 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I use liquid paper and shredders all the time, never with the intention of evading taxes.--awh (Talk) 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby, Kelly, Creed and Darryl should be added to the main cast

Don't you think so? Not in Wikipedia, but with NBC. --154.20.217.225 20:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin's Steve Miller Tribute Band

Added in a brief mention of the band in minor plots section, Its made 3 appearences so far (Health Care / Casino Night / Hot Girl) Might be more though.

Kevin's band is no longer a Steve Miller tribute band. It is a Police cover band called Scrantonicity, and this is the band Roy Anderson hires. BabuBhatt 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgot the title of the band --Tauraunt 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Shouldn't this article be at The Office (U.S. TV series) per WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) specifically says "US", I guess because it comes in the title of the article and not in the article text? Qutezuce 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to link there! :) Yes, this has been an issue before. Fritz, for more info, please refer to the discussion archive under "Latest move to The Office (US TV series)".Williamnilly 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Haha I was looking all over for the "Naming conventions" but I totally forgot what they were called. I used to reference those every other day lol Mrtea (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pennsylvania? Really?

I mean, I know it takes place in Pennsylvania, but come on... --awh (Talk) 02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I took it off. That's just silly. Some of the show is filmed in Pennslyvania, but a lot of it is also filmed in LA. Should all Wikiprojects related to California also be added here? Like I said, it's silly. Jtrost (T | C | #) 04:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Other than shots from the opening, is anything else filmed in Pennsylvania? Qutezuce 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Answering the question of a Scranton resident, Jenna Fischer, who plays receptionist Pam Beesly, writes in her April 22, 2006 TV Guide blog: "As you know, the show is set in Scranton, but we haven't filmed there yet. It is really a question of budget. It would cost a lot of money to transport the entire cast and crew to Scranton. But we'd like to! I think it would be fun. I figure that it is just a matter of time." She probably does not consider the opening shots in that statement. --Liberlogos 01:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy=Yes

So, should I add this in? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 02:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Selected Fansites" section in External Links: Yes or no?

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)

Yes (laconic, I know). --Liberlogos 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Yes. I think there are cases in which fan sites are informative and frequently updated. --Jeremy Butler 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

I noticed QuotesFromTheOffice.com was added without discussion. Please explain what this site has to offer that the two selected fansites don't already feature. Williamnilly 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture change

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)

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)
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. [1] The NBC forum has a clean one but it is a bit plain. [2] Anyone has a nice looking Office official logo? --Liberlogos 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Season 3 Synopses

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)
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)

Is Jan really "seemingly unaware" of the picture in the 'Back After Xmas' episode? I thought it was the picture (and the obvious firing that would result from it) that was the catalyst for her pursuing things with Michael.

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)

[edit] Fan Sites

I've seen a lot of back and forth with people adding "The Office" themed sites to the External Links section, so I went ahead and created a "The Office Fan Site" article in Wikipedia:

The Office fan sites

I think this new article will allow the External Links on this article to remain clean/short, but this allows other relative-but-lesser sites to be included as well.

Feel free to expand/clean up the article; I created it on-the-fly and didn't put a lot of time/thought/effort into the flow of the article. Also, please help to keep free of Spam links and sites not pertaining to The Office as well.

It looks like you've put a lot of work into this article but you have to realize Wikipedia is not a web directory. We don't really want to link to fansites, and have policies set up regarding them: Wikipedia:External links. Also check out WP:WELCOME for more info about contributing to Wikipedia. You can also sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). I'm sure some other users can give more input here as well, but I'm in a hurry. Mrtea (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm sorry, but not everyone's website can be featured. It's important to know that there's a growingly large community for the show, but it wouldn't make sense to link to all of the pages on Wikipedia indvidually. The most important ones have been linked. If anyone has debate as to whether a link should be added or removed to that section, it can be discussed above (under "Selected Fansites"). I've tagged The Office fan site for speedy deletion. Pele Merengue 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Creating an article solely to describe the fan websites of a TV show is unprecedented, I think. FWIW, the article should probably go through AFD or PROD instead of speedy . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that a website for the fansites of the office can be warranted. Wikipedia even has a stub for the generic term Fansite. Also, consider the number of 'office' article offshoots that exist currently: List of The Office (US) episodes, List of songs featured on The Office, Characters from The Office, etc. It only seems right that the Office Fansites deserve a category of their own, as well.
I propose that the article be expanded to provide better depth into the history behind the fansites, and maybe each site can have a brief history as well. Drshields 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The number off Office "offshoots" that exist does not mean an article of links is warranted: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And consider the amount of offshoots from September 11, 2001 attacks. There is no List of September 11, 2001 attack web sites articles from what I have ever seen. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Oh Wikipedia also has a notability criteria guideline for discussion web sites. I don't believe any Office fansite fits this criteria as of yet, so no OfficeTally.com article (not for a while anyway). :) Mrtea (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The more well-known Office fan sites can be linked in a section in this article. There other article merely duplicates some of the information contained in this article to provide some "background" on what the show is about. Thank you for taking the initiative to work on the article, I hope our reaction doesn't discourage you from contributing further. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user trying to get all the images deleted

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)

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)
http://nbcumv.com/ --DrBat 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 3 before the Webisodes

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 (US) episodes. Don't forget to sign your posts too! Thanks! Williamnilly 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler in Characters Section?

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)

It happens in the 3rd season premiere, so get rid of it.

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] TVRage.com Link

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)Makowsky

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)

[edit] Scranton link

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)


[edit] NPR Fresh Air Link

Interview with Writers on Fresh Air / NPR aired NOV-02-2006

NPR Fresh Air Interview


[edit] Dwight/Angela relationship info in Season 2 section

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My mistake. Thanks! --Undertow87 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Product Placement - CSI?

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)

[edit] stop vandalizing 'product placement'

Or i will report you to Dwight Schrute, head of intellectual property security—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2006

First, we do not need or want a bulleted list of every single product you can see during the show. Second, this trend in product placement is network wide at NBC (check out Las Vegas, 30 Rock, Days Of Our Lives, etc..) The Office is neither the first show or the only show to do this. Cheers. L0b0t 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
second warning my friend. you have been reported.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2006
To whom, for what? Please see WP:SIG. L0b0t 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with L0b0t, and I find your RFI a tad inappropriate. There is absolutely no reason this article needs a comprehensive list of product placements within the show. If The Office is noted for extensive placement, a note to that effect might be appropriate, but a list certainly is not... -- Fru1tbat 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Product placement section does not belong here. BabuBhatt 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, it should just be cut. Product Placement doesn't explain anything about the show, it's plot, or really anything related to it. It would only be slightly interesting to long-time viewers who might want to learn a little more about their show, but, they would already know what products are featured in the show. Its just cluttering up a relatively large article that needs a lot of work as it is. (Jerciuss 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
Articles should not discuss only plot; that sort of thing is what you find in a fan guidebook, rather than an encyclopedia. I can point you toward relevant guidelines and discussions if you would like. I'm re-adding it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The product placement section should stay. The high level of product placement is pretty unique when compared to contemporary shows. Certainly no other show I've ever watched has had this amount of product placement. Or maybe they just hid it a lot better.208.178.57.241 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Is four really that high nowadays for a series? "The Apprentice" does more than that in just one year. Remember also that not every product appearance is placement. Michael's Sebring, for example, is just a writing choice, not an advertising deal. -- Raymondc0 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known in Britain

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)
also, if you look at the BBC America site, its called "The Office: An American Workplace" (Jerciuss 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The Office disambiguation

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)

Don't be silly now, "The Office" was originally a UK show, there's no reason that it should go straight to the U.S series. I agree with BabuBhatt that it should go to a page discussing both versions. The UK version is just as important as the US version.

[edit] Start of Episode- Phone Ringing.

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)

I think this is not only unneccessary, but untrue. I vote to take this comment out.

[edit] Third season synopsis

It is way too long when compared to the second season's synopsis. Could someone shorten it? --thedemonhog 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Pam's Mom?!

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)

[edit] geography section

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)

[edit] Las Vegas

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

[edit] Wikepedia mentions

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)

[edit] Why are characters profiled three times?

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)

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)
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))
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)
Conversion complete. -- Raymondc0 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject The Office (US)?!

I think all the office articles could benefit from a Wikiproject The Office (US). Other shows have a wikiproject like Heroes. Alot of the debating and discussion about The Office happens here, even if it doesn't pertain to this article. A Wikiproject, would allow us to make Wikipedia a great source about The Office.

If your interested just put you name here! [3] It wikiproject has been created and it is here Wikiproject The Office (US).

Separately, on an unrelated note, if you happen to find a small brass key …

YaanchSpeak!

[edit] ACE Awards

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))

[edit] Character sections.

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)

[edit] wiki

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Office_%28US_TV_series%29_99f7.html"