Talk:Local Ad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the assessment scale for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at |the assessment scale. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Quotes

Quotes from Local Ad are available: The Office Quotes --99.225.17.20 03:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The song playing

in micheal's commercial, which is the song playing in the background? should we include that note in the trivia? Rohan2kool 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, at the time you asked the question, it was noted in the trivia. But trivia doesn't belong in Wikipedia, so I moved it to Dunderpedia and added a link. (This follows the pattern established with music in other episodes.) -- Raymondc0 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the notes section looks like trivia. Maybe we could call it a "note" and get away with it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We can call it trivia and still get away with it, because trivia is allowed in Wikipedia. I don't know why Raymondc0 always objects to it. - Shaheenjim 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:TRIVIA "Trivia sections should be avoided." Encyclopedias don't contain trivia, at least none that I'm familiar with. -- Raymondc0 07:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The common problem with trivia sections is that people equate not being forbidden with being acceptable. To illustrate the folly of this standpoint, consider a company registered offshore to avoid corporate taxes. Although this, too, is not illegal/forbidden, it is also not appropriate or responsible behaviour. Such is the case with trivia sections, which, although technically allowed, are undesirable and not present in good articles. Wikiguidelines are quite clear on this point. Arguing in favour of trivia sections is, therefore, arguing in favour of mediocrity. We’re here to write good articles, not collect details we think are cute. Elcobbola 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some things that aren't forbidden are not appropriate or responsible. But some things that aren't forbidden are appropriate and responsible. I submit that trivia on Wikipedia is appropriate and responsible.

Trivia is interesting, and there's no reason to exclude interesting things. Most encyclopedias don't contain articles on TV shows either. Clearly this isn't a normal encyclopedia. - Shaheenjim 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is interesting is a subjective determination; the use of “interesting” as a criterion for inclusion, therefore, is both invalid and a violation of NPOV. The formal logic of “being interesting” warranting inclusion also implies that “being uninteresting” warrants exclusion; if Wikipedia really used your logic, we’d see a few million articles deleted. Although Wikipedia is certainly different than other encyclopedias in some areas (e.g. range of topics covered), that does absolve it from the need for good articles with relevant/notable content. Elcobbola 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The trivia guidelines specify that trivia should be integrated into the body or presented as a narrowly-focused list. This guideline against "general miscellaneous information" is reiterated in Trivia and lists. I like trivia more than the next guy (Did you know that it was Brian Baumgartner's idea that his character's fiancée is always out of town?), but I also understand Wikipedia is not the place for it. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an Office fan site.-- Raymondc0 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I was mistaken, let me repeat: Notes=Trivia. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Elcobbola: If the article said the trivia was interesting, that'd be an unnecessary violation of the NPOV. But just including things that are interesting isn't unreasonably POV. To claim otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia's rule that says that people should use common sense. And that rule trumps other rules.

Also, just because we should include interesting things doesn't mean we should exclude uninteresting things.

Also, notability is the criteria for entire articles. Not for each sentence in every article.

Raymondc0: I'm not saying people can't integrate trivia into the body. (Although I actually think that style guideline is dumb, and trivia is better in its own section.) I'm just saying you shouldn't delete it altogether.

Also, the difference between Wikipedia and a fan site is that fan sites can include fan created content, opinions, and discussion of the show. I'm not suggesting we include any of that in Wikipedia. I'm just suggesting we include interesting factual trivia from the show. - Shaheenjim 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"I think we should have it" would work if the Wikipedia guidelines say "If most people think Wikipedia should have it, then it's okay." But that's not what the guidelines say, so the argument is specious. "Because the guidelines are dumb" is insufficient grounds for violating the guidelines. -- Raymondc0 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we should violate Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm pointing out that trivia doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines. - Shaheenjim 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement

In the notes section, it says the following: "When Pam asks Jim why his Second Life avatar has a guitar strapped on his back, Jim gives a blank stare, implying that he does not know how to play. However, in E-mail Surveillance, a guitar can clearly be seen in his room." I don't believe Jim was implying that he does not know how to play. I realize this is purely a judgement call, but it just seems to me that he's just embarassed with all of Pam's questions about his avatar, and was apparently unprepared for her to be so interested in him. Maybe he was hurt because she hadn't realized he played guitar since she clearly could have seen it in the aforementioned episode. In either case, it's ultimately inconclusive and therefore unneeded.

Also, Pam doesn't ask Jim why he has a guitar; she notices that he has a guitar slung on his back and says "I did not know you played guitar." So if these things ring true for anyone else then perhaps a revision is needed, on one or both accounts.Larphenflorp (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)