Talk:Michael Scott (The Office)

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] michael scott aspergers syndrome

Aspergers could possibly explain his social ineptness so could the possibility that hes a robot powered by steam and pioleted by a monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.237.233 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long

I can't believe this page exists in its current state. I'm nowhere near a big enough fan of the show to fix this but this page essentially summarizes the entire show. His personality and work demeanor can be summarized without literally dozens of examples. Anyone want to tackle this? Colte94 07:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As a fan of the show I enjoyed reading it, but it in no way resembles an encyclopedia article. It should probably be about half as long and better organized. The problem is the copious number of examples given, many of which aren't even relevant to the topic that they're in (particularly in the management style section). I also think the last three sections could be eliminated (characters and behind the scenes could be summarized in one sentence, comparison to david brent is unnecessary/perhaps original research). While I'd be happy to help fixing the article, this involves big enough changes that I'd like to hear what other people think first. Your thoughts?--Cms479 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I believe (as do many others on Wikipedia) that articles about TV show characters should only discuss a broad overview of what their character is. For example, this article should mention that Michael Scott is annoying, socially inept, and yet a good salesman. However, articles like this should not get into details that are only mentioned in one episode, such as Michael needing to repeat the second grade, etc. The problem I have found here (I tried fixing up the American Dad and Family Guy pages) is that you have a bunch of fans of the show simply reverting any changes and keeping the pages WAY too long. I will give it a shot and see what happens, because this article is ridiculously long. Squeemu (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed it down a bit. It still seems way too long, but it's a start. I didn't want to get delete happy, but I feel that everything I deleted was either a useless thing to mention on here, or mentioned way too many times. An incident with a waitress from Benihana was mentioned TWICE and I don't think it should have even been mentioned once! Squeemu (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hair

Should a note be mentioned about his hair? (Perhaps this talk page is the appropriate place). During the first season, his hair was combed back, giving him a somewhat "balding" look. With the advent of The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Carell becoming more recognizable, his hairstyle on the Office changed to a standard brush-to-the-side to increase recognizability. Personally, I think that this change affects the manner in which the character is portrayed, but heck, who else even noticed?!

  • Well spotted! I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out, but i did notice 'something different' about him in the second season. Of course being a guy i couldn't figure out what it was, but well done. Yeah i'd make a note, thats an interesting piece of info. THE KING 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.31.106 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License plate numbers?

Michael's license plate numbers seems way too minute for inclusion in a Wikipedia. I took them out. If anybody can think of a reason why such information is of interest to anybody beyond minutia collectors, well, put them back. SnappingTurtle 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll dig them out tomorrow - I included them to show continuity errors within the show. --Mrmiscellanious 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they should be included. If it was one plate number for the whole series, that wouldn't be worth noting. But the fact that it changed is a little interesting. - Shaheenjim 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the fact that it changes is an argument against mentioning it. It demonstrates that the producers simply don't care about that level of detail, so why should we? (Besides, are continuity errors really "notable"? Unless they interfere with the topic, they're about as insignificant as things get.) -- Raymondc0 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because the producers screwed it up doesn't mean they didn't care about it. For example, one assumes that Paris Hilton's parents cared about her. At least a little.
And I'd say continuity errors are notable. Lots of people find them interesting. Lists of them are pretty common. - Shaheenjim 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting != notable. I doubt anybody will write a thesis on "Continuity errors in The Office." -- Raymondc0 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Some notable things aren't interesting. But I'd actually say that all interesting things are notable. People might not write a scientific paper with a thesis on it, but it's common to have websites about it. Plus, it's not like people are writing a thesis about anything else from this article. So that's not the standard. - Shaheenjim 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"All interesting things are notable" is a position not shared by Wikipedia. The word "interesting" appears nowhere in the the Wikipedia criteria for notability. -- Raymondc0 21:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What you linked to was a guideline for whether or not the *topic* of an article is notable. But we're not discussing the article's topic. We're discussing a single sentence in an article. - Shaheenjim 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That notwithstanding, I think that unless the license plate is significant in some way, mentioning it is pure trivia. It carries no significance and is not encyclopedic. -- Raymondc0 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's trivia, but that doesn't mean it's insignificant, and it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's guildlines specifically say trivia is ok. It just shouldn't be in its own section. And it isn't here. So there's no problem. - Shaheenjim 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sexual orientation?

Is there any doubt as to what Michael's sexual orientation is? The statement - "at 42, Michael is still single, but says he "does all right," presumably with women" -- is misleading. Man-crush on Ryan aside, nothing I've seen suggests that Michael may be other than a lonely straight guy.

  • Yea he's dated Jan off and on for over a year plus after the events off Gay Witch Hunt he's straight.--68.220.111.227 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salary

What would you say is Michael Scott's salary? - Htra0497 23:32 19 June 2006 (AET)

I think it is 80,000 for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.86.110 (talk) 21:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

No way. 80,000 would be pretty good, and his salary is supposed to be laughable. I'd say 50,000 before his raise. - Shaheenjim 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

$50,000 per year sounds approximately correct, because he asks the accountants to "find in the numbers" about $50,000 on the day he has to fire someone (who ends up being Devon). and we know that he "barely makes more than" Darryl from the horse's mouth as it were (Michael shows him a paystub, and that is his reaction). However, since it is TOO inconclusive, it should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

Is Michael 42 or 43, what episode did he say he was 42 and was it before or after his birthday, i remember him saying it I just don't know what episode it was thanks.--68.220.108.46 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much fancruft?

I think there's too much fancruft. For example, most of "management style" is really a play-by-play of the character arc. The "Characters of Michael Scott" section seems gratuitous. (Only Michael Scarne is notable; the others are one-episode jokes.) And the "Comparison with David Brent" feels like independent research. Do others agree or is it just me? I'll try to reorganize it regardless, but I think it's too much. -- Raymondc0 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's way too much junk in this article overall. I tried to improve it, but it's very flawed. Enigmaman (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dunder Mifflin

I am going through several articles and changing instances of "Dunder-Mifflin" to "Dunder Mifflin" (no hyphen) as it is the proper "spelling" of the company name (see Talk page at Dunder Mifflin). Just leaving a note to say that I've gone through this page. :) Fieryrogue 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Why was the page name changed to "Michael Gary Scott"? Wikipedia guidelines specify that the page name should be the name by which the person is most commonly known, and Michael Scott's middle name is almost never used. -- Raymondc0 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make "Michael Gary Scott" redirect to "Michael Scott (The Office)" instead. C1k3 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That's that. C1k3 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that it would be good to be bold. My apologies for the inconvenience and distress caused. Ayavaron 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Ayavaron. Initiative is a good thing. --Milton 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College Degree?

I'm not sure whether Michael has a college degree. Sometimes it seems like he does, and I remember seeing a diploma that is framed in his office. Can anyone confirm?--Irutavias 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article under "Education". I think you're mistaking his Seyko Watch certificate for a diploma. -- Raymondc0 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Darryl asks him where he went to college "again" before they left (with Pam and Oscar) for the high school career day. He quickly ignored the question and changed the subject. We know for sure that he has no education beyond the undergraduate level in any case, as Ryan is in business school, and Michael admits he never went. He tries to compensate by "being street smart." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelscott.jpg

Image:Michaelscott.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed relationship with Pam

The last episode, Dinner Party, shows that Michael told Jan that he once was in a relationship with Pam. That seems like a pretty important part of that character, but I have no idea where to add it as this article has a few places for that.--DeviantCharles (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pam has repeatedly refuted this. Jan confronted her on it in "Fun Run," too. She has always shown disgust with respect to physical dealings with Michael (like when she lets her hair down and then gets creeped out by his reaction or when he tells her to come in when he's changing his pants). In other words, in his dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Education is biased

The education section is quite biased against michael and contains unsourced information, such as it being said a talk about politics would no doubt leave him in a state of confusion. While that may or may not be true, its unsourced, and obviously just someones personal view of his. This section needs to be much more neutral, because while basically he is a bit of an idiot at times, saying he is mentally challenged is out of line, and again, unsourced.58.106.107.55 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)