Talk:Pam Beesly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current The Office Collaboration of the month!
Please help to improve it so eventually it can be the same quality as an ideal Wikipedia article.
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] Last name: Beesly vs. Beesley

Variations on the spelling of Pam's surname. I've created redirects from the different spellings. Mrtea (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New link to the variations comments I was looking at using one consistent spelling but after seeing that I don't think it matters - the show itself just isn't consistent about it. Pavv 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved "Pam Beesley" back to "Pam Beesly" per IMDB spelling of character name, and fixed all links (including those which I laboured over to make non-redirects, thinking the correct spelling was actually "Beesley" until doing some research. Sheesh). Please note that "MySpace" is NOT a reliable source. Wavy G 09:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MySpace is a reliable source because it is edited by Jenna Fischer who plays Pam. IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-edited. --theDemonHog 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure because the NBC Media Village lists Pam as Beesly. --theDemonHog 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The comments and the discussion boards on IMDB are user edited, but the name listings are considered official. One source--Jenna Fischer's MySpace page--lists the spelling as "Beesley." That does not make it official. NBC spells it "Beesly" [1], TV.com spells it "Beesly" [2], IMDB spells it "Beesly" [3]. These are considered "reliable" sources--again, MySpace is not (even if it was created by the actress who plays her). The article itself claims " In her Myspace blog, Jenna confirmed that the correct spelling is Beesly." Wavy G 08:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Moved it back again. Wavy G
IMDb and TV.com are not reliable but if Jenna admitted that she spelled it wrong, then okay. --theDemonHog 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Anderson

Pam's fiance's last name was Anderson, which means that if she had married him, her name would've been Pamela Anderson. Mike Payne seems to think that's not worth noting, but I thought it was the best note in the article. The sort of thing that people would find interesting, but wouldn't have noticed from watching the show, and would need wikipedia to tell them. Anybody else agree? Shaheenjim 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't know, note that Pamela Anderson is the name of a famous actress. That's why it's noteworthy. Shaheenjim 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff != encyclopedia. For "interesting" stuff, try Dunderpedia. Not picking on Pam specifically; this is a common problem with the Office-related pages. Too fan-focused and not encyclopedic. -- Raymondc0 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not some interesting fan-related thing. It's a fact from the show. Exactly the sort of thing that should be in encyclopedias. Also, I checked out Dunderpedia's article on Pam, and it couldn't be less interesting. Shaheenjim 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of facts from the show. Doesn't mean they all go into Wikipedia. If you think Dunderpedia is so lame, why don't you go help get it off the ground? -- Raymondc0 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to put all the facts from the show into Wikipedia. But I think we should put in all of the facts from the show that people would find interesting, but wouldn't have noticed from watching the show, and would need wikipedia to tell them. There aren't very many of them. It's practical to include them all. And I see no reason to expand Dunderpedia when we already have articles about The Office on wikipedia. -- Shaheenjim 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it didn't happen. That's like saying "If John F. Kennedy hadn't died he would've ran for a second term." in the JFK article or "If America lost the war we would live in a Nazi prison state." That's like saying "if Pam didn't reject Jim, they would've been going out for a year." There's no point in stating the end result of a hypothetical situation. It could be a fact, but it's frivolous information. Just because you put two and two together and you think it's interesting, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. --EXV // + @ 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is different from the examples you cited because this is interesting, and your examples are obvious and dumb. Also, I didn't put two and two together myself in this case. I hadn't realized what her name would be until I read it in Wikipedia, and when I did I was glad that it was on Wikipedia, which is why I'm keeping it on Wikipedia. - Shaheenjim 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it being "obvious and dumb" is your opinion. Also "Pamela Anderson" being interesting is also your opinion, which you have yet to find someone who agrees with you. Which is why I'm keeping it off Wikipedia. --EXV // + @ 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? With that rationale you could delete everything, and when people object, you could say that the fact that they think the article was interesting was just their opinion. And I assume that the person who originally posted it agrees that it was worth posting. And are you seriously disputing the fact that it is obvious that JFK would've run for a second term if he hadn't died? - Shaheenjim 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll re-explain. No, I'm not disputing that JFK would run for a second term. I'm saying that it's an obvious conclusion of a hypothetical situation, that is unencyclopedic in nature, that doesn't need to be mentioned in his article. You said that my example is "obvious and dumb." I'm applying your opinion to your allegedly interesting fact about Pamela Anderson.
Wikipedia is about consensus. If no one agreed with me OF COURSE I couldn't keep deleting, if no one agrees with me. When I look at the history of this page, the "Pamela Anderson" comment has been reverted many times by different people. [4] [5]

[6] I don't see anyone on your side (here on the talk page). If, as you said, this is a "fact people find interesting," then how come no one is agreeing with you.

Now, am I disputing that JFK would run for a second term? No. Should it be mentioned? No, probably not. I'm merely stating the rationale for facts/conclusions being "interesting" was originally a statement by you. If I don't agree, I can use your rationale you used to remove the info because I find it "obvious and dumb." Except in my case, I have consensus.--EXV // + @ 16:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested to know where she's ever been referred to as Pamela, because Pamela Anderson is not even known as Pam, and Pam Beesly is not known as Pamela, another reason why the Pamela Anderson comment should not be there. -Mike Payne 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. She might never have been explicitly referred to as Pamela on the show. But Pam is a common nickname for Pamela. - Shaheenjim 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And now we have a source. As if the fact that a woman named Pam is actually called Pamela is worth noting, but the fact that she might have been called Pamela Anderson is not worth noting. The world has gone mad. - Shaheenjim 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though I provided the source, I still maintain that this information is non-encyclopedic. -- Raymondc0 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just having an entry on a TV character is non-encyclopedic. This isn't a normal encyclopedia. It needs slightly different rules. If there's a fact about the show that's interesting and isn't obvious, it should be included, even if it is trivia. Just because it's the sort of thing that would interest the sort of person who would read this page. That's what the standard should be. - Shaheenjim 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing an encyclopedia with a fan site. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not interestingness. -- Raymondc0 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the same as the conversation we had on the 9th. Fan sites would include fan generated material. That's not what this is. It's a fact from the show. - Shaheenjim 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all interesting facts are notable. And this is fan-generated material. The fact was never stated on the show. It was inferred by fans. (In fact, Roy's last name has never been stated on the show.) -- Raymondc0 04:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to put all the interesting facts from the show into Wikipedia. But I think we should put in all of the interesting facts from the show that people wouldn't have noticed from watching the show, and would need wikipedia to tell them. There aren't very many of them. It's practical to include them all.
Also, if you know her name is Pam, and you know his last name is Anderson, then you shouldn't need the show to tell you explicitly that her name will be Pamela Anderson if she marries him and takes his name. It's like, if the show said that Pam had three apples, and the show said that Roy had four apples, then you could list on wikipedia that Pam and Roy together had seven apples without needing the show to explicitly mention the number seven.
Roy's name might not have been mentioned on the show itself, but I assume it was mentioned in a press release or something. - Shaheenjim 13:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This falls under the category of non-encyclopedic trivia, please do not replace it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't say trivia is non-encyclopedic, does it? I think it just says to try to integrate trivia into the main body of the article, which this does. What her last name would have been seems no less encyclopedic than anything else in this article. (Most encyclopedias don't have articles on characters from TV shows, but this isn't a typical encyclopedia.) Anyway, I put more context about his last name into the article, so hopefully this'll be a more encyclopedic entry. - Shaheenjim 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles --EXV // + @ 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That proves my point. Did you read the article? Maybe you just read the article's title, and then misunderstood it. Like I said before, Wikipedia policy doesn't say to remove trivia, "it just says to try to integrate trivia into the main body of the article, which this does." When it says avoid trivia sections, it means that you should avoid putting it all in one section. It doesn't mean you should avoid the trivia. Here's a direct quotation from that policy article: "Don't simply remove such sections, it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion." - Shaheenjim 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt change the fact that no one agrees with you about it's place in this article. you've failed to get one person to agree with you Wikipedia:Concensus EXV // + @ 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I assume that the person who originally added that information to the article agrees that it should be added. Second, the number of people who disagree with me is also pretty small. The fact that it's larger than one does not negate the fact that it's still small. Third, wikipedia's policy on consensus says that if there is a dispute, it is to be resolved through discussion. So what exactly is your dispute with the Pamela Anderson comment? You disagreed with it on the grounds that wikipedia isn't supposed to have trivia, but I just showed that is allowed to have trivia. So what are you arguing now? Consensus? Is your latest argument that it shouldn't be added because there is not consensus that it should be added? That's circular logic. It doesn't make sense. What is the original, underlying reason for the lack of consensus about whether or not it should be added? - Shaheenjim 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake. Why don't you reread the entire discussion.
  • First of all, it's not encyclopedic.
  • Your opinion of it being interesting is not enough
  • It is original research
  • You can't assume the original poster agrees. He posted it, it was taken down (with reason). Maybe he read the reason, and he agrees with it. which is why he *didn't* put it back up.
And all of this doesn't really matter because you've been blocked for going against concensus. --EXV // + @ 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The block didn't last forever. Sweet of you to check up on me, though. I didn't know you cared.
The only rationale people have given for it not being encyclopedic is that it's trivia, and trivia isn't encyclopedic. But as I've demonstrated, Wikipedia's policy allows for trivia. It just recommends that it shouldn't be in its own separate section.
It's not original research. In the previous edit I cited the source for Roy's last name. The episode Conflict Resolution. Unless, are you saying that the fact that Roy's last name is Anderson is not original research, and the fact that Pam's first name is Pam is not original research, but it is original research to say that as a result of that, Pam's name would be Pamela Anderson if she married Roy and took his last name? That's not original research. It's not any kind of research. You shouldn't need to do research to figure that out. It's common sense.
Even if we don't know for sure that the original poster agrees that it's worth posting, I think it's much more likely than not. I find it hilarious that you think that's worth debating. But it doesn't matter anyway. - Shaheenjim 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In season 4 episode 1 at 20:30 she says, "almost marrying roy anderson is as close to being pamela anderson as I ever want to be" 128.61.77.68 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) HA! - Shaheenjim 01:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pam's age

How old is Pam? I've been watching this page for a week or two, and I've seen people change her age several times. Sometimes to 24, sometimes to 27, sometimes to 28, and on multiple occasions for some of those. Can somebody cite a source and end this argument? - Shaheenjim 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunder Mifflin

Just making a note that I changed the instances of "Dunder-Mifflin" in this article to read "Dunder Mifflin" (no hyphen) to coincide with the Dunder Mifflin article and etc. Fieryrogue 19:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article organization

i think this article should be organized more like Hiro Nakamura or Jack Shephard. The coworker relations can be simplified with more info going into her bio. so that's what i'm gonna do. --EXV // + @ 05:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] < noinclude > mistake in infobox

In the infobox on this page, < noinclude > (but without the spaces between the <>'s) appears after her name at the very top. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? It isn't physically written out as "< noinclude >" in the text, so I need someone to figure that one out. - Spyke1077 06:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Since I'm rather stupid at this whole Wikipedia thing and can't do it myself... The references at the bottom show next to the episodes that the show is on ABC whilst it is actually on NBC. 155.47.147.97 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Summeree 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drives a Toyota Yaris hatchback?

Why is this level of detail necessary? The only important point is that she gets a new car as part of her "fancy new Beesley" campaign. Acsenray (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)