Talk:The Office (American TV series)/Archive 4

Inconsistencies
Is it worth mentioning the inconsistencies between the actual show and the in-character blogs?

Example:

In one blog entry Dwight talks about how people shouldn't be afraid of robots, and how they're helpful. Yet in the actual show it's quite apparent that Dwight is constantly talking about the coming war between humanity and robotics.

Also, in one entry Dwight talks about how he doesn't believe in Werewolves, yet in one episode he distinctly brings up an incident where he shot a werewolf.

Also, I've heard that many of the blogs are no longer maintained by the actors themselves, and have since been taken over by the writers for The Office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.46.33 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter references
There are several peculiar references to Harry Potter that keep popping up in this series. Is this a holdover from it starting as a British show? For instance in "The Convict", Prison Mike is asked what the worst thing was about prison and he answered "the dementors." In "Beach Games" Dwight named his team Gryffindor whle Jim named his Voldemort. In "Money" Jim has Dwight read Harry Potter for a bedtime story for he and Pam during their stay at Schrute farms. I'm sure there's others that I'm not thinkning of. These just seem like odd (but funny) references. I was just curious.

Those must be British references, because I've never heard of Harry Potter. Jarrettmoffatt (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * huh? Anyway, the Harry Potter references are mostly centered around Dwight.  Enigma  msg! 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jarrettmoffatt, the Harry Potter books are a huge phenomenon worldwide. Wikipedia says: "The success of the novels has made Rowling the highest-earning novelist in history." Alpheus (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How the hell have you not heard of Harry Potter? - 99.237.18.45 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on guys, he was obviously joking. Using Harry Potter wasn't a British reference, it's a Nerd reference, just like using Battlestar Galactica. The above poster was trying to get that point across with sarcasm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.118.201 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In "The Fire", Dwight chooses a Harry Potter book as one of the books he'd take with him to a "desert island." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.52.101 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter is the childhood name of Henry Potter, a character from "It's a Wonderful Life." By the time he's old, he's a warped frustrated old man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.177.159 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearing out and pairing down
This page is a little too long, some things need to be take off this page and put onto the episode specific pages.

Also I would like to propose amending the "awards and nominations" section to just awards. Three Emmys, a golden globe and several writers guild awards, I think the nominations are just superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.117.88 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Selected Fansites"
Hello i have a new fan site that i would love to be added to the fan site section i will be updating it regularly and i will put everything the office on it. Check it out if you want i would like it added to the fansite section. http://theofficeonnbc.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizong (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please wait until your site becomes popular before proposing adding it to the fan sites list. Wikipedia is not for promoting your web site. The other linked-to sites have very high prominence. Office Tally and Northern Attack, for example, are cited by the actors themselves in interviews as good sources of information. -- Raymondc0 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ok i will thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizong (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that http://www.jellostapler.com be added as a fansite listing. It is unique over other fan sites in that it gives content in a specific area related to the show - putting people's objects in jell-o. This is content that would not be typically found on other fan sites. It has been running over a year, gets 2 to 3 emails from fans with stuff in jell-o photos, participated in the office alliance summer scavenger hunt, and is featured on many blogs and websites. - theofficefan 67.101.255.123 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any responses to this, so I will add to the section. If you don't think the site qualifies, please discuss. 69.249.110.81 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)theofficefan
 * Start a discussion by creating a new section on talk page. This discussion is very old. Personally, I don't think your site is popular enough and warrants some discussion before it's added. 216.171.96.106 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The bar for being a fansite worth of inclusion is pretty high. Office Tally and Northern Attack are acknowledged by the cast and crew as quality fan sites, they've gotten shout-outs from the DVD commentaries, etc. The only other fan site I can think of that falls into this category is Give Me My Remote. If you can get Jenna Fischer to mention your blog, then you'll have a better case. -- Raymondc0 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just fixed a broken link in the External Links section. OfficeQuotes.net was linking to http://www.officequotesnetm/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.39.31.109 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested to appear on main page
Hi, seeing as the season will be starting on the 27, I requested this article to appear on the front page in late September or early October (27 was taken). Show support by voting at Today's featured article/requests and go here to see a preview. Try to clean-up the page as I see that it has a few tags which is not something people will want to say represents the best of Wikipedia. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A page does not just get granted featured article status. Some people must have worked hard for it.  Even if you didn't, wouldn't you like to see it on the front page.  It needs votes, so go support my date request.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairness of tone
I think the first line needs to be moved. Per WP:NPOV's fairness of tone, yes, it is true that the show has won awards, but we kind of cast a biased impression of an article if the first thing we do is talk about how great it is. That is why WP:LEAD says that "basic" information comes in the first paragraph, and that you establish the article's "impact" in the second (or later, if you have multiple) paragraph. It also doesn't help that it is biased toward Emmy's and Peabody, when there were other awards that it was nominated for, and won.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is any award that the article should be "biased" towards for a TV show The Emmy is it. I think it sets context well to illustrate why the show is notable. Agree The Peabody reference should move.Kevin Crossman 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this belong in the Cultural References section?
The Office will feature various allusions to another branch in the city of Utica, New York during the fourth season. Here's the citation:. It it a valid source?--24.59.155.203 00:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like a valid source, but until it is actually incorporated into the story line, I don't think there's any point in including it in the article. Keep an eye out!  Yavoh 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Karen
The episode "Fun Run" does not say what her status is, only her desk is cleared out. While a logical guess would be she quit, Wikipedia needs confirmation from a source (in this case, the episode) and the episode left it unanswered as to what exactly happened to Karen. For all we know, she transferred to another branch and never told anyone else. 68.23.8.50 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree as Karen was a vital piece of season 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.166.68 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunder Mifflin name
It doesn't seem like the paragraph about the "Dunder Mifflin" name should be in the Casting section.--198.82.97.118 11:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apple ostensibly over pricing
Under the online heading, the article states, "Sales of new The Office episodes on iTunes ceased at the end of Summer 2007 due to a dispute between NBC and Apple ostensibly over pricing." This leads the reader to beleive that NBC pulled the episodes due to Apple over pricing. The source states that NBC wanted to raise the price of each episode from $1.99 to $4.99 and apple was against this. This should probably be fixed.

Kuka18 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There were dueling press releases between Apple and NBC over who wanted to raise prices. Neutral wording appears most prudent here. -- Raymondc0 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Im fine with that if thats the case, but shouldn't the other source appear as a footnote?

Kuka18 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a link. -- Raymondc0 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodes
Fellows fans, It seems silly to have to update the number of episodes every week a new one airs. I'm not sure how other TV shows deal with this, but we are a special breed of TV watcher, so I'm sure we can come up with a better solution. Perhaps we could put the number of episodes at the total number including all of season 4? Your thoughts, or suggestions?--Cms479 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

JelloStapler.com as Selected Fan Site
I would like to propose that http://www.jellostapler.com be added as a fansite listing.

Pros - Original Content, No Other Fan Sites Concentrate on Jim's Prank (There are fan sites regarding quotes, episode reviews, fan fiction, actors, actresses).

- Has proven itself, has been up over a year, with 2 to 3 fans emailing in pictures of jello every week.

- Is part of the office alliance, coordinating things with the bigger blogs such as LITO, OfficeTally.

- Was invited to the blogger's breakfast at The Office Convention.

Responses

- "Not Popular Enough", Sure I probably don't get the amount of traffic as LITO or OfficeTally, but then again, I don't target every single keyword related to The Office. I get a steady 600 to 800 visitors a week, and dedicate fans emailing me every week.

- Also have connections with NBC Universal and their agencies discussing some promotion ideas.


 * Original Discussion -


 * I would like to propose that http://www.jellostapler.com be added as a fansite listing. It is unique over other fan sites in that it gives content in a specific area related to the show - putting people's objects in jell-o. This is content that would not be typically found on other fan sites. It has been running over a year, gets 2 to 3 emails from fans with stuff in jell-o photos, participated in the office alliance summer scavenger hunt, and is featured on many blogs and websites. - theofficefan 67.101.255.123 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any responses to this, so I will add to the section. If you don't think the site qualifies, please discuss. 69.249.110.81 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)theofficefan


 * Start a discussion by creating a new section on talk page. This discussion is very old. Personally, I don't think your site is popular enough and warrants some discussion before it's added. 216.171.96.106 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Discussion

I would like to propose we NOT add it, as it is not a notable site, and WP is not your advertising agency. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 04:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually kinda like that website. It's a little off beat and provides different content compared to the major fan site hubs that link and tag everything related to the office. If not in the selected fan sites, there should be a fan site section. I also enjoy http://mtt.just-once.net/ with it's focus on Jim and Pam on the office as well. 67.101.79.198 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does a website need to look professional to be considered a selected fan site? This has more of a fan site feel than a professional feel. JelloStapler is listed on AOL's selected fan sites for The Office. That is how I found out about the site, and occasionally go back to see what new things in Jello people are doing! I think Any Office fans would get a kick out of this site that they wouldn't get out of any other fan sites. However, the other sections of their website isn't as strong as their main purpose (stuff in jello) 67.101.28.18 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Mrtea (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I concur with K. Scott Bailey above Mrtea (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

iTunes
No mention of how iTunes saved The Office? 129.120.22.130 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Be Bold when editing! — Yavoh 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Geographical References
I'm putting this here since it was removed from the main page by 129.120.22.130. — Yavoh 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dwight has on his office cabinet a bumper sticker promoting Froggy 101, a country music radio station in Scranton, and on his desk are bobble-head dolls from the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons baseball team (which has since been renamed to Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees, after becoming affiliated with the New York Yankees). As a matter of fact, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees logo can be seen on the vending machine.

A bobble-head doll of former Syracuse University basketball player Gerry McNamara, who is from Scranton and attended Bishop Hannan High School, also sits on Dwight's desk. Due to his gritty play that helped lead the Orange to their first National Championship in 2003 and Scranton's relatively close proximity to Syracuse, NY, he has become a legend at both the University and a local hero in Scranton.

Other references to the geography and culture of greater Scranton include Lackawanna County, Lackawanna Coal Mining Tour, Poor Richard's Pub, Farley's, Connell Park, Carbondale, Dickson City, Lake Wallenpaupack, The Mall at Steamtown, radio station Rock 107, the Boston Market in Stroudsburg, the Montage Mountain Performing Arts Center, Bishop O'Hara High School, Dunmore High School, and the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins hockey team. Noteworthy departures from this accuracy are occasional mentions of and visits to Chili's, Hooters, and Benihana restaurants, none of which have franchises in the immediate area.

In the third season, a University of Scranton kerchief is draped over the cubicle wall behind Pam's desk.

The show has put the entire Wyoming Valley region of Northeastern Pennsylvania in a positive light. Many of the props with local ties (such as the Froggy 101 sticker prominently displayed) are sent to the producers by local companies, and thus far the producers of the show have happily obliged in including them in the show.

WP:MOS cleanup
I just did a lot of cleanup; is anyone still watching this article? Please see WP:DASH, WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSLINK, WP:OVERLINK, WP:MOS and WP:UNITS. There are quite a few unformatted citations; please see WP:CITE/ES and complete the remaining blue links. More attention is needed to correcting issues with seasons, as the article frequently refers to Fall, Summer, etc. (although it shows in the USA as well as Australia, opposite seasons). Also, there were numerous external jumps to blogs within the text; please see WP:EL. Those blogs are appropriate on each actor's individual page, and external jumps belong in External links. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good eye, SandyGeorgia - I think I'll take a look at this article and see what I can clean up (both from a MOS standpoint and simply working with the text.) Reading through it again, I worry that this article would lose FA status if sent to review. - Chardish (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Inter-racial relationships in The Office
comment removed; talk pages are not internet forums. If you can find material that supports your position and should be included in the article, please do so, otherwise, the talk pages are not the place to voice opinions about the show itself. Thank you - Chardish (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rating
I removed the "rated TV-14" logo from the page proper, as ratings are assigned per-episode and have even been shown to change on subsequent airings. Furthermore, as a voluntarily assigned rating, the rating serves as a parental guideline and does not identifiably impact the show. - Chardish (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam in The Office articles
I invite contributors to the WikiProject discussion page for a short post I made about external links in episode articles. Mrtea (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Character Listings
I'm sorry, but shouldn't the character listings be updated, or even taken out completely? For example, Ryan Howard is no longer a temporary worker, but a Vice President of Regional Sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrarey (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * New positions are listed at Job Status Changes in the article. The character listings list the characters' original positions at the start of the series.  — Yavoh 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Job Status Changes section and incorporated those changes into the season synopses. Lists of information are rarely as appropriate as integrating information into the text of the article. - Chardish (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I admire your optimism. That section was added specifically because people kept "updating" the character listing (in good faith); having a separate section helped focus the misguided efforts. We'll see if your theory works. -- Raymondc0 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

International Broadcasts
I had attempted earlier to eliminate country-specific references in this section, but my action was reverted by another editor. Do we need to know why Portugal (or any other country in the world) broadcasts The Office at 4:30AM? In my humble opinion, Wikipedia is not the place for this type of detailed, nearly-random information, although general references are okay. What do you guys think? Mwlin1 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the details of when each country airs The Office is not encyclopedic in nature. -- Raymondc0 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackberries and product placement
Are the blackberries in season 4 an example of product placement initiated by RIM (the blackberry company) or the sort inserted by writers a la the iPod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.197.105 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

i don't like how it says "unlike many other shows" and then "unlike many other producers" right after another —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.32.18 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

British spelling
British English spelling is rampant in this article, especially in sections such as "Improvisation." According to Wikipedia's policies on British and American English differences, the country with which the article's subject is most closely associated should have its standards of spelling and grammar applied to the article. I'm bringing this up now because there will be complaints that The Office originated in the U.K. and British English variations should be used; however, since this article pertains to the United States version, American spelling should be the standard. Ashley {talkback} 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is about time some consensus was set, despite the age of this article. policy suggests that it shouldn't be changed without good reason. Sadly, there is no mid-Atlantic version of English, so I'd suggest that the status quo and common-sense should prevail, and it should stay in British English unless someone can come up with compelling reasons to take the time to change it, given that this time could be spent improving other articles. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ashley is correct. I think the UK English results from UK editors adding stuff, and policy is pretty clear about what version should prevail here ... it is the American version of a British original, as steeped in American workplace conventions and foibles as the British version was steeped in British work culture. Will address this in copy edit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues from a hard-copy edit
In connection with the ongoing FAR, I printed out a copy a couple of days ago and went through it with a red pen. It did not go unused.

It shows the results of a lot of inattention paid to it since achieving FA. The little tidbits added here and there by anonymous editors, some of whom do not seem to have first-language English skills, has hurt. The article, as the FAR notes, is losing focus.

Some of the larger issues, should anyone else want to keep them in mind for future review:


 * Lots of redundant wording, particularly the use of quotes to back up an assertion that immediately preceded them, without adding much to the statement. These can and should go in the quote= arguments in the footnotes.


 * Overuse of the introductory passive voice, something we get a lot, from college/high school anons who've had to read too many textbooks and assume that style is equally good for encyclopedias.


 * Run-on sentences, another consequence of anon or driveby editors just inserting stuff into an article knowing someone else will fix it.


 * Excessive detail in the season plot summaries, as indicated by the FAR. Fixing this by applying WP:SS will do wonders.

I will be spending this coming weekend going through the article section by section to fix these. We also need to find some new references to replace the dead links. It is my hope that we could bring it up to code in time for it to run on the Main Page on April 10, when new episodes resume. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely that this article will be today's featured article on April 10 because "Doomsday", an episode of Doctor Who, has been nominated for April 5. I recommend trying for May 15 (fourth season finale) or September 25 (fifth season premiere).  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure of Today's featured article nominations... why can't this be nominated for April 10 if Doomsday is going for April 5? Mrtea (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:TFA/R community and its director Raul654 enjoy variety. The last episode TFA was South Park ' s "Trapped in the Closet" on March 15, and some even believe that "Doomsday" is too soon after.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually beginning to think that the fourth-season finale would be better. The writing issues are easy to fix but there's quite a lot of unsourced info I'd like to keep that's going to take some time to find good info for (I'd like to have a reliable source for the Staples ad running right after Kevin rhapsodized about the glories of the shredder. A couple of blogs have mentioned it, but we can't use that).

In the meantime, I appreciate all the help we can get in keeping the gold star. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Afterward
It seems that I was able to trim about 7-8K from the article (mostly from the season synopses). Always good to slim things up. I have either purged or resourced everything that was a problem, save the dead links (which I'll work on tomorrow).

Two areas need some more work, though:


 * The "improvisation" and "deleted scenes" sections are short and really don't need to be separate sections. Perhaps we could find some way to put them somewhere else? Some sort of section on production of the show?


 * We need to have separate season episode list articles for seasons 2 and (yes) 4, for consistency's sake.
 * The season 1 article was just promoted to featured list status, I'm about to start on 2. I'll do 4 after the season's over, and I'll probably find a time to work in "The Accountants".  Mastrchf91 (t/c) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also am thinking of some sort of "impact" section where we could mention the political critique Graydon Carter makes that I linked below, and the show's pioneering status as one people watch as much online as on TV (it's mentioned in several other sources). This deserves more mention than it gets in this article currently, and should even be mentioned in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the political section is out of place. It isn't at all significant.  This is just an opinion of a barely known columnist. It should be deleted as it can also be seen as offensive to some people.  It is blatanly biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.236.155 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the deletion. The section doesn't praise or dismiss the section, it only presents it in a NPOV.  The deletion you made represents a greater bias than that of the section itself.  Mastrchf91 (t/c) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Graydon Carter is notable. Vanity Fair is notable. End of discussion (and besides, I've heard a lot of other, non-notable people make the same observation). Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The theme song
Can't someone create an .ogg of, say, the piano part and then the first statement of the theme? It would be so much better than having an image of the printed music (which I'm not sure is free anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters
Just wondering what others thing of this. Other TV show pages have updated their character lists to deaths/vacancies of characters, and I believe that we should do the same with promotions and such. Opinions? Mastrchf91 (t/c) 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I don't edit on this page, I tend to agree with updating the character lists. It's been four seasons since the show started, and so I think people would be more confused if they saw the original character jobs, as opposed to what they have now. Just my opinion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and update them, then. If anyone has a disagreement, please don't only revert, discuss it here.  Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

After defeaturing
It was probably inevitable, and I think we need to address the issues raised by Collectonian in the last days of the FARC. I am working on adding sources for the writers and directors, but the awards are all completely unsourced. Someone who might know more about it than I do should put that information in there.

We really do need a lot more sources than we have. There are a hundred or so footnotes now ... I think we easily will require twice that. This article should not be allowed to sneeze without citing something.

I am looking at taking this to peer review by the end of the month once we have addressed every issue to the fullest extent possible. After that, any suggestions made in peer review will be addressed and this will be nominated for GA. Only after that can we return to FAC. Our target date is getting this on the Main Page on 9/27, the day of the US premiere of the fifth season. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add more citations to the awards section. I also noticed that the table only includes awards that show won, not nominations. I think that's all right since the article is already quite long, but do you think that there would be any benefit to creating a page similar to the awards list for Lost, which is a featured list? It would essentially include the info from the Office wiki page on the topic, but with sources. (I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but I have more time now and would like to help get this article back on track. It seems like you have a good sense of what needs to happen.) Calindigo (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that having all that cumulative information about directors and writers where it is now (near the top) is rather confusing. Wouldn't that be better off in the season synopses? Any thoughts? If not that's what I'll do. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference between US and other verions.
What is the difference between the US version and the rest? Maybe someone can write it up.Xbox999 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's already comparisons on the parent The Office article. No need to put that here. TheLetterM (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may ignore this section, this user is attempting to obfuscate a sockpuppet case by leaving a bunch of unrelated and irrelevant comments on the talk pages of American TV shows. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Fair
Doesn't belong in the article... what's the relevance? This is not a fact-based citation, it's a reference to an offshoot opinion of an editor of a relatively opinionated magazine. How does that add to this article; in fact it seems to detract from it somewhat by veering off in a separate direction. If creators or writers or exec. producers of the show wanted to comment to something of this effect, it would be relevant. DELETE. The John McCain stuff, in contrast, is documented fact. Bsharkey (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable editor. Notable magazine.  This is not the only source from which I've heard the correlations made.  Because it is in a section of commentary on the show, and the specific mention deals with current events, I'd say that it should undoubtedly be kept in the article.  Mastrchf (t/c) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization
I'd suggest that we reorganize the page, or at least move the casting section, for lack of a better word, "higher" in the page. There are references made to characters before these have even been introduced. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, agreed Bsharkey (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Just noting for everyone that, because a section has the title Miscellaneous, the section isn't simply trivia. Especially when the section is in prose form and contains multiple references. Mastrchf (t/c) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Product Placement Among Big 3
Staples in the first few seasons had a lot of product placement and Office Depot had mentions also. In season 4 did anyone find it interesting that the office was littered with Boise paper reams & cases, a company that OfficeMax owns. Was this paid placement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.127.129 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd presume it was. But I didn't really notice it, good eyes on your part. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox
This will definitely need to be discussed before hand, or else I will be eaten alive for doing this. Kind of ripped off from the Lost article, but since all these people technically have starring roles, I wasn't sure if this was appropriate or not. I do, however, realize the difference in starring roles in the actual main titles and the starring roles that just run over the beginning of the show. So I'm guessing a change like this is probably unnecessary. I am expecting the general consensus will be no, but I wasn't sure if anyone liked the idea.

The current infobox here, versus my proposed change in the infobox beneath it:

Hmm...Rashida Jones actually never was in the starring cast. Crap. Oh well. I await your criticism. - Spyke1077 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Postscript...I notice the 30 Rock article did something similar, i.e. as of season 2, Keith Powell, Lonny Ross, and Katrina Bowden have a starring credit immediately after the opening titles, and their names were added to the infobox.

So new ideas are:
 * Take out Rashida Jones, who was never given star billing, and thus unboldens (is that a word?) all the names
 * Throw away alphabetical order
 * Or keep the the original five stars in their opening titles order and have all the other names listed alphabetically

- Spyke1077 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather like the idea of all cast names in alphabetical order, regardless of "main" and "supporting" cast. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought that since they're technically starring cast, they qualified for the infobox. Does anyone else have any take on this? - Spyke1077 (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Camera Work
The first paragraph of the article notes that a "single-camera setup" is used for the program. This cannot be the case due to the way several of the episodes are edited to show many character's simultaneous reactions to a single event. This kind of editing, showing sequential footage of things that were filmed simultaneously, implies that there are multiple cameras in use. --65.60.173.204 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just listened to Oscar Nunez address a group, and he clearly stated that there are two cameramen, both of whom have backgrounds in nature photography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timcrall (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article for use
Here is an article from the New York Times that can be used:
 * A Major Promotion at ‘The Office’ --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Character articles need MAJOR cleanup
Most of the individual character articles consist almost entirely of in-universe plot summary and many contain original research. These violate core wikipedia policies. In the first instance, reliable third-party sources (not primary sources such as the episodes) need to be cited to demonstrate the notability of the character independent of the series. In all cases articles must approach fictional characters from a real world perspective. At present none of the character articles meet the Wikipedia Manual of Style (writing about fiction). 59.167.62.205 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Theme Song Entry
The following line is in the theme song section: "The theme song is a catchy tune that is a mixture of different beats contributed by each individual character."

There is no citation and it really doesn't make any sense, so I'm removing it until some explanation is given. Gogothingyman (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actor images
For anyone interested, Kristen of E! has released a set of free images of this series' actors.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to respond to this earlier, but thanks for the notice. Mastrchf (t/c) 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just wanted to notify the regular editors so that they could upload these images to "decorate" the page. :)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

party planning committee
Is there no mention of this in the article... why?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's a minor plot point that takes place in some episodes. If it were truly involved in major plot arcs, it would be, but for now, it's relegated to episode summaries on episode pages. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a recurring theme/joke. Numerous other television shows have these, so it only makes sense to include this.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, it is a recurring theme/joke, but it isn't integral to the plot. This page is just an overview of main plots and characters, and the individual episode pages and the character pages are where something such as this should remain.  Mastrchf (t/c) 15:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Director
The directors section is long, a too detailed. It needs to be like formatted better, maybe split some off into a paragraph about guest directors, like 	Joss Whedon, etc. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feel free to mess around with it.  The list form doesn't aid the article at all.  Mastrchf (t/c) 15:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloat in Cultural Effects?
Maybe it's just me, but when reading the article, I felt like that section could stand to be trimmed a bit. Namely, the final paragraph, where the article talks about the first convention. It seems unnecessary to me to include a full list of everybody from the show who made appearances, not to mention some people who didn't! I'd assume it's like that because nobody wanted to start the edit war of who to mention and who not to, but it looks sloppy to me. (I'm User:Hezekiah957, but not signed in). 146.151.52.23 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the first two paragraphs are fine, but I'd agree that the last can be trimmed. The list as you said could be removed quite readily, while losing nothing truly worthwhile from the article. I actually can't find that information in the reference, so I'm not sure that it's validated.  Mastrchf (t/c) 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Webisodes
Id just like to ask if someone could make a note about countries outside of the us can't actually watch the webisodes on NBC.com because of some "legalities related to national rights holders." I don't actually know the reason but that's what was said by a posted on the NBC msg boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.108.138 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre
I wanted put this in the talk page before making any edits. Does anyone else feel there's way too many genres listed? It just seems there's too many things describing what it is - it's a comedy. Calling it a dramedy is quite a stretch, sure there's some dramatic elements, but not enough to warrant it a comedy-drama. Pretty much all comedies/sitcoms have dramatic moments, that doesn't mean they're a dramedy. Romance is also unneeded...again, doesn't every show feature romance? Parody should be removed as well, since Mockumentary is also listed. The only genres that should be there are Comedy/Satire (whichever word you prefer) and Mockumentary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

UK broadcast
I swear it was first broadcast in the UK on BBC3. Anyone? U-Mos (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, the first season was originally broadcast on BBC3. Reference: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/tv/todays-tv/2005/06/14/foreign-office-115875-15627728/ -93.97.122.93 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis and Character Descriptions Miss the Point
As someone who has just started watching "The Office" (in reruns) and came here to find out more about the show and characters, I found the article to be not nearly as helpful as I think it could be. For example, the central gag of the series and every episode is Michael Scott's personality. On this - the main thing the show is about - the article has only half a sentence: "feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise." Surely there is more to say about him than that! I also feel like the article gives the other characters a very abbreviated treatment. Instead, it goes into excrutiating detail about who has had a romantic relationship with who, at every given moment in every season. "The Office" isn't a soap opera or a show about relationships; it is a comedy revolving around Michael Scott and his eccentric, oblivious-to-everyone personality. I think the character descriptions and synopsis should tell readers more about what makes the characters who they are, and how they contribute to the comedy, and dial way back on the romantic subplots. 74.2.251.122 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad citations
I have been reviving dead links in citations and I have come across some sources that may actually be taking away from the efforts to regain a GA status for this page. Case in point, in the section on product placement there is a mention of Hooters that cites http://brandspotters.com/brand.aspx?id=894. It seems to me that it would better serve this article to remove the Hooters comment as this citation is so blatantly from an unreliable source that it may sour those determining the status of this page. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://brandspotters.com/brand.aspx?id=870. Ibid. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Circular citations to uncited sub-articles
There are citations in the seasonal plot summaries to sub-articles for episodes in these seasons. However, many of these sub-articles have non-cited plot summaries. I am removing such citations as part of my cleanup as they are citing non-cited articles and therefore are not citations at all. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to hold off on this for a bit as I think this can be resolved by trimming the plot-summaries in the subarticle and only using information you can get from other episode guides online. This would mean that the plot summaries are not so detailed, but then they would be validly-sourced and the quality rating of the article could improve. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Erin Hannon
Link on main page to her profile doesn't work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.177.189 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a move to FOX?
While watching King of the Hill on FOX(08-18-09), i saw a commercial that showed NEW never before seen clips of the office saying "the office coming is fall, starting monday at 11pm" The scene was Dwight acting as if he was pregnant and giving birth in the office (no doubt practice for Pam). I was very surprised to see this, i would guess this is syndication and will only show reruns but WHY the new episode clips? A quick Bing search and i found NOTHING online... no info anywhere. Whats going on? Anybody hear anything?


 * Rerun. Lambertman (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's from an episode where Michael is planning for the birth of Jan's baby, with the help of Dwight. It's from season 4 or 5. 142.177.60.133 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name Dunder Mifflin
Have the creators ever discussed the origin of the name Dunder Mifflin? Because in the original version of The Night Before Christmas, the last two reindeer were called Dunder and Blixem. Just a coincy-dink or intentional? RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered this question at Talk:Dunder Mifflin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That just restates the trivia arrived at via the show itself. My question was whether the writers/producers themselves have ever discussed it in an interview. Dunder is not a common name, although being close to "blunder" might not be accidental. RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just wanted to let everyone know that I recently went to this page and saw that someone had edited it to say that it was "the worst tv show ever". I undid the edit, but i don't know if there's any other steps you guys wanted to take. Thanks! Xylogirl07 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the "Cultural Effects" section, someone also deleted the section on media watchdog group criticism of the office. How do you undo vandalism? Zach donaldson2 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Zach, it isn't vandalism -- the editor Ckatz gave his reason in the edit summary :"Please provide proof of multiple groups; we do not highlight single events, and please review WP:UNDUE"  At which point you should discuss the issue on this talk page instead of  reposting the paragraph in dispute a week later. To me the paragraph reeks of POV: "Media watchdog groups accuse 'The Office' of normalizing homosexual behavior in the culture at large. ... "   (doesn't the word 'accuse' imply there is something wrong with the normalizing...?) and the footnote links to a questionable source page. Perhaps someone more familiar with this article could rework this better than I can, or weigh in on whether it should be included at all.  PrBeacon (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And since no one has said anything in the week since, I have edited the paragraph down to one summary sentence and a quote. I just dont know if its noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. But I did find this link from AFA.net in Google's cache, as the original report is no longer available. PrBeacon (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OfficeTally
I thought I'd bring this here as this page is watched by more people than individual episode articles. I also notice that this site has been discussed here previously (discussion can be seen in the archives), but my concern is over the episode articles, not this article, which is what was being discussed previously. I have some concerns over the website "OfficeTally" which is being linked to in every single episode article from about midway through season 5 and many before then.

I have two concerns about this link. First, the site is a very popular fansite, however, any fansites should really be linked from this article, not the individual episode articles. It feels really spammy being on so many individual articles when it's just a fansite, not an information database like IMDB or an authoritative source like NBC. Second, all of the links go to discussion pages for each episode, which violates point 10 of WP:ELNO.

I just wanted to bring it here and see if there is some sort of consensus regarding this link on episode articles before removing them. --132 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How is Ken Kwapis involved? (If he is at all?)
Hello. I recently came to this article to find out more about Ken Kwapis, after reading elsewhere about his supposed connection to The Office (U.S. TV series). (From what I read, it seems his was an important part of the show as a creator and/or showrunner.) According to his own article, it just says "In 2005, Kwapis was part of the team responsible for bringing The Office to America...". I was surprised that there was barely a mention of him here. (Third paragraph under heading "Background": "Ken Kwapis liked the way Phyllis Smith, a casting associate, read with other actors auditioning so much that he cast her as Phyllis.") I am not a watcher of The Office so I know nothing about its history, so maybe what I read was incorrect or exaggerated. I think that at the very least, though, his role in the show should be briefly mentioned in that sentence so people know who he was, and why his opinion mattered. For example: "Director Ken Kwapis liked the way Phyllis Smith, a casting associate, read with other actors auditioning so much that he cast her as Phyllis." Just a suggestion. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ken Kwapis directed the pilot episode, so he was probably involved from the beginning along with the creator of U.S. version, Greg Daniels. He has directed several episodes throughout the first five seasons, and serves as a producer for the episodes he directs. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, and the clarification. My impression (from what had I read) was that he was much more involved than that.  I guess it was just a case of over-exaggeration. ;) Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Melora Hardin
Just wondering why Melora Hardin is still listed in the infobox? She has officially left The Office and only plans to come back as a guest star every now and then, and her future appearances aren't even known yet. I've removed her from the infobox unless there's a reason why a former cast member is still listed. In other TV show infoboxes, former cast members are not listed. Those that do though list the years they were a regular, meaning the entire list would have to be adjusted as such. Nitroblu (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes (and the article itself) are meant to look at the show as a whole, not "in the moment". By removing Melora Hardin, you're basically saying she is not a star on the show, which she is, just not currently. David Denman is also listed, for the same reasons. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Product Placement addition?
a Homer Simpson doll is seen in almost every episode. should this be added to the product placement section?
 * Really? I can't remember seeing that doll in episodes of late. I think you'd need to find a published source to reference before adding that fact because otherwise it would be original research. Mrtea (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Podcast"
A new series of videos called "The Podcast" has been released on the season 6 DVD and the The Office: Overtime DVD. Zap2it called it a webisode. Should we add it to The_Office_(U.S._TV_series), List_of_The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)_episodes, Template:Theofficeus and Template:TheofficeusEpisodes? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"S07E05"
Why do they call it Dunder Mifflin? isn't it Sabre or Sabre nowadays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.182 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve Carell
Why is it i cannot put what seasons Carell was in on the info box? It signify's what seasons he was in and it is done on multiple TV articles. So why are people reverting this? Ckatz claims it's part of a convention, but i fail to see this Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:06 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The convention is to not do this; see the articles for Lost, ER, Scrubs, Heroes, etc. for high-profile examples. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is borderline stupid. Why do people have a problem with putting what seasons a certain member was in? the page for Jackass does this. 8 Simple Rules does. Why can't other pages can? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 16:52 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-conforming examples do not justify creating more such cases. Note that no-one is advocating the removal of information about actors and seasons; it is written up in the body copy, not the infobox. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Original BBC series
Has the original "The Office" from BBC been broadcasted in NBC, CBS or ABC before NBC "adapted" (stole I would say) the series. As neutral between UK and US, from Sweden - I really must argue that the BBC-series was very fun indeed, while the NBC-series in compare is a total waste of time. Does the American propaganda mashine cencur all non US-TV-series ? (American TV really is a propaganda mashine making all people belive that they should be happy to be born in the USA - including the 50% who never votes in any election. Fox is of course the worst, but all american TV-series is allways about rich happy and good looking people - no fat or poor people aloud)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.140 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dentist appointment incongruity
Am I the only one to notice this? In season 2, episode 6, The Fight, Michael references that "sometimes your best friends start coming into work late and start having dentist appointments that aren't dentist appointments, and that is when it's nice to let them know that you can beat them up." This seems to be a reference to Dwight's betrayal of Michael, right? That's weird, because that plotline doesn't come up until season 3, episode 3, The Coup. I would just brush it aside, but that seems like a pretty specific reference to be coincidental. Anybody able to shed some light on this?75.15.70.26 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Ferrell
So apparently he's replacing Steve Carell. NBC has even started airing promos about him joining the cast. I have no interest in doing the research & i don't plan on editing the article without proof so if someone want's to add this after they verify it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.136.164 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve Carell
Someone appears to be editing the Steve Carell part of the article over and over again. I just want to put the seasons that he was apart of in the info box. Is this because they cannot deal with the fact that he is going to leave after season seven? I mean what is the big deal, I'm just putting a "(Season 1-7)" notice on the side of his name so that people know that he isn't on the show as a regular anymore. - signed comment added by Notshane (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't format the infobox in that manner. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's sorta stupid to put someone in the starring section of the info box when they're not in the show at all anymore. Without a "(Seasons 1-7)" being next to Steve Carell, it'll confuse people. Most Info Boxes are like that, if this one isn't then people will think that hes still in the show. - signed comment added by Notshane (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're of course welcome to your opinion, but others disagree. Simply put, the infobox (and the article) reflect the entire run of the series, not an "in the moment" snapshot. Viewers in the US and Canada may be watching Season 7, but others may be earlier in the series. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Amy Ryan as main character
I noticed there was some confusion on this, and I just wanted to help clear it up: Amy Ryan was credited in the main cast for her 8 or so episodes in season seven. I can't find an article online that explicitly states this (most say "Office star Amy Ryan...", etc.). However, I suppose we could cite an actual episode if this is disputed. This could help. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is this: was Ryan a main character or a guest role? Was she credited in the title sequence or as a guest following it? This is not unique to The Office, but instead is a recurring issue with many series. (I personally have no opinion either way; if we have the proper proof, let's put her in.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  02:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * She is credited among the main cast for this arc, she is NOT listed as a guest star. It's common knowledge. That should be good enough.  What you're asking for is almost impossible to give; citing an episode where she is billed as "and Amy Ryan", meaning regular cast, for all eight shows, and never once as a guest star for these shows is all we need. It's even stated and referenced in "Classy Christmas".  - Cartoon Boy (talk) 2:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, again, where is she credited as being among the main cast? Is she in the main titles? I'm not trying to be tendentious, I'm just asking you (or anyone) to point me to where it is. I looked at the article referenced in "Classy Christmas" and it doesn't actually say she joins the main cast; it simply says that she is back for eight episodes. This may seem like splitting hairs, but main cast status is a very specific designation based on what the producers, the network, and of course the actor's contract state. It is not an assessment we make on Wikipedia, and that is what I'm trying to clarify. -
 * Also, saying it is "common knowledge" doesn't help. (Sorry to be blunt, but there were also plenty of people claiming main status for the Ando character in season one of Heroes simply because they felt it was warranted, and not because of any substantive proof.) If it exists, fine - I've certainly no personal objection to listing her as such if it is in fact warranted. However, I've been watching the series throughout its run and I can't categorically state that she is (or isn't), hence the desire to clarify this. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy   03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, she is credited after Zach Woods during the rest of the main cast credit roll as "and Amy Ryan" for all eight shows she was a part of. Not in the opening titles, but where the rest of the main cast is listed. That is proof enough. We are not saying this because we feel she should be warranted as a main cast member. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 3:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I am going to start working to bring this article to good article. If anybody wants to help, I would be thankful NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the "Format" and "Setting" or shorten them and put "Format" with "Improvisation" and call it "Filming" or add more sources NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't realize how much work it would take NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I was all ready to start as well. I printed out a hard copy and instantly got a headache. It would take a good amount of people to get this back to even GA status, and seeing as how most of the old editors haven't touched this thing in ages I'd say they gave up as well. Mordecairule 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to try again to edit the page and make it a good article NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Length
This article is way too large we need to split it up a little. I could use some help on this decision.NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

"U.S. TV series"
This may have been discussed before, but why does "U.S" have full stops and "TV" not? Surely it should be "US TV series" or the fussy "U.S. T.V. series"? — Jon C.  ॐ  13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My "guess" is that U.S. is two words shortened (United States), so it gets written like "U.S." and TV is is one word shortened Television), so it doesn't get full stops.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox cast listing
Would anyone mind explaining to me the order of the cast listing in this article? Ed Helms is credited just after the rest of the actors listed in the opening theme, so by my reckoning, James Spader probably should be placed there too, as that is where he was credited. Furthermore, the season 8 and 9 new cast members (Spader/Tate/Duke/Lacy) are listed by their addition to the cast, which makes sense, but Leslie David Baker through to Zach Woods are credited alphabetically in one big chunk, despite joining the main cast in a variety of seasons 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. I tried to change to a more logical order earlier in the week but was reverted, which I don't mind, but would like to know more about the reasoning behind the current order. I personally think a list ordered by addition to main theme song (Carell/Wilson/Krasinski/Fisher/Novak/Helms/Spader), followed by those listed initially in the credits (Hardin/Denman/Tate), then the rest of the supporting cast by addition to the cast (Baker/Baumgartner/Flannery/Kinsey/Nunez/Smith, Kaling/Lieberstein, Bratton/Robinson, Kemper, Woods, Duke/Lacy), then Amy Ryan would be the most logical, but if not, then at least theme-song-credited followed by a totally alphabetical supporting cast should be implemented, rather than the seemingly arbitrary system in use now. -- Tvwatchdog (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think its fine the way it is.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

the feud?
2 things. there was a celebrity family feud? and, the office was on an episode? ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'Single-camera'
The first paragraph of the article states that the show is shot using a single camera. This seems to not (always) be the case, as many of the DVD outtakes show the same 'blooper' from different angles. Can anyone shed light on this? I might be mistaken. Obviously some scenes (e.g. talking heads) are shot with just a single camera.

15:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Easy to be confused as the name doesn't literally mean the series is filmed with a single camera, it's the shooting style. For comparison, Multi-cam sitcoms (Seinfeld, Friends, The Big Bang Theory) have "fixed" camera angles and shots are very static looking, while single-camera sitcoms (The Office, Scrubs, Arrested Development) are able to have more complex camera angles and camera movements (shooting from any angle, not fixed angles like multi-cams). Look at how Seinfeld is shot, and then look at The Office, very different in how they look. Also, from the Single-camera setup article, "An alternative production method, which is more widely used is still called a "single-camera", but in actuality two cameras are employed - one to capture a medium shot of the scene while the other to capture a close-up during the same take." Hope that clarifies things for you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on The Office (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.nbc.com/theoffice/2006/11/british_cast.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224201453/http://community.tvguide.com:80/thread.jspa?threadID=700003748 to http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700003748
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329061600/http://blog.nbc.com:80/CreedThoughts/ to http://blog.nbc.com/CreedThoughts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wegman's in product placement
Wegman's is a local grocery store chain in upstate New York and the surrounding states. Many Wegman's store brand products are seen throughout the office. Sources: http://blog.syracuse.com/storefront/2007/09/wegmans_stars_on_the_office.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegmans. Any reason why this is not included in the product placement section? Lcameronshaver (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't have a lot to do with Wegman's, but I noticed that under the Product Placement header it states "Many products featured are not part of product placement agreements, but rather inserted by writers as products the characters would use to create realism under the guise of a documentary" and I didn't notice any link for any information supporting that fact from the writer's themselves. There are several examples after that of the product placement themselves, but no article from the writers of the show to say what they were thinking when doing that. Thanks so much! (I'm a new user, just trying to navigate around!) Lamersme (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Awards
The awards section is very summarized, especially with having a link to the original article stating the lengthy awards the show was nominated for and won, but I would like to see a link or summarization of the awards that the actors themselves have been nominated for and won. Included in this edit is just one article from IMDB.com about Steve Carell, outlining the awards he was nominated for and also the awards he has won. Just an idea! Lamersme (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Office (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120220613/http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=3307 to http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=3307
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/recaps/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608101422/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5248 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5248
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520094536/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/april05/apr25/3_wed/news2wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/april05/apr25/3_wed/news2wednesday.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uFQbo25L?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/15/ratings-abc-greys-anatomy-win-finale-thursday-but-declines-continue/18685 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/15/ratings-abc-greys-anatomy-win-finale-thursday-but-declines-continue/18685
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430143536/http://www.theofficeconvention.com/ to http://www.theofficeconvention.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Office (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024092231/http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_gtimQAXtL6u5H9axpy74nN to http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_gtimQAXtL6u5H9axpy74nN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105172715/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/01/the-best-tv-episodes-of-2012-the-good-wife-the-office-and-big-brother.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/01/the-best-tv-episodes-of-2012-the-good-wife-the-office-and-big-brother.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607161044/http://variety.com/2013/tv/reviews/the-office-finale-1200482413/ to http://variety.com/2013/tv/reviews/the-office-finale-1200482413/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"British Version"
There are several references to the “British version” in this article. Would it not be more encyclopedic to say “British original” instead?

Version implies copy. It’s as ignorant as saying “I prefer John Lennon's version of 'Imagine'”.

LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've changed "British version" to "British series" to match what was already being used to identify the British original. —Bruce1eetalk 06:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it's a definite improvement but even "British series" implies they are both equal in some way. To my mind, "original British series" would be more appropriate and factually accurate. What do you think? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've prefixed "original" to a couple of the "British series", but not all of them to avoid repetition. I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 13:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks - much better now I think. I agree, putting "original" on every mention would be overkill. Could it also be included in the opening paragraph?
 * i.e. "It is an adaptation of the original BBC series of the same name." LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this one. Doesn't "adaptation of the BBC series" imply that the BBC series was the original? I don't feel too strongly about this, but what do others think? —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from but I would argue that "adaptation" does not necessarily imply, and is not synonymous with, 'original'. e.g. There could be an adaptation of the US Office. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Point taken – I've added "original" to the first paragraph as you suggested. —Bruce1eetalk 10:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)