Talk:Pilot (The Office)

Episode title

Isn't this episode actually called "The Office: An American Workplace?"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.224.222.67 (talk • contribs)00:32, 21 August 2006.

According to the Season 1 DVD, this episode is titled "Pilot". The show airs regularly in the UK as "The Office: An American Workplace" to distinguish it from the original British series. Williamnilly 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

on iTunes it it billed as "The Office: An American Workplace (Pilot)" can somebody get a pdf of the script or something? i think it was in a boxed set of season 1 when it was a new release 173.48.62.136 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheOfficePilot01.jpg

Image:TheOfficePilot01.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Most of the writing is good, but the first sentence could be better worded

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The "Plot" section has no references, but I believe that the program itself can be cited. Please correct me if I'm wrong

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well, the writing is fairly good, but the first sentence needs to be worded better, especially "and", which could be replaced with "which". Also, there seems to be an issue with the image fair-use policy. Could you please explain to me if the image issue has been addressed? Until these issues are addressed, I've put the article On-hold. Thank you for your hard work in improving the article thus far, and good luck in improving the article to GA status. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworded the first sentence, and split it to make it more user-friendly. As for the image issue, before I began editing the article, the image was previously used in the List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, but not in this article. When whoever placed this image into this article, they forgot to add a rationale for use in this article. Another user added a fair use rationale for the article a few weeks before I began to work with this article. Hope this clears up any issues you had with the article. Have a good day! Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems much better. I'm short on time right now, but I will give a final review tomorrow. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

It's looking much better. Thus, it now passes GA. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion

At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#TV pilot naming standards, there is a discussion about how articles about untitled pilots should be named. A change has been proposed which would affect this article. Regular editors of this page are invited to join the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)