Wikipedia

Talk:The Office (American TV series)/Archive 5

< Talk:The Office (American TV series)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 13 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago32 comments13 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus is against the proposed move, after extended discussion. bd2412 T 19:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

– The current disambiguation for The Office (U.S. TV series) was probably since it is part of the The Office franchise, which helps to disambiguate with The Office (UK TV series), yet it does not solve disambiguation issue with these series. since both TV series are US TV series, so using (U.S. TV series) for one does not help disambiguate the topic. Per WP:NCTVUS a combination of country and year prefix should be used. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus against moving the article on the 1995 series or the article on the UK series. There is some support for leaving the third article where it is and some support for adding a year. There has not been enough discussion on this issue to determine consensus. --Relisting. KSFT (t|c) 19:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambig. for TV series
named The Office
Country 1995 2001 2005
UK  Y
U.S.  Y  Y
As is clear from the table, "by year" disambiguation is all that is necessary in this situation – "double disambiguation" is absolutely NOT necessary.
So, oppose the current proposal, but support moving The Office (U.S. TV series) to The Office (2005 TV series), and leave The Office (1995 TV series) and The Office (UK TV series) where they are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
If that's how the double disambiguation was meant to be, I have no objections to this. --Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Its his opinion as to how it should work, not part of the guideline itself. -- Netoholic @ 09:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC).
No, you're wrong Netoholic – you don't understand what the policy is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The UK TV series is notable for being the UK one, so that should be the DAB, not "2001". Then between the two U.S. series, the 2005 one has 100 times more pageviews than the 1995 one, which in my view clearly makes it the primary topic for "U.S. TV series". Therefore, the UK one should stay at "UK", the 2005 one should stay at "U.S.", and there should be a hatnote for the >1% of people looking for the 1995 one. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the 05 series is in contrast to the uk series so it should stay as us series while the 95 series is its own series no connection to others so should stay as 95 series עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the nom is theoretically correct, this is one of those "occasional exceptions" that every guideline talks about. The 1995 series is utterly unimportant, relatively, attracting only about 1% of the pageviews of the 2005 series [1]. The large majority of readers will easily WP:RECOGNIZE the US/UK distinction, but far fewer would know the year offhand, or even that an earlier series existed, so the change, especially if "U.S." was removed, might lead to more confusion rather than less. If we want to invoke WP:IAR, we could rename the 1995 series to something like The Office (TV series starring Valerie Harper), but the current setup seems to work fine. Station1 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. Renaming to "2005" would make the U.S. one harder to find. Oppose moving the 1995 series to The Office (TV series starring Valerie Harper), but tentatively support The Office (2005 U.S. TV series) per the original nom. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • No. I've already shown that "double-disambiguation" is absolutely not needed here, and should not be done. I can see the argument of leaving things as they are now. The other option would be to move all three to "by year" disambiguation. But "double-disambiguation" is absolutely not a correct option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
        • You've not "already shown" this - you've expressed your opinion on it. That may inform your vote, and others may accept your rationale or not, but there is not yet agreement on your framework/interpretation. In particular, since there are two shows with this title that are associated with the U.S., to use that disambiguation alone for either one is incomplete and potentially confusing with respect for the other. Someone who is looking for the 1995 show may not know the year, but would more likely know the country, and so a search may land them on the 2005 series page. -- Netoholic @ 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it's not, as is shown by the fact that all three shows can be effectively disambiguated by year only. You are clearly a fan of unnecessary disambiguation, but that's not the policy – WP:CONCISE and WP:ATDIS is. We disambiguate with the minimum necessary qualifiers on Wikipedia – that's how it's done. We don't "preemptively" or "unnecessarily" disambiguate. (That's what redirects are for.) Again, you don't understand the policy on this question. P.S. Your hypothetical situation is exactly why we have hatnotes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
            • "all three shows can be effectively disambiguated by year only" then propose that. We have two articles that have a legitimate and accurate claim to The Office (U.S. TV series) and it IS necessary at a a minimum to resolve that. Using countries for some and years for others is what makes this potentially confusing. We either go with just years on all of them, and point The Office (U.S. TV series) to the disambiguation page, or we add years only to the two U.S. series that need clearer disambiguation (which also means we point The Office (U.S. TV series) to the disambiguation page). -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
              • If this wrong headed proposal passes, I'll have no choice but to do that. As it is, I am now changing my !vote to exactly that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
                • That would make things even more confusing. If I know the UK series came first, do I pick 1995? If I know the US series came after the UK series, do I pick 2001 or 2005? If I don't know that there was more than one version, which do I pick? And if I'm the one person in a hundred who wants the Harper sitcom, my odds of guessing right went from 1-in-2 to 1-in-3. As things stand now, the 1% click on a hatnote. I still say leave well enough alone. Station1 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
My hand has been forced in this discussion – double-disambiguation in this case is unacceptably wrong, so I'm forced to go with the "by year" solution. Frankly, it actually won't be that bad – The Office (UK TV series) will still redirect to The Office (2001 TV series), so people will still find that one no problem. This only affects the few users looking for one of the U.S. version and ending up at the wrong one, which can be handled by pointing The Office (U.S. TV series) back to the disambiguation page, and with hatnotes at the two U.S. articles. But this is a far less bad solution than The Office (1995 U.S. TV series) and The Office (2005 U.S. TV series), which will help absolutely nothing, and is wrong under WP:ATDIS anyway. However, I can probably be persuaded to move back to "oppose entire proposal" (leaving things as they are now) if others move in that direction here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I've come round again to opposing entirely. There is absolutely no need for a DAB page between the U.S. series where there are only two articles and one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with 100 times more pageviews. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
See above – yes, that would likely be the best solution (that, or leaving things they way they are now), but my hand has been forced... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moving the 2005 series to The Office (2005 TV series) per WP:NCTV and incomplete disambiguation; leave the other American series where it is. The British series can stay where it is or also disambiguate by year, both are acceptable by the guideline. But as the title of the present article is incomplete disambiguation, it needs to move to the year; the "U.S." is unnecessary with the year present.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both moves. The Office (U.S.) is a major show, and there's no need for a double disambiguator to distinguish from a small show by the same name that only ran for 5 weeks. The current disambiguator is only needed to distinguish it from the UK version. Bradv 13:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is clearly a case in which following the rules to the letter would be a net negative for readers. I don't invoke this much, but we should remember: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Agreed with the reasons above. Article name should stay as is. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rashida Jones

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was just looking over the list of performers on the show, and noticed a fave of mine has not been included. Rashida Jones. She was on maybe 4-5 seasons, when Jim Halpert moved to a new location, where she worked, then that branch closed and they both went to Scranton. They played video games at work in the first location, then at Scranton she sat at the desk used by several others over time, right next to where Stanley always sat. Why isn't she listed for the show? --SophoraDeceased (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

She was part of the recurring cast, not billed as main cast. Her casting is noted in the Casting section and Karen is mentioned in the plot summaries for seasons 3 and 4. Further information about her would exist in the season articles as well as at List of The Office (American TV series) characters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Revival

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the potential revival need to be in the lead? It's not officially confirmed and may wind up not even happening. StewdioMACK (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No FuturisticPat07 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


The Office (American TV series) → The Office (2005 TV series) – There is another American TV series with the same name (The Office (1995 TV series) and as per WP:NCTVUS the problem is not solved yet, as (American TV series) would be used to ″distinguish shows with the same title from different countries″ and both 1995 and 2005 are American. A simple hatnote wouldnt fix it because it is not the case of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cvhcsee (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for all the same reasons in the extensive previous discussion above. The current setup works well and is easily recognizable to the vast majority of readers. There's a famous British series, a famous related American series, a related Indian series, and an older obscure unrelated series. Station1 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Please notice that it's not the same proposal. There is no need to use both country and year. Nonetheless, WP:NCTV actually did change "since then" as of July, 2018, it suggested U.S. (hence the 2018 proposal) instead of American. About the recognition, no matter how famous they are (or not), they share the same name, and the articles must be correctly disambig. to meet WP:NCTV and to solve the WP:PARTIALDISAMBIGUATION problem. Cvhcsee (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
They must be disambiguated to serve the needs of readers, not to meet a guideline (which is just a suggestion for normal circumstances). The Office is properly a broad concept article. Since that title is taken, the best way to disambiguate the national varieties is by nation. The large majority of readers will recognize US vs UK much more readily than 1995 vs 2001 vs 2005. The obscure 1995 sitcom is viewed by only 1% of those looking for the famous one, so is almost irrelevant. The current setup is causing no problem that needs solving. Station1 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weakly Support, maybe? We don't have primary topics among disambiguations -- otherwise, they wouldn't actually be doing much in terms of disambiguating. But I also agree with Station1's concern above that the country is far more helpful to readers than the year. For most people, the way they distinguish between the well-known versions of the office is by country, so it's probably more helpful to have the country in there. I'm not particularly thrilled to support making the topic that has by far the most page views even more disambiguated, but I don't know a great solution here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    We actually do have primary topics among disambiguated titles where they are obvious and serve the reader — Alabama (band), Jane Seymour (actress), People (magazine), Steve Smith (cricketer), Thriller (album). I think the question here is whether this is one of those "occasional exceptions" that WP:NCTV allows. Station1 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    See my point. Those cases of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only needed one additional disambiguation. Both are bands but different countries. Both are actresses but different countries. Both are magazines but different countries. There are more albums but different singers. About the cricketers... It is not 100% the same case but... That is more like what I'm trying to say. They both are cricketers but one of them has additional disambiguation (birth year). In the case of the series, both are series and both are American, and the way it is now, sure causes confusion (WP:PARTIALDISAMBIGUATION). It is like we had two Steve Smith articles like that (hypothetically): Steve Smith (Australian cricketer) and Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1961) - even with the 1961 also being Australian. Thats not disambiguation. To keep it that way when the page sure needs additional disambiguation doesnt make sense. Actually it led me here just because it confused me. But if you think that "the current setup works well" and that English wikipedia only have readers from the U.S., Who am I to change your mind? Have a nice time here on Wikipedia, buddy. Cvhcsee (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Going by pageviews, the American 2005 TV series is the primary topic, including The Office, which currently serves as kind of a "franchise" article listing every adaptation of the show. El Millo (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The US version of the The Office is obviously not at the primary topic, nor is it even the primary of the first level disambiguation, The Office (TV series). Trying to hang on at all cost to some kind of "primary" at the second-level disambiguation is extremely odd and does a disservice to the wiki and its readers. Since we have another US series, The Office (1995 TV series), this should have the year disambiguation. If we think that losing the US indication is bad, then the title should be The Office (2005 American TV series) - which both clearly disambiguates the title, and gives all the information needed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the previous discussion. It is important to note that since the previous discussion took place, this RFC took place, which clarified WP:INCDAB and allows us to deem this the primary topic for American TV shows named The Office, regardless of whether there are others with the same name. -- Calidum 03:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Calidum and the information I already commented above. El Millo (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would argue the 2005 series is much more well-known and worth of primary topic status. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Calidium. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Station1 and Calidium. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Honestly didn't know there was another American TV show called The Office. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I propose to merge The Office (video game) into The Office (American TV series). I think that the content in the video game article can easily be explained in this article's #Other_Media section and that this article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems. Pinging @JAF1970: as they are the creator of the article titled The Office video game. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 20:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that this is a fine idea, the article is small and would work in the other media section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmerwannabe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support: As mentioned, the content in the article is small and can fit on the main article. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Support: Per Nom. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Howard

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

At the footer of the article, the Office infobox states that 'Ryan Howard' is a primary character. Objectively, he is not. I understand that he was a writer and producer for the show; but important doesn't equal primary character on the show. In fact, when compared to the other spoken lines of dialogue throughout the show, Ryan actually ranks 10th - Falling even below Erin Hannon's spoken lines. I believe he should be moved out of this category for all of the related pages. More information below.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/a-complete-guide-to-every-line-of-dialogue-spoken-on-the-office

24.120.44.40 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

He is a main character because B.J. Novak received opening credits billing. Credits determine whether a character is main, recurring or guest; not episode count or popularity. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, good thing we're not beholden to Hollywood and the contracts that they negotiate, because that really doesn't prove the precedent or set a precedent that supports the idea he's a primary character. A primary character, objectively, is primary. Ryan, objectively, is not. He's got executive billing, great; But nowhere do I see a style guide that says billing = primary character. You can be a supporting actor in many a role and receive opening credit billings in both feature films and television; they can be in the film or on the poster. Let's get someone else to weigh in, because on other related articles, Andy isn't included in the infobox either, yet here he is. I mean, he literally doesn't even appear in an entire season. 24.120.44.40 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
These are the guidelines laid out by MOS:TV. We follow how the actors are credited, anything else is viewer interpretation. In this instance, "primary" is simply referring to actors who receive opening credits billing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not the pentagon, folks. It's wikipedia. So what you're saying is that we need to change the archaic structure and rules that were arbitrarily set up by people outside of the industry itself. Again, can we have someone else weigh in? Anyone can decide anything on an anonymous forum; it doesn't make it correct. 24.120.44.40 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:TVCAST: "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count). This is established community-wide consensus. El Millo (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m challenging the validity of the “consenus.” And for future reference, the above statement is not an argument in any shape or form. How do we go about challenging the “consensus?” Isn’t that what Wikipedia is? The methodology here is flawed and incorrect, objectively. Please come through with an actual valid counterpoint or I’ll be making the change regardless.2600:1011:B06B:D997:89BD:2773:F5F1:8136 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You'd probably need an RfC, but you'd also need to come up with an alternative method to decide who the main characters are. El Millo (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Besides that, you might need to watch your tenor because it really sound a bit like toxic/tendentious editors that most resented.180.245.163.215 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Jim and Pam, at her persuasion, move to Austin

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At her persuasion? These summaries generally read like they were written by a 12 year old with a thesaurus. Behest would be a little bit better. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F496:D5F7:A6E3:59B0 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaluys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject The Office (US)?!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think all the office articles could benefit from a Wikiproject The Office (US). Other shows have a wikiproject like Heroes. Alot of the debating and discussion about The Office happens here, even if it doesn't pertain to this article. A Wikiproject, would allow us to make Wikipedia a great source about The Office.

If your interested just put you name here! [2] It wikiproject has been created and it is here Wikiproject The Office (US).

Separately, on an unrelated note, if you happen to find a small brass key …

YaanchSpeak! — Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Graydon Carter on the show's similarities to the Bush Administration: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/02/graydon200802.

Sydney Morning Herald on how the show is the bleeding edge of a shift from watching TV on TV to watching it online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/profits-streaming-away-from-tv/2008/03/29/1206207482318.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Office_(American_TV_series)/Archive_5&oldid=1173229669"