Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Office task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television / The Office (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by The Office task force.


Wikiproject The Office (US) discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals[edit]

This wikiproject would try to assess and centralize all articles about the American TV show, The Office. It would try maintain articles concerning The Office so that they are correct, insightful, interesting, and up to date! This ever changing topic needs a Wikiproject to keep it at its best all the time.
This proposal has been created! Please go here to see this Wikiproject![1]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. YaanchSpeak! 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. BabuBhatt 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jercius 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Tphi 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Viewdrix 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We're starting to encourage TV-specific WikiProjects to becoming task forces of other projects, such as WP:TV, This makes things to get going as far as pre-existing templates, style guides, etc, but still allows for the larger focus on that specific show. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that your Category:The_Office_cast_members is pretty much empty. In addition, it's been decided (see [2]) that Actors By Series categories are not allowed. Perhaps you could make a List of The Office cast members? Polymathematics 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we reconcile the goal of being "comprehensive" (see {{WikiProject The Office (US)}}) against Wikipedia content guidelines? A "comprehensive" guide would include speculation ("Pam probably did confusing thing X because of Y"), trivia, lists, episode cross-references, none of which are suitable for Wikipedia. -- Raymondc0 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is somethin wrong with the season 6 episodes list. The numbers seams wrong : the i think that double episode isn't e17-18 but more e16-17 i am not sure so i haven't made the chage (and im french my english ins't really good) i just notify the problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romain.bouye (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Episode coverage[edit]

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I Help?[edit]

I want to help with WikiProject, but I don't know where to start. What needs to be done? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections under the guise of 'Notes'[edit]

Just about every episode article has a 'Notes' section that is half the length of the rest of the article. It's all trivia and is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. That kind of information belongs on other websites (and I'm not saying those should be linked). I've been adding {{trivia}} to the sections as I see them. --William Graham talk 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "notes" are rarely encyclopedic in nature. I've proposed Dunderpedia as a home for non-encyclopedic information, but nobody else seemed interested. -- Raymondc0 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam: Please delete on sight![edit]

Inserting this into all episode articles is spam:

"For a list of songs featured in this episode, see List of songs featured on The Office."

One point in particular that WP:EL mentions is to avoid linking to most open wikis. Also, avoid linking to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Unless anyone disagrees, be bold and delete spammy links ON SIGHT! Mrtea (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite episode[edit]

I've noticed in alot of episode and character pages, episodes are referenced like this.

Dwight has a Second Life character. ("Local Ad")


In the episode "Local Ad", it is revealed that Dwight has a Second Life character.

Wouldn't it make more sence to convert all these statements to using Template:Cite episode? E.G

Dwight has a Second Life character[1]

--Jamie jca (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Local Ad". The Office. Season 4. Episode 5. 2007-10-25. NBC.

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

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 [3]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


WP:FICT has been revised[edit]

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [4] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)[edit]

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Office[edit]

The Office (U.S. TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Ideas to for the Project?[edit]

Maybe to get people interested in this project again, we should all try to get one article featured or have a contest to see who can get an Office-article to GA status first. Does anyone have any ideas on what could be done?

P.S. I know I haven't been active in the project, but I plan to now contribute more. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think our main focus should be keeping The Office (U.S. TV series) at FA-status. Also, I'm going through (or at least I was, I'm using a lot of time for season pages and episode lists) the season 1 episodes, and improving them. I've gotten Pilot (The Office) and Diversity Day to GA, and I think it'd be great if we could get all of season 1 to GA. Then, the episodes and the season page, which is a Featured List, could be a featured topic. I think this would help the exposure of the topic greatly. Anyone agree?Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Booze Cruise (The Office episode)[edit]

I've been working on the article for Booze Cruise and think I may have gotten it up to GA quality. Before I nominate it however, I would like someone with experience in these kind of articles to look over it and make sure everything is okay. Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just nominated it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Update:Article just made GA. Whoever writes the newsletter: take note. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunder Mifflin made GA[edit]

As of a few hours ago. I'd almost forgotten about the nom. But I am relieved. It was a long road from saving it from deletion a couple of months ago. Now I'd like to point to it as an example of how to write an article about a fictional company. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Props to you and anyone else who worked on the article, it looks great! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dinner Party (The Office)[edit]

I've nominated this for GA since I was working on this quite alot yesterday and I believe I got it up to GA quality. I also submitted it for DYK since I also expanded the article. -- Jamie jca (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode Article Names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles[edit]

Ive just noticed the most of the episode articles have titled formated like this, "Pilot (The Office episode)" when according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles using (The Office episode) should only be used if "an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page." Shouldn't they all be moved to "Episode Title (The Office)" or "Episode Title (The Office U.S.)? -- Jamie jca (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should all be "xxxxx" (The Office) Mastrchf (t/c) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Awards list[edit]

I just took a shot at adding sources to all of the awards listed in The Office (U.S. TV series) as per the FA review. I noticed that nominations were left off the list (with the exception of one award, which I found out the show did not actually win in my search for a source). I think that's fine since the article is already quite long, but I was wondering how people felt about creating a list page like List of awards and nominations for Lost (which is an FL). The awards section on the main page could have a link to the article, and linking to it may mean we could take out some of the less significant awards from that section. Does anyone have any thoughts? I may try to start a page like that in a couple of days if no one objects. Calindigo (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 10:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Mastrchf (t/c) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If you need any help with this list, i'm willing to help. Just leave a message on my talk page. I got List of 30 Rock awards and nominations to FL by the way. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More GAs[edit]

I have nominated The Injury and Job Fair for GA status. In addition some other people involved with the project have nominated Dinner Party and Survivor Man for GA status. Best of luck to all articles involved. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of the increased amount of GA noms and promotions, if you could inform me of these events, and any other Featured noms/promotions, so I can put them in the newsletter. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another nomination: Business School Mastrchf (t/c) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Better add Initiation to the GA nominee list. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC
and Gay Witch Hunt --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
and just made GA status --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Do I get a mention for reviewing these? :p Gary King (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
and passed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
and promoted --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nom Section[edit]

I must say, we're lighting it up. If someone would like to put a section for GA noms on the main page, that's be great. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Job Fair (The Office)[edit]

I've been working on the article and it is currently a GA nominee on hold. The main problem seems to be prose, which is defintly not my strong suit. If someone get proofread it and make corrections, that would be great. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 15:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If I get a chance this afternoon, I'll run a few times through it. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a few run-throughs and cleaned it up a bit. Mastrchf (t/c) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution (The Office)[edit]

The GA nom is currently on hold, and the reviewer has requested that the sources be converted to the citeweb template. I'm going to be gone today, and I was wondering if someone could take a short time to convert them in my absence. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 Featured Topic[edit]

I'm going to try to get Season 4 of the office to featured topic quality. Anyone is welcome to help me. Here's a table with my progress

Main page Articles
The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4 Fun Run · Dunder Mifflin Infinity · Launch Party · Money (The Office) · Local Ad · Branch Wars · Survivor Man · The Deposition (The Office) · Dinner Party (The Office) · Chair Model · Night Out · Did I Stutter? · Job Fair (The Office) · Goodbye, Toby
It will need at least three Featured Articles in there to pass. Gary King (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about that too. 3 of those articles will need to be featured. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary beat me to it. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The first season might be even easier to accomplish. The season page is already an FL, there are 3 GAs out of 6, so it would need just 2 more GAs, and an FA. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get Season 4 to FL status. Also, once all the episodes are GA status, I'll pick the best two and get a peer review. Right now, I think Night Out and Did I Stutter? or Chair Model are our best season four episode articles. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FAs will be the biggest mountain to overcome, so I agree; consider working on seasons that already have featured content first. Gary King (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Either way, really. I think it would likely equal out. The first season lacks the amount of reviews, production information, etc, that the fourth season has so plentifully. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the main reason I've been doing season 4 articles instead of 1 or 2. It is easier to find reviews and production information. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

← I recommend that for the episodes, expand the lead a bit more. Add some production information, generally. And reception info, too. Gary King (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What season four episode articles would say right now are closest to being FA-status? I want to work on the right ones : ) --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest choosing the ones that have more production info, as plot and reception are both easy to find and pretty plentiful. Dinner Party (The Office) and Night Out look good to me. Gary King (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It'd be Night Out definitely, and then either Dinner Party (The Office) or Did I Stutter?. Leaning towards the first. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I like Dinner Party because of the interesting WGA Strike bit. Gary King (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. It could undoubtedly be fleshed out a lot more than it already is. Plus, it uses a lot of out-of-studio filming, and multiple guest stars. Both are good starts for adding production info. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that episodes which have won or were nominated for awards, especially for an Emmy, are good candidates for Featured Articles. I believe Gay Witch Hunt was nominated for "Best Directing". Gary King (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Re-format) True. Unfortunately, Gay Witch Hunt was season 3. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like all of the articles are GA except for Launch Party, a GAN. Should we try for a season 4 FL now? Mastrchf (t/c) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month[edit]

I would just like to mention here that the project now has a section for the Collaboration of the Month. Here, instead of one user simply choosing the collaboration, the members of the project can nominate and vote on the collaboration. The link can be found on the main page. Mastrchf (t/c) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

August Newsletter[edit]

Just wanted to update everyone and apologize that the newsletter will be a bit overdue, possibly around 2 and a half days. Not sure how many this affects, but for those that do read it, it should be out this coming Sunday. Sorry again, Mastrchf (t/c) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5 peer review[edit]

If you've got time, please post at the Peer Review for The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5 at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5/archive1. Even though it is a short article, I would like to receive any comments that you have to improve it; one of the primary reasons for the Peer Review is so that it is considered an audited article for a future Featured Topic candidacy. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Season 5?!?!?! Already? It hasn't even premiered yet! Mastrchf (t/c) 00:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that. It needs a PR because it has no chance of passing FAC, FLC, or GAN until the season is over, so it will need to be peer reviewed at the very least before it can be included in a Featured Topic. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I was assuming you were speaking of a FT for the season 5 eps, which shows my statements of question. I'm assuming you're shooting for a FT of the seasons? Mastrchf (t/c) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep; The Office (U.S. TV series) in particular requires significant work. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently overhauling the fourth season page, hopefully it will be ready for FLC in the coming week. It all really depends on my schedule, unfortunately. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please peer review the article if you've got time; it's a really short article so it shouldn't take much time at all. Gary King (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to try for a season FT, i'd say use the episode list as the main article. That could easily be cleaned up. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises[edit]

Dear WikiProject The Office (US) participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises[edit]

Dear WikiProject The Office (US) participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The Office (US)[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

please offer FLC feedback[edit]

The fourth season is a FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4. please offer your comments or suggestions, thank you! Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

bump! Nergaal (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

season 5[edit]

Just wanted to compliment you guys on recent episode summaries and show we are gracious!--Sauceyboy (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of Infobox tvseason images[edit]

Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, matter resolved. Have a nice Christmas holiday everyone ! Rosenknospe (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Character articles need MAJOR cleanup[edit]

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 real world notability of each character. 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). (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, by all means, fix these articles' problems. You'll find this is a recurring problem along many characters from different mediums. I think it's apparent that character pages aren't high on the list of priorities, so it'd be nice for someone to work on those. I await your expansion help. Mastrchf (t/c) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree they need cleanup. Problem is that any single handed attempts to fix fiction articles are inevitably reverted, citing lack of consensus, and any attempt to merge is opposed. Cosmomancer (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but as of now, it doesn't look like one is going to meet much resistance coming from this project or its members, the majority of whom are the ones that either work on these articles or have them watchlisted. So, for whoever wants to clean them up, try to work on them, don't do anything drastic, and get those articles some real-world sources! Mastrchf (t/c) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actors' images[edit]

Hey, just wanted to point out two recent additions of images I was able to get permission for from a Flickr user. Paul Lieberstein and Mindy Kaling both have new images for the infoboxes. In the past, I have been able to get images for many of the other Office actors, but these two are some of the best I've found so far. I just wanted to point it out if the project is interested in using the images for other articles. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job, those look wonderful! Mastrchf (t/c) 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:30, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

The Duel (The Office)[edit]

Shouldn't we get a better main image, like one with Dwight and Andy facing off? --DrBat (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


I've noticed some issues with the disambiguation of articles in this WikiProject that I'd like to discuss. First, I'd like to go ahead and remove (U.S. TV Series) from the titles of the season articles, since there is no naming conflict; the first couple seasons could include a hatnote referring readers to The Office Series 1 for the UK version, and all other versions have foreign-language titles and so would not present a need for disambiguation. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies with some of the disambiguations; some of them punctuate the US, and some of them don't. If no one has any objections I'll just be bold. — DroEsperanto (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't know how many seasons in each version of The Office might be confused by an ambiguous title. So they may assume they're reading about season 5 of the UK version of The Office when it's really the US version. That would be my only reason not to change it though; I'm pretty neutral about the situation. ~EdGl 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New Member[edit]

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 05:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Helms in Opening Titles[edit]

Was mentioning Ed Helms's promotion to the to the opening titles on his page really so offensive as to warrant deleting it two minutes after posting? It was one sentence and in many ways it is quite relevant to his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


For a number of season six episode recaps, the "Reception" section only cites one or two critics before claiming something like "This episode was critically acclaimed." For example, the Reception Section for the Mafia page states that the episode received generally high reviews, citing solely a good review from IGN. In reality, a number of other sources - Alan Sepinwall, Dan Fienberg, and AVClub - gave the episode very poor reviews, many stating it was the worst episode in the show's history.

In order to get a broader sense of critical reaction, we need to cite more critical sources.

Updates to TV#MOS[edit]

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Office (US) articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the The Office (US) articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation![edit]


As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NBC's Must See TV[edit]

You are invited for the discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NBC's Must See TV, intended for broadly shows in the Must See TV and Comedy Night Done Right lineups. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Turn into task force?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no move. No admin action or move request is required for this; it's within the purview of the affected projects.Cúchullain t/c 13:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US)WP:WikiProject Television/The Office task force - WP:WikiProject Television/The Office (U.S.) task force – or I wanted to turn this page into a task force because of lack of activity nowadays, especially in this talk page. Now I think I want to broaden the scope by including the British series, unless there are objections. To me, there are so many projects, yet some are not as active as they were previously. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care if it was converted or not: it won't affect the way I work. Granted, this project has fallen by the wayside and many of the project's projects (haha) have grown old and crappy (like many of the GAs that aren't so great anymore). As for adding the British version, that seems fine to me, but I probably won't edit it: I'm too much of a durn Yankee!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree ... I'm nowhere near as active as I once was, particularly as the show has more or less jumped the shark. I am satisfied to keep Dunder Mifflin stable and up to GA status. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring when the show jumped the shark, jumped the shark, jumped the shark, or jumped the shark? :P--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention when it jumped the shark, jumped the shark, jumped the shark, and, just for the fun of it, jumped over one of its previous shark-jumpings. Seriously, though, like Gen. Quon, this wouldn't affect how I work, as I am not very active internally within the WikiProjects I am a member of. I will, however, support move to WP:TV/The Office task force since not only could it possibly rope in more members from WP:TV, but it would cover other versions of the Office - preferably not only the American and British, but perhaps the others as well? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support broadening to cover the UK version. (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This WikiProject doesn't show an international view of the subject. Only US. What about UK and others. TBrandley 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You can include international stuff right now; this Project is inactive. Go ahead; why being hesistant? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I would support the idea, I would also like to work a bit on the English version to at least make the main article a good article, possibly, and possibly get some help on that. Also, I agree with Gen. Quon, since it won't affect the way I work, so either way is fine with me. NoD'ohnuts (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: as with this request, this move should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and not WP:RM. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Taking this to WikiProject Television[edit]

Since administrators do not accept task force conversions as move requests, I guess I have no other choices than WP:TV. --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at WT:TV concludes going for broadening the scope and converting Project into task force. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with The Office[edit]

I started a discussion at the The Office talk page on how we should work it out. Im starting to notice that the articles tend to be a bit FANCRUFTy with the which one is a direct counterpart to who in the series amd it seems to affect the articles in a very negative way. We should probably rework that (unless sourced) so that type of Original research doesnt show up.Lucia Black (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)