Talk:Dunder Mifflin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Dunder Mifflin has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 7, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
June 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Comedy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inspiration for Dunder Mifflin[edit]

"Business writer Megan Barnett has speculated that Dunder Mifflin may be modeled on the real-life W.B. Mason paper company, based near Boston, in Brockton, Massachusetts." Given that The Office was based on a British series, I find this rather unlikely and the kind of unfounded speculation not worthy of inclusion in any case. This is a typically overlong fanboy article. (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to a reliable source, and I reverted your edit. I do not find your reasoning sufficient to justify a removal of such content. Yes, the show is based on the British version. But the American version gives a lot more detail about how Dunder Mifflin fits into its regional economy than Wernham Hogg does. It's perfectly OK for a writer to speculate about how something other than the author's stated or widely-believed intention informs a creative work. The real world is not Wikipedia; we do not, nor should we, apply Wikipedia's standards to the documents we use as sources apart from WP:RS.

And as the "fanboy" who worked very hard to make sure this article was not in-universe and got it to GA status, I take your comments as a personal attack. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read Megan Barnett's article again, I have found that the statement is simply incorrect: she does not suggest Dunder Mifflin may be modelled on W.B. Mason, merely points out the parallels. I have therefore corrected the statement. In the light of this shift of emphasis, I will leave the question of whether or not to keep the paragraph up to you.

My reference to "fanboy article" was certainly not intended as any kind of personal attack, merely a disparagement of the general nature of this type of fictional universe article. I do not wish to antagonize you further so I will avoid further soapboxing. (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed the line "The company may be modeled on the real-life W.B. Mason paper company" from the opening section, since the referenced article does not actually suggest this. (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunder Mifflin Blueprint[edit]

If anyone has the time, I think that this may be a wonderful addition to the article: It is a blueprint of the Dunder Mifflin office. I believe that you could claim fair use to use it in the article but I am not positive. sorebearmat (T/C) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen Discussion[edit]

I am not sure what happened to the talk page but what has been done is the page has been moved from Dunder Mifflin to Dunder-Mifflin (like it orinally was) as that is what the offical NBC site lists it as. I've fixed most of the redirects (minus the talk pages). Epson291 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed previously that it was "Dunder Mifflin" with a space not a hyphen, based on the official logo and other props. Perhaps NBC and Reveille disagree. Given that someone else went through and deleted all the hyphens a few weeks ago, I think we should just leave things however they are until a final resolution is reached. -- Raymondc0 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with using the logo as a source is that the name is split over two lines. Not exactly open to the use of a hyphen. Also, I know not an "official" source... but Jenna Fischer's MySpace uses the hyphen (and let's face it... with the number of times she's read "Dunder-Mifflin, this is Pam." off the script, that's probably a pretty good bet on how it should be.) —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I did notice that in the episode "Office Olympics", the paper banner the cast hangs in the kitchen says "Dunder-Mifflin" (with the hyphen). —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I had previously changed as many pages as I could think of to change to Dunder Mifflin (no hyphen) based on a previous discussion on this page. I noted today the main The Office page had it hyphenated again and I sort of rashly changed it, but then I reverted it as I realized this discussion was going on here anew. I checked a few other pages and they are still without hyphen so -- I care not which way it goes (I actually favor the hyphen myself), but I will be willing to help set them all to whatever is decided. I'm a little bit of a consistency whacko, so... yeah. :) Cheers, Fieryrogue 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on consistency, its too bad the old discussion got lost, but, as I said, the best piece of concrete evidence I've seen so far is the scene from "Office Olympics" and I would consider Jenna Fischer's blog a pretty good source. As this page was moved 2 weeks ago and no dispute has surfaced, I would say we should go ahead and change to "with" the hyphens. I know I've been doing that as I've been navigating around. —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. I always felt the "the logo has no hyphen" argument was a bit weak too, and if I had noticed the "Office Olympics" banner I would have made that canon in my mind too. Aside from I would have just hyphenated such a name anyway, but alas... anyway, I will be glad to keep my eye out to help get these back to With Hyphen. Yay! Fieryrogue 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree that in the show Dunder Mifflin has a hyphen. While having a hyphen is grammatically correct we have to follow the show's use (much like how The 40-Year-Old Virgin is also improperly hyphenated) and even though there's a hyphen in the banner on the episode "Office Olympics" I've seen the company's name without a hyphen more times in the show, mostly very quick shots like on a binder, but it's been shown without a hyphen. - Throw 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, even to cite an "official" source, the NBC website references it with a hyphen as well. —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The actual show isn't official enough? - Throw 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But that's what we're saying here... The show isn't consistent... —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow they're making this hard on us. The new Dunder Mifflin page has all references to no hyphen. This is very solid grounds for moving the page back to "Dunder Mifflin". Thoughts? I'm just afraid of ending up in a situation where the page gets moved every time a new piece of evidence proves the other side, as this is clearly an issue of inconsistency. —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As no argument has been brought up, as well as additional evidence in "Fun Run" on no-hyphen, I'm moving the article and will also work on changing links. Help in this field would be helpful. —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 05:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Events[edit]

I'm not seeing the "Current Events" section as relevent. This just seems like a plot summary of The Office. Any objections to removing it? —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regional Manager salary estimate removal[edit]

I'm removing the estimate of $80,000 for Michael's salary. If you watch The Job, the scene where the salary is "hinted at" is when Dwight is explaining to Jim his fantasy of running the hotel in Hell. As no official offer was made from corporate, it is doubtful that Dwight would have actually been aware of the salary. Also, back in The Negotiation, Daryl requests a 10% raise, which Michael said would be more than he made (Meaning, according to the $80K estimate, Daryl is currently making at least $72,700. Back in Halloween, it is well hinted that the average salary is around $50,000. Meaning that, before a raise, Daryl would have been making $22,000 more than the average employee, which doesn't quite seem to add up. As Dwight's $80K number wasn't really mentioned in context with any other Dunder-Mifflin dollar amounts, I think it is safe to say that the number is just something he thought up as what he thought was a "high salary." —Fumo7887 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kalamazoo, Michigan?[edit]

What's the source on DM having a regional branch in Kalamazoo, Michigan? This bit of info doesn't appear on the official Dunder Mifflin website. 03:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunder Mifflin Northeast[edit]

So a while back I added a note in the Branch locations section that Dunder Mifflin Scranton was also referred to as Dunder Mifflin Northeast after the Scranton branch absorbed the Stamford branch. This was removed, but I added back with improvements. I does now state that it is less commonly, if only once by Jan, reffered to as Dunder Mifflin NE. I think this is noteworthy information, even if only mentioned once. - 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I do remember Jan say Dunder Mifflin Northeast in one episode, back when it seemed Dunder Mifflin was on the verge of becoming a much more efficient and organized company. That idea sure floundered fast. - Throw 07:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I would like to see citations on this page - its too close to WP:OR. • Freechild'sup? 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm having a hard time convincing myself that this fictional company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article is completely unreferenced, and I don't think any viable, substantial secondary-source references are available. Certainly, of the few that might be found, they're not enough to support the content that's already here. While the show is popular, I don't see how fictional entities with it are notable. Is there a reason this article shouldn't be deleted? -- Mikeblas 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree and have flagged it for consideration for deletion. An article on a fictional paper company for a sitcom is not notable and is only written due to current popularity. Any signifigance of this article is transitory and any pertainant information should be merged into the main article. LeilaniLad (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The prod tag was removed with the comment "The Office isn't an obscure TV show." While that's true (in the US, anyway), the notability of the show doesn't mean every plot element and prop in the show is notable, as well. Further, popularity doesn't confer notability. I've listed the article for AfD. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunder Mifflin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    A minor issue: references should be placed after all punctuation, such as in the infobox.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Format the references so that they include at least the title, URL, publisher, and accessdate.
    This is done. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    However, I would suggest using the default thumbnail size for all of the images, rather than forcing one.
    This is done now too. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Gary King (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Several references are still missing a publisher.
  • "The actual DMI ticker symbol" reference should also use cite web, but you can keep the text preceding the URL.
All done now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "on June 4, 2008., the intranet.}}" — an extra }} there?
  • References 1 and 14 are missing publishers.
Gary King (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Passing. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Name origin[edit]

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) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was the names of the two founders, as the article says. Robert Dunder was actually briefly hustled into a conference room by Michael in one episode to make a point about age discrimination. The other one, Mifflin, supposedly committed suicide (again, mentioned in more than one episode, including as a trivia question in "Company Picnic"). It's a name with some provenance in Pennsylvania, thanks to Thomas Mifflin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the origin of the Sabre name? It seems clear to me that it is wordplay on the "Apollo" cheap inkjet printer line from HP, especially with the Sabre printers catching fire. Sabre and Apollo were the two first computerized airline reservation systems. But I haven't found any references supporting this name theory. --Amillar (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you find a source suggesting that, put it in. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very confusing...[edit]

This article is very confusing... Is this a real company or just on the show? The first line says it is "fictional" but the rest of the article appears to be about a real company... even listing it on NYSE... Can someone clarify? I think this article needs to be cleaned up and if it is both a real and fictional company, the pages should be separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The fictional company was depicted as having traded on the NYSE, complete with a ticker symbol (that actually, as the article makes clear, belongs to an index fund in real life). While we use the trappings of our articles about real companies since enough corresponding information was given on the show, I think the article makes very clear that it's a fictional company. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started combing out the fiction, but it's going to take someone with much more interest in pop culture than me to figure out which parts are real and which are the product of scriptwriter's imagination. Tagged as "in universe" fancruft till comeone takes out all the bits that claim "Dunder Mifflin did this and Dunder Mifflin did that" - no, it didn't, it's not real. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with what you did, so I won't go further, but to be fair that can always be handled by saying "the company is depicted as having done this", which is real, and is the sort of prose WP:IN-U was meant to encourage. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)