Talk:List of The Office (American TV series) episodes/Archive 1

Links to streaming episodes.

Would it be appropriate to link to the NBC Universal-run site hulu.com for each episode that you can stream from there? It's legitimate (again, it's run by NBC Universal) and it would provide the ultimate context for each episode listing here. There could even be a, "Watch Now" link or something for each one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammysunset (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no on this one. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did the PICTURES Go?

I remenber back in the day that there where episode pics, now some ass removed it. I think some should be a rebel by not listening to the admins and put the pics back--SoldierOfColbert 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I seriouly mean people should mot be a nerd and just leave the pics on.

Season 3 Episodes Discussion

According to the NBC press release [1] the premiere is indeed "Gay Witch Hunt", as someone already added. If you find any others from NBC or a reliable source, feel free to add it to the list but if you don't know what episode number it is, just put TBA. Thanks- Puppet125 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed this, but "Grief Counseling" and "Initiation" have been switched, so Grief Counseling will air next week, possibly followed by Iniation, I'm not completely sure.

Webisodes

The section on this summer's webisodes say that Michael won't be in any of these episodes, as events in the season finale will render it inappropriate for him to appear. However, I didn't really see anything that showed why Michael wouldn't be in the office this summer. I mean, obviously Steve Carrell probably has to work on other projects, but from a plot perspective, I don't see how it works quite yet...

Jenna Fischer stated this as the reasoning in her blog this past week. I'm not sure either, but it's from the mouth of a cast member, so I trust he won't be in them.Williamnilly 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: I've been wondering. Since the webisodes take place between Season 2 and 3, should they be moved there or should they remain separate from the episode list? Discuss. Williamnilly 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So should I change it or not? - Puppet125

At first I thought it would be a good idea, but now I think it makes sense to leave it separate (the format of the seasons will look better with them running together in order rather than putting the big webisode chunk in there). Just as long as its clear that the webisodes take place between the second and third seasons, it's fine. Pele Merengue 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to become an issue. I've moved the webisodes back again to the bottom of the page, where I think they should stay for now. This page is called List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, not List of The Office (US) media (a la List of The Simpsons media). It's already sketchy that we have the webisodes listed here; we should at least keep them separate since they're not official network episodes. They're a completely different media outlet. If you think there should be a media page, by all means, start one. (The 2006 Prime Time Preview info would finally have a home, too.) But stop moving them without discussing your rationale. Williamnilly 06:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the webisodes are akin to Simpsons additional media, perhaps they would be more at home on a separate (or expanded) page, which could include adverts for NBC Olympic coverage by the characters from the Office, and the fake PSAs that NBC.com hosted. BaldAdonis 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is that function that when you click a link it brings you to a certain part of the page? I believe the character page uses it, when you click on a name in the box at the bottom. We should put one of those between 2 and 3, stating this is where the webisodes are and then have it link down there.Puppet125 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a complete break from the continuity of the websiode list when the chart doesn't include director or writer, but the chart for the seasons does. Even though its the same director and writer throughout, continuity is important. 69.141.220.219

Modelled on List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes

I took the CSI ep list as a model. However, I have made a few "improvements" (?).

1. The episode names are contained in quotation marks, which I believe should be the standard here on Wikipedia as it is elsewhere. That is, ep titles in quotation marks and program titles in italics.
2. Changed the column span of the description so that it fills the entire table width.
3. Changed "pic" to "screenshot," as that is the common Wikipedia term. Hopefully,someone with the first-season DVD can start snagging screenshots. Otherwise, we should use a filler image.
4. Did not make the ep title into a wiki link. Seems unlikely that there would ever be articles based on individual titles. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Any other suggestions for formatting? Also, at this point, the main article does not link to this list. I think we should get the format set and fill in the data before doing so. --Jeremy Butler 12:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. I have the first season DVD and all but two episodes of the second season saved on my DVR, so grabbing a screen from each episode should not be difficult. As I stated in the main article's talk page, I'd like to have an overview of each episode, kind of like what NBC.com puts up, but that's definately not a priority. Let's work on getting all of the episodes listed here first. Jtrost 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Listing Ep Numbers Sequentially Across Seasons

In the main Office article, we started the second season episode numbers with "one." I think more common practice is to number them sequentially across seasons--thus showing the total number of eps. So, Season Two should begin with "seven." Any opinions? --Jeremy Butler 13:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that each season started over at one. That way it's easier to reference episode numbers (like 2.01, 2.02, etc...). See the episode guides for Lost and Nip/Tuck. Jtrost 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see going either way with this. Or going BOTH ways--as they do on epguides.com! --Jeremy Butler 13:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer starting the episode count over with each new season. Considering there is a total count at the top of the article showing the total number of eps isn't that important anyway. I've always preferred it this way, but that's just my opinion. By the way, is The Injury actually showing on Christmas? I was under the impression that The Office was finished until January. Mrtea (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Style Guide

There is a Episode list style guide, but it's not very extensive. I think the format we've come up with fits it pretty well. --Jeremy Butler 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Episode pictures

I started adding screen captures for each episode. So far I have done 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05. My DVR didn't record episode 4 or 8 correctly, so if someone else can get screen captures of those that would help. I tried to find one scene in each episode that summed up the story, so if you looked at that one screen you would instantly remember what the episode was about. Jtrost 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt James over at northernattack.com would mind if we stole a few of his nicely captured shots. Maybe if we added an external links section saying, "Some of the above screenshots are taken from this site" sort of thing. I'll try to get a few captures. Mrtea (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Jtrost! And I'll drop James an email requesting permission. --Jeremy Butler 13:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

James told me in an email, "Absolutely, no problem. Anything to help out The Office community." He didn't specify what credit, if any, he'd like. I think probably putting a note in the External Links would be sufficient. --Jeremy Butler 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just added some pictures for the Episodes 2-6 from Season 1. Feel free to change them if you have any more appropriate (or just plain funnier) shots. Wikipedia brown 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I quite enjoy the one of the box. Good picks all 'round! --Jeremy Butler 13:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the box is the most memorable part of that episode. Oh yeah, I also realized that every screenshot that I took has Dwight in it. He's my fave. Wikipedia brown 05:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• For anoyone uploading screenshots, make sure you tag your image with {{film-screenshot}} [edit: see note below] -Mrtea (talk)

Good idea, but I've been trying to encourage the use of a new screenshot template specifically for TV: {{television-screenshot}}. [edit: see below] The {{film-screenshot}} template has some terms in it that do not apply to TV. --Jeremy Butler 13:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Right on. If people can, they should use yours. Mrtea (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a TV-specific template, thanks to Mrtea! It's {{tv-screenshot}} . Be sure to use it on all your TV screenshots! --Jeremy Butler 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot Size

Is there an ideal size for screenshots? I think 576x320 is a good compromise between file size and legibility. Like this:

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]

'Course, then it can scale down to 180x100 for the thumbnail in the ep list:

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|100px]]

And, if someone clicks the thumbnail, they get a decent sized image on the Image: page. --Jeremy Butler 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... checking my numbers, I see that 569x320 would be a more accurate representation of the 1.78:1 or 16:9 aspect ratio that The Office is shot in. (I still think 320 pixels is a good height to use.) I'll try that in the next screenshot I do. --Jeremy Butler 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Image

Oops, I uploaded a screenshot for "Booze Cruise" before realizing Jtrost had already put one up. I like his, but is there any sentiment for replacing it with this one? The only advantage to my image is that it's a close-up and easier to see as a thumbnail. --Jeremy Butler 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't care. Jtrost 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the switch then. --Jeremy Butler 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Table format

I made a small change to the format of the table. I made the background color for the episode description pure white. I think this helps seperate the episodes better visually. I got the idea from List of The Simpsons episodes. If people don't agree then my change can be reverted. Qutezuce 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies on episode lists

Thought I'd gather the various Wikipedia policies/guidelines on ep lists here:

• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes
• Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes
• Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Episode_lists

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy Butler (talk • contribs) .

Infobox

What about adding a succesion box to each episode page (see the bottom of Baby boomer for an example) so that the next/previous episode can easily be navigated to from each episode page? Are people in favour of this idea? Qutezuce 01:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Williamnilly created a very nice infobox for use on individual The Office episode pages that includes a previous/next episode link. Two changes I think would improve the box. First, make the "Previous Episode" and "Next Episode" boxes side by side, rather then one on top of the other, so that their positions better indicate the previous/next duality. It will require some tricks so that the previous/next episode boxes are equal width but don't force the cells above them to also have equal width. Secondly, do we want to include one episode number that spans all seasons or have a season number and and episode (in that season) number? I prefer the latter. Qutezuce 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've finalized the look of the infobox! The Injury for example. Williamnilly 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, awesome job on the template, Williamnilly. I knew those articles were missing something and the infobox is great. I agree that the Next/Previous episode links should be beside each other. I would also prefer the

Season 1

Episode no. 5

format Qutezuce discussed above. I might be able to make the changes myself, but I don't think I'd have time to change all the articles to conform with the template right now, and don't want to leave halfway through. Mrtea (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've finalized the look of the infobox! The Injury for example. Williamnilly 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! I think we can put the infobox on all the pages now. Qutezuce 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed you added the season and episode no (of the season) back into the infobox. Doesn't this seem repetitive? The infobox technically already lists the Season and episode number in the season list. Wouldn't we rather have the OVERALL episode number (ie. "The Injury" would be Episode 18 of the entire series) and then let the season episode list in the infobox speak for itself? Williamnilly 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now. My thinking was to provide an easy to read way of determining the season/episode number at a glance. With your way one would need to look at the bottom of the infobox, see the season number, then scan the list of episodes to find the episode number. Regarding the overall episode number, is that a useful number? I find that usually people refer to the season/episode number when they want to refer to a specific episode, not the overall episode number. Those are my thoughts on the issue, but it's not that big a deal to me. Qutezuce 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job everyone. I'm very impressed. I'll contribute what I can to these episodes. My only concern is that no sources are not properly cited under trivia. Adding an external link is not a proper citation. Please review WP:CITE on how to properly cite information. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Secret

I moved "The Secret" because someone added a film called "The Secret" as well. Maybe we should premptively move some of the other episodes that have "common" names, or all of them, to make it uniform. Qutezuce 21:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed all of the screenshots from this page because I am hoping that people who like the screenshots will participate in the argument over at Talk:List of Lost episodes. I love them, but we need more people in the discussion to take the haters down. 154.20.217.225 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. 154.20.217.225 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image spoilers?

Maybe I'm making too much of this, but the screenshots for episodes 1 and 3 of the new season seem a little revealing to me. Michael's kiss to Oscar is the uncomfortable climax of the season premeire while Dwight's punishment in episode 3 is intended to be the revealing payoff to the last joke in the episode. They're both good images that successfully capture the general themes of their respective episode plotlines, but I consider them both spoilers.

Does anyone agree? Pele Merengue 04:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a spoiler tag at the top of this article. And I would consider episode summaries to be spoilers as well, so I don't see a problem with the images as long a there are episode summaries. Qutezuce 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 has 25 episodes?

On the The Office main article it has 25 scheduled episodes for season 3 but I can't find a source. Does anybody know where that's been reported? - 75.38.115.132 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 production codes

How do we know these are the correct production codes? Rarely are the episodes aired in the exact same order they are produced. If there isn't a correct source that lists the prodution codes, shouldn't we leave them blank or replace them with "TBA" until we figure it out? Pele Merengue 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see why production codes are needed.Puppet125 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The production codes listed on the NBC site http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/episodes/ are four digits and disagree with the numbering here in various places, eg. Benihana Christmas is 3009, not 310/311. BaldAdonis 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They should be changed to NBC's codes, then. Williamnilly 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "A Benihana Christmas" really need to have 2 production codes? It was made as one episode and aired as one episode. - Deep Shadow 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? BaldAdonis 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was one of the "supersized" (i.e. 42-minute-long) episodes. Maybe it has two production codes because it's double the usual requirements for a "normal" episode? That's what I'm guessing from the top of my head. Pele Merengue 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can people please stop changing the production code numbers for season 3 so they appear in numerical order?! The way Thedemonhog had them was the same as the codes on the official website. Chismeister, don't change them again please. - Deep Shadow 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why the production codes ("Episode ID") on iTunes don't match the ones on NBC's website? 68.73.151.215 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe those are broadcast-order numbers. Not sure. -- Viewdrix 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure "Episode ID" is just a way to tell what the episode is in context to the season's story arc. So, if you're watching episode 3 of season two ("203" or whatever) the story would continue naturally with episode "204". Production codes are the order in which the episodes are filmed, which is rarely in the same order as the story arc because of a number of conflicting factors. So if iTunes gave their consumers production codes to go buy, they'd get all confused when the episodes they were watching had the story tossed all over the place rather than in the linear narrative it was meant to be told in. So, uh. Yeah. Pele Merengue 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The production codes on the NBC site are kind of hidden - you have to hover over the screenshot to see them. If the consensus is that these aren't really production codes, then I stand corrected, but they seem to be production-code-like (the numbers aren't in air-date order). -- Raymondc0 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I simply couldn't find them. Thanks. Makes you wonder what happened to 3014, though... -- Viewdrix 02:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An unregistered user went through and changed all the production codes without explanation (both on this page and on the individual episode pages). Does anybody know what the deal is? Is there some alternate source for production codes? Or is somebody just messing around? -- Raymondc0 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

His only explanation is the addition he made to this article, stating that NBC's production codes are not always accurate. I vote to change them back in any case. One episode being proven wrong does not mean the other, seemingly random codes are right. -- 00:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 in general

whats the source for all these future episodes? it seems like anyone could just make it up. Skhatri2005 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While anyone could just make it up, I do find them to be very convincing. They're most certainly legit. 201.81.252.13 05:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly legit? When you just said "anyone could just make it up"....? That's some interesting logic you have there. Unless there's a source there's no reason to believe it. GrahameS 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Time will prove me right, GrahameS. Meet you here after the episodes air. 201.81.252.13 04:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the dates that used to be there came and went, and the episodes came and went with all of them being wrong. Congratulations.Skhatri2005 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I took away the link of Caroline Williams from the writers. The Caroline Williams who writes for The Office is a different actor/writer.

Episodes are learned from NBC press releases. Check the individual pages for the sources. -- Viewdrix 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point out the source, if it exists, of the airing date and title of future episodes? Otherwise it really should get removed. --Lijnema 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They're on the individual pages every time. Safety Training was taken from IMDB, and turned out to be false. I didn't add that, and don't know how to delete pages, so I figured it would work itself out, and it kind of did. However, The Negotiation is confirmed to be the next episode, from a blog/summary of a convention/special event featuring much of The Office cast and crew. Go to the episode's page for the link -- Viewdrix 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Safety Training

no source for the date, I suggest it gets deleted until an NBC press release comes out. I know theres been cast sheets for it, but still, no proof no pudding. Skhatri2005 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the episode synopsis as there has been no official NBC press release for the next episode Makowsky 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen several sources say that there will be an episode called "Safety Training", but not necessarily that it will be the next episode. I suggest that the title of the next episode be left at TBA until there is a press release. Kangotang 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don’t have a link but i know the names of the next three.
  

46. The Negotiation
47. Safety Training
48. Woman Appreciation
don’t put this in the article till NBC has a press release, but i'm sure those are the names.--72.146.210.253 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your source? talk to J Klein 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• A spoiler site, including sides, name was confirmed by the writers and actors, I promise those are the names go to Television Without Pity, then go to the comedy section the go to The Office message board, then go to the spoiler post, which is called I didn't get the memo , and there you have the source along with other spoilers .--72.146.210.253 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also seen those on a spoiler site, but I'm loathe to put them up until there is an NBC official press release. On a sidenote, is there any specific wikipedia policy about un/official sources? Skhatri2005 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable information only. Wikipedia is not a rumor site. We'll find out soon enough; no need to be so anxious. -- Raymondc0 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hey read my post I said dont put it up til a press release and it's not a rumor, again read my post i'm just trying to help from people giving false episodes.--72.146.210.253 19:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also I would remove The Negotiation till a press release, but from what I hear there want be a new episode till April 5th and the latest the 12th.--72.146.210.253 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Negotiation is verifiable as the next episode. The link at the episode's page is a blog report from an Office event that included cast and crew. However, the date, writer, production number, etc. are all unverified. -- Viewdrix 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• March 15 has been confirmed as a REPEAT date, although the repeats will contain some extra scenes. Please do not post this as the date for the next episode. It will most likely be April 12, although nothing has been confirmed. Kangotang 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The next new episode is APRIL FIFTH, but there is no title yet. did everyone hear, APRIL FIFTH. source http://www.nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20070312000000-nbcspringsintoact.html

Skhatri2005 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is season 4

There was a break about a month or two long before tonight's episode. I think this is the start of season 4. Has anyone done any research on this? Randomfrenchie 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not. It's called a hiatus. -- Viewdrix 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Randomfrenchie 02:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Season 4 won't start until Fall 2007. It was definitely just a hiatus. If it was the start of a new season, NBC would be making all sorts of hubub about it. Pele Merengue 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Women's appreciation

confirmed by NBC http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20070413000000-nbcprimetimeschedu.html Skhatri2005 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot Fair Use

Come on people, you can't just start an edit war. If there's a discrepency, bring it up on the talk page. That's what it's here for. As far as the screenshots, they've all been shown as fair use. They are only used in the context of discussing the episode in question. Although they are not free, as long as used in that context, and no free equivelent is available, then it's fair use. I'm going to put them back for now, but if you don't like it, don't just revert. Post here. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was decided as a policy issue, see WP:NONFREE and per an ANI discussion that confirmed having such images in these list violate the NONFREE policy and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't know that poilcy existed. I think the more appropriate thing to do would have been to link to that in the first place rather than protect the page. (And I know you're not the one that put on the block.) Protecting isn't always the right thing to do... Now, especially with a new episode on tonight, updating isn't going to be that easy. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to make while locked

{{editprotected}} The "Writer" column for the most recently-aired episode, "Beach Games", still lists TBA, even though it's been revealed that it's Jennifer Celotta & Greg Daniels. Could an admin please make that addition?

Also, I think an understanding has been reached above, and this page can safely reverted to at least semi-protected, as everyone now understands images aren't fair use on list pages. --216.57.222.134 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected the page. CMummert · talk 21:48, 11 May 2007 (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 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Denoting 40 minute and Hour-long episodes

I've had this thought for a while, but couldn't figture out exactly how I wanted to do it. My thought was to note the "supersized" 40 minute episodes with a "†" symbol and the hour-long episodes with a "‡". For example...

Title	Writer(s)	Director	Original Airdate	Production Code (filming order)	#
"Fun Run"‡	Greg Daniels	TBD	September 27, 2007	TBA	52

The problem I'm having is where the footnote should go that explains what these mean. Anyone have any ideas? I think varying runtimes is definitely something that should be noted on this list, and a symbol is the easiest way to do that without having to explain it in the text description. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of just adding a footnote and linking it to multiple episodes, but this one seems more obvious. I'd like to remove mentions of supersized and hour-long episodes from the plot descriptions. I'm all for it. -- Viewdrix 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Would a separate "Notes" section after all the listings but before the "See Also" and external links work? Also, how would you want to handle the "producer's cut" episodes that aired at the regular length but got put on NBC.com and iTunes with deleted scenes edited in? Calindigo 02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, like this. I've seen some shows that have footnotes at the end of the episode list. J-ſtan ^Talk_Contribs 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone could give me a list of the episodes that were originally 40 minutes and one hour long? so far I have

40 min.

• Casino Night
• Women's Appreciation
• Beach Games

One hour

• Gay Witch Hunt
• Traveling Salesmen/The Return? (these are technically two episodes aired as one. Include?)
• The Job
• And the first four episodes of S4.

Please change if this isn't right. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

40-minute:

• Casino Night
• The Merger
• The Negotiation
• Women's Appreciation
• Beach Games
  
  

One-hour:

• A Benihana Christmas
• The Job
• First four episodes of Season 4
  
  

For the same reasons we don't include Producer's Cuts as 40-minute episodes, I wouldn't count Traveling Salesmen and The Return as an hour-long episode. We should go by first broadcast. -- Viewdrix 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 12:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that not all of the episodes warrant their own article per the manual of style, I don't agree that NONE of them do. Before the articles would be completely removed, I would think we'd need some way of voting which articles do warrant their own articles. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect all of the first & second season (perhaps retaining the Pilot per User:I's reasoning), which is all I have reviewed so far. No out-of-universe notability is asserted, hence nothing that comes close to passing the standard laid out at WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• If you take a look at WP:EPISODE#What a page should contain, most (if not all, I haven't reviewed all of them) of the pages follow the guidelines, including "no more than ten words per minute of screen time", "Information on production and broadcasting of the episode", and where applicable, "Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element" and "How the episode was received by critics". Therefore, I must vote against the merge. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above statement. There are many portions on the articles that follow WP:EPISODE#What a page should contain. Skhatri2005 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• You're reading the wrong section. The WP:EPISODE#What a page should contain section is in part 2, which describes what an episode page should contain assuming it already meets notability requirements from section 1. The issue is whether they in fact meet those requirements: WP:EPISODE#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes. I reluctantly concede that most of them do not. -- Raymondc0 14:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the show has been given enough recognition on the whole to warrant each episode being given their own page. The writers (of the office) have done a good job of having each episode contain much activity, enough for each episode to included on Wikipedia. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"I believe the show has been given enough recognition on the whole to warrant each episode being given their own page." This merely establishes that "The Office" as a whole is notable and merits a Wikipedia entry. Nobody is disputing that. But I don't think that, for example, the episode "Dwight's Speech" has many independent secondary sources or is particularly notable (in the Wikipedia sense). -- Raymondc0 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All pages should be merged and redirected, with the exception of the Pilot. I believe pilots should almost always be kept, for the sake of being a pilot, and they have the greatest chance of being notable. i ^said 07:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As each episode article follows the guidelines in WP:EPISODE#What a page should contain, I think they should be kept. Many other TV series have individual articles for each episode, and I think they are each notable enough for their own entry. I therefore think they should not be merged. --DearPrudence 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone mentioned Dwight's Speech not being notable, so I added the info from a few google searches. I think it would be a mistake to redirect these articles, since their seems to be a good deal of info on them on the net. A lot of the episodes also have running commentaries in the DVD box set, so their would be a good spot to get more real world info. I've noticed that someone has already started adding that kind of stuff, like at Pilot (The Office episode). IGN also has reviews for all episodes of season 3, and some of season 2. - Peregrine Fisher 05:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode reviews from web sites don't establish episode notability, in my opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources require "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". self-published sources discusses the requirements for Web sites. I don't believe episode reviews meet that standard. -- Raymondc0 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about TV Squad, they're basically an online newspaper. They have editorial oversight, the writers are paid, and they don't allow marketers or advertisers to interact with the writers. Also, they have a small group of writers, and it is not open to the general public. - Peregrine Fisher 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, google news recognizes them as a news source. - Peregrine Fisher 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I don't view merely being reviewed as establishing notability. (After all, these sites review every episode.) To me, notability would be if somebody used the episode to support an argument, or if the episode entered the public consciousness. -- Raymondc0 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"How the episode was received by critics" is one of the real world things that an episode article should contain, according to Wikipedia:Television episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do not generally participate in these sort of debates, but I must say that it would be silly to delete all these articles simply because they may not meet some subjective standard of notability. Brief episode capsules are not going to cause Wikipedia to run out of space, and I've always felt it was better to err on the side of keeping articles rather than deleting when there was disagreement. Uvaduck 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is, no offense to anyone above and below, a dumb discussion. Anything watched by ten million people is notable, and there's no reason to delete the info contained in these articles. -- Kicking222 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. I don't understand this fascist instinct that some people have where if they don't like something, they want to destroy it. If you don't like the articles, nobody's forcing you to read them. - Shaheenjim 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have to strongly disagree with this suggestion. To me this just seems like someone trying to cause trouble and create an argument when one is not necessary. This is honestly one of the things that really bothers me about Wikipedia. People have spent countless hours working on these episode pages and one person that has nothing to do with the subject nor any interest, thinks they can control everything. hansamurai 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree as well. I could see this being ok if the articles just a few lines, and were just barely stubs, but they are very detailed, and some put in the hard work to make the article. Also I love how TTN just throws this out there, then never makes another comment. It seems that the general consensus is no to a merger. Maybe we should remove the move notices? Amazingracer 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone opposed to concluding this debate? --DearPrudence 07:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the relevant tag from all the episode pages. Hopefully this absurd argument is over. Uvaduck 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice to interested editors

This is a boilerplate bit of advice to editors of television episode articles which have come under Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review.

There is fairly widespread consensus that not all television episodes are sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own in Wikipedia. In the interest of fairness, the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process has been established, to determine whether it's possible to establish out-of-universe importance and real-world context for television episode articles. For example, after uncontroversial discussion here, articles on individual episodes of The Simple Life were turned into redirects to List of The Simple Life episodes.

If you're interested in keeping episode articles, the key thing is to find reliable sources discussing individual episodes. Sources which may help establish notability for these episodes include reviews in newspapers, discussion in specialist magazines, and detailed episode guides. (Some of my fellow editors feel that episode guides aren't sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability, but I disagree, especially for professionally published episode guides.) The key thing for improvement of these articles is to include some real-world content (ratings are a good start) and information beyond plot summaries and cast lists. If there are any books published about this series, see if the production or impact of individual episodes are discussed, and add that information to the episode articles. If someone used sources like these books on a handful of these episode articles, to indicate that the episodes of this series have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that any episode of the series could have encyclopedic coverage, I'd support leaving the other articles as they are, because the potential would have been demonstrated. I hope that interested editors will take up this challenge, and improve the articles so that they won't be redirected.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know IGN and TvSquad.com do reviews of each episode. OfficeTally.com usually has some background information and behind-the-scenes. -- Viewdrix 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should migrate the fancontent into Dunderpedia (The Office wiki). Other popular shows like Battlestar Galactica (Battlestar Wiki), and Lost (Lostpedia) do the same. Then you can have all the trivia/speculation/lists you want without violating Wikipedia guidelines. -- Raymondc0 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the alternative solution of creating an article for each season? —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The last two solutions mentioned aren't mutually exclusive. The detailed episode listings could be moved to the fan wiki, while Wikipedia could have articles for each season. That is, of course, assuming that the editors of these episode articles can't bring the episode articles up to snuff, or aren't interested in doing so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Transferring the material and creating soft redirects to to Dunderpedia would also work. ~Cr∞nium 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment above says, "There is fairly widespread consensus that not all television episodes are sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own in Wikipedia." Is there? Because I'm certainly not in consensus about that. And it sounds like other people here aren't either. - Shaheenjim 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Totally against redirect and this isn't the first time I've noticed TTN's messianic instinct leading to ridiculous suggestions. Kuralyov 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I enjoy the content but also believe that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not a repository for the whole of human knowledge. -- Raymondc0 07:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this interview (section 7), Jimbo himself states that creating the repository of human knowledge is precisely the reason why wikipedia was created. :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having 100 articles on plot summaries is not knowledge of any kind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

Recently nbc posted a video detailing the summer vacations of the office members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.249.125 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into list of Office episodes

I agree with the merge with List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes since there is now an article on the mental health topic Grief counseling. One alternative would to cancel the re-direct from Grief Counseling (The Office episode) leaving that as the final article on the episode--Ziji (talk email) 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say that that is a poor reason to approve of the merger. For the more expansive argument, see above. -- Viewdrix 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Humble apologies for impoverished reasoning.--Ziji (talk email) 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode 3014

Checking the Season 3 production codes, I noticed the absence of a 3014. Can someone explain this? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's missing from the NBC page. -- Viewdrix 06:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Merge per Wikipedia Guidelines & Notability Standards

The individual episode articles have been listed for a merge for a fair amount of time now. Almost nothing has been done to assert real-world notability over that period and as a result these need to be merged. To the editors above who feel that they have !voted against such an action, it is important to remember what consensus means:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'.

At the moment, consensus still requires real-world context to establish notability. If editors feel individual episode articles should be kept they should
1. work to introduce such content, or

2. weigh in on the debates at WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:WAF ASAP.

So far, in those discussions, the suggestion that real-world notability and reliable, third party sources not be standard criteria for stand-alone articles has been largely rejected. Interested editors, however, are encouraged to air their views.

Meanwhile, at the risk of being repetitive, editors need to understand that, absent some major change in our basic policies, real-world, out-of-universe notability must be asserted. Consequently, individual comments made here are, in this regard, irrelevant since they fall outside of community consensus. Editors who feel strongly should direct their attention to the main debates centring around policy where that consensus is determined.

Sorry for the bolding and repetition, but it is important that editors who feel strongly about this issue ensure they participate in fora where their views can be considered. This is not such a forum and as the current discussion is unfolding, the individual episode pages will be merged. Eusebeus 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was just a debate on many of the Season 6 episodes of Scrubs to be merged into the main list, with the eventual goal to merge all non-noteable episodes. Much debate was had, but it ended up not having a consensus and thus, the articles of the individual episodes were left. It was pointed out that real world references could be found (a nursing site critisized an episode for an apparent deception of what nurses do) and also that, when the DVDs of the season come out, more information can be added. Likewise, out-of-world references to The Office can be found too (The Indianapolis Star just ran an article on managers taking advice from the show), and the DVDs via commentary can add even more. Unless a consensus can be reached on these articles being fan cruft and completely not notable, it's best to keep and improve, rather than merge and condense. 134.68.177.127 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above was me. In the pursuit of getting real world information into the individual episode pages, would this blog be acceptable? http://www.hrheroblogs.com/, the entires done by Julie Elgar.

I know blogs are generally not acceptable or reliable sources, but Elgar works for an HR firm and provides background information on her claims. Notthegoatseguy 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, have fun destroying all the work people have put into these articles. For the sake of consistency, I should hope that following this, every episode page for every television show ever is also deleted. They obviously have no place on Wikipedia. Uvaduck 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that every debate about this topic usually has nay sayers that believe that either no one listens or that the information is useful. And the opposite side tends to yell "REAL WORLD INFORMATION, BLARGH!" and not much else. I can't help but think that this will soon become the bureaucratic form of WP:ILIKEIT. Nevertheless, there are many other places for in-depth information with less stringent regulations. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion clearly shows that there is at least no consensus to merge. I'm totally willing to help out with those articles, but I don't think that after the previous discussion, they should be merged. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is based upon policies and guidelines, not fan interest. Due to the amount of WP:ILIKEITs and the lack of the assertion of real world notability, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and their child guidelines overrule them. TTN 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's right to ignore a majority just because a more vocal minority believes against them. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If we end discussion purely on a small majority instead of the consensus of the entire site, what is the point of content policies and guidelines? Until sources are provided and implemented in some way, we need to stick with the real consensus. TTN 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If it clears things up, I agree with a merge, as per policy and policy alone. I will not however, retract my previous thoughts on the matter. In fact, they have gotten stronger. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of The Office but also agree that episode guides are non-encyclopedic and do not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Selected aspects of a show may be encyclopedic when they become part of the cultural language (e.g. "Soup Nazi") but episode guides aren't part of the cultural language. The Office has Dunderpedia, just as other popular shows have their own sites for episode guides and other non-encyclopedic fan material (The Simpsons, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5). So far, the arguments against merging have been of the form "But I like it this way." Wikipedia is not "a list of everything people like." There are guidelines for inclusion, and those guidelines determine what goes in and what stays out. If you don't like the guidelines, then work to change the Wikipedia guidelines or move to Dunderpedia which has laxer guidelines. "But it cramps my style" is not a valid argument for inclusion. -- Raymondc0 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I would side with merging individual episode articles by season. Each episode doesn't need more than two well-written paragraphs to describe its plot (more for 30-50 minute episodes than the standard 22, of course), and Wikipedia's guidelines pretty clearly state that episodes should be individually notable to merit their own article. As for the trivia currently in the article pages, such is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. - Chardish 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I will redirect to the episode articles to the main LOE page soon. Interested editors may wish to transwiki the information to a wikia, as discussed in WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Webisodes

It should be easy to write original summaries, so that this page violates copyright less. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Take your daughter to work day link

When clicking the link for the take your daughter to work day episode, it links to something else, could someone please fix this so it links to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Your_Daughter_to_Work_Day_%28The_Office_episode%29

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.254.25 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)