Talk:Local Ad

Local Ad 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.

Local Ad is part of the The Office (American season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 25, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / The Office Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by The Office task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quotes

Quotes from Local Ad are available: The Office Quotes --99.225.17.20 03:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Coincidence?

Anyone else think it's odd that Ryan's secretary looks remarkably like Pam, including wearing a shirt almost exactly like one Pam has worn in several episodes? 71.76.235.136 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Vega[reply]

Undoubtedly an odd coincidence. Good eyes on your part. Perhaps you could scrounge around and find a mention of this somewhere? Not saying there even is one, but perhaps someone has mentioned it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song playing

in micheal's commercial, which is the song playing in the background? should we include that note in the trivia? Rohan2kool 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, at the time you asked the question, it was noted in the trivia. But trivia doesn't belong in Wikipedia, so I moved it to Dunderpedia and added a link. (This follows the pattern established with music in other episodes.) -- Raymondc0 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but note that the notes section looks like trivia. Maybe we could call it a "note" and get away with it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can call it trivia and still get away with it, because trivia is allowed in Wikipedia. I don't know why Raymondc0 always objects to it. - Shaheenjim 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TRIVIA "Trivia sections should be avoided." Encyclopedias don't contain trivia, at least none that I'm familiar with. -- Raymondc0 07:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The common problem with trivia sections is that people equate not being forbidden with being acceptable. To illustrate the folly of this standpoint, consider a company registered offshore to avoid corporate taxes. Although this, too, is not illegal/forbidden, it is also not appropriate or responsible behaviour. Such is the case with trivia sections, which, although technically allowed, are undesirable and not present in good articles. Wikiguidelines are quite clear on this point. Arguing in favour of trivia sections is, therefore, arguing in favour of mediocrity. We’re here to write good articles, not collect details we think are cute. Elcobbola 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that aren't forbidden are not appropriate or responsible. But some things that aren't forbidden are appropriate and responsible. I submit that trivia on Wikipedia is appropriate and responsible.

Trivia is interesting, and there's no reason to exclude interesting things. Most encyclopedias don't contain articles on TV shows either. Clearly this isn't a normal encyclopedia. - Shaheenjim 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is interesting is a subjective determination; the use of “interesting” as a criterion for inclusion, therefore, is both invalid and a violation of NPOV. The formal logic of “being interesting” warranting inclusion also implies that “being uninteresting” warrants exclusion; if Wikipedia really used your logic, we’d see a few million articles deleted. Although Wikipedia is certainly different than other encyclopedias in some areas (e.g. range of topics covered), that does absolve it from the need for good articles with relevant/notable content. Elcobbola 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia guidelines specify that trivia should be integrated into the body or presented as a narrowly-focused list. This guideline against "general miscellaneous information" is reiterated in Trivia and lists. I like trivia more than the next guy (Did you know that it was Brian Baumgartner's idea that his character's fiancée is always out of town?), but I also understand Wikipedia is not the place for it. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an Office fan site.-- Raymondc0 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was mistaken, let me repeat: Notes=Trivia. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola: If the article said the trivia was interesting, that'd be an unnecessary violation of the NPOV. But just including things that are interesting isn't unreasonably POV. To claim otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia's rule that says that people should use common sense. And that rule trumps other rules.

Also, just because we should include interesting things doesn't mean we should exclude uninteresting things.

Also, notability is the criteria for entire articles. Not for each sentence in every article.

Raymondc0: I'm not saying people can't integrate trivia into the body. (Although I actually think that style guideline is dumb, and trivia is better in its own section.) I'm just saying you shouldn't delete it altogether.

Also, the difference between Wikipedia and a fan site is that fan sites can include fan created content, opinions, and discussion of the show. I'm not suggesting we include any of that in Wikipedia. I'm just suggesting we include interesting factual trivia from the show. - Shaheenjim 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we should have it" would work if the Wikipedia guidelines say "If most people think Wikipedia should have it, then it's okay." But that's not what the guidelines say, so the argument is specious. "Because the guidelines are dumb" is insufficient grounds for violating the guidelines. -- Raymondc0 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we should violate Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm pointing out that trivia doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines. - Shaheenjim 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

In the notes section, it says the following: "When Pam asks Jim why his Second Life avatar has a guitar strapped on his back, Jim gives a blank stare, implying that he does not know how to play. However, in E-mail Surveillance, a guitar can clearly be seen in his room." I don't believe Jim was implying that he does not know how to play. I realize this is purely a judgement call, but it just seems to me that he's just embarassed with all of Pam's questions about his avatar, and was apparently unprepared for her to be so interested in him. Maybe he was hurt because she hadn't realized he played guitar since she clearly could have seen it in the aforementioned episode. In either case, it's ultimately inconclusive and therefore unneeded.

Also, Pam doesn't ask Jim why he has a guitar; she notices that he has a guitar slung on his back and says "I did not know you played guitar." So if these things ring true for anyone else then perhaps a revision is needed, on one or both accounts.Larphenflorp (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Local Ad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Everything looking pretty nice at this point. Only a few little things to clear up for a GA pass:

Unbold quotes around title.
Probably not worth mentioning in the lead that Reitman directed Juno; it's a kind of trivial detail that is mentioned later on anyway.
Maybe say the "National Broadcasting Company network". Even though that's the name of the network, it does sound a little funny to hear the episode aired on a company.
Move the character full names/links/actor credits from the plot up to the synopsis in the lead where necessary, i.e. Michael, Dunder Mifflin, Dwight, Angela.
an alternative version he will produce himself -- "that he will..."
Dwight had created -- present tense "has created"?
Later, when Jim plays Michael's version -- can we do without the "later"?
Reitman also stated that -- "he" reads better than "Reitman" because his name's just been mentioned.
we created for (Thank You For) Smoking -- use square brackets for inserted speech, and also italicise the film title (without italicising the square brackets!).
Add a closing quotation mark after "neither does he".
Specify that the product placement list was compiled by IAG Research.
State that it was B.J. Novak nominated for the WGA award, not just the episode itself.
Again, state the writer of the episode that did win the award.
"Local Ad" received a 5.2 Nielsen Rating and a 8% Share -- 1. "Nielsen rating and an 8% share"
4.1 percent of all people 18–49 -- "all people aged"
All reviewers' comments given in Reception are basically "someone stated that..." & "someone else stated that..." Use some variety with other phrases instead of "stated that".
Image:LocalAd2.jpg isn't low resolution. It should be scaled down to roughly the size of Image:Local Ad.png, or slightly (just slightly!) larger because it's of poorer quality.

So that's about it. You've got seven days to make necessary changes and hopefully then we can pass the GAN. Give us a shout when you think you're done, and good luck :) —97198 talk 09:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, all requests have been completed, except the image and the move of links to the lead. The other Office episodes don't link in the lead, and I'd like to keep the consistency, unless the change is desperately needed. I should complete the image soon. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resized image. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think everything's good to go now; I'm happy to promote. —97198 talk 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The episode was watched by an estimate audience of 8.98 million viewers and achieved a 4.7/11 in the key adults 18–49 demographic. This means that 4.1 percent of all people aged 18–49 viewed the episode, and eleven percent of all people watching television at the time viewed the episode" -- mistake here but I don't know if 4.7 or 4.1 is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Me Im A Dr (talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local Ad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219203806/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653 to http://wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Local Ad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Local Ad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info

This is episode 5 of season 4. Manj782 (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's episode 9 – these are the original broadcaster's (NBC) episode numbers. Hour-long episodes are treated as two episodes. See List of The Office episodes. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]