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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hi. I knew all the The Office articles were like this like 5 years ago but I checked this again the other day after seeing Chandler Bing is in a sorry state... I was shocked how crufty this article still is in the year 2023, for a series that has an episode for every episode (though not at Simpsons or Breaking Bad quality certainly). Over a few edits I tried to make the lead better (though some of what I wrote sounds like an alien, I admit) and made the infobox less excessively long.
Past the lead #Casting looks good, #Legacy of "That's What She Said" is I guess fine, #Comparison with David Brent is largely unsourced (and includes some unusable sources like "The show's writers have said"), #Behind the scenes really should be a more cohesive "Development" section if anything (maybe expand and roll it and Casting together), and I didn't even attempt to work on the in-universe sections... which are at like 5.6K words and not very encyclopedic or readable. But yeah TLDR if you did not notice this needs major rewriting and reorganizing. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DemonDays64 > I was shocked how crufty this article still is in the year 2023, for a series that has an episode for every episode…
I'm guessing you meant "a series that has an article [on WP] for every episode".
I agree about the cruft. Overwriting is particularly rife in articles on TV series, where fans often misinterpret their enthusiasm as useful material. I'm as much of an Office fan as anyone (I tried my darndest to think of a way to include "That's what she said" in this comment 😕 ), but have made numerous suggested edits for simplicity and omitting extraneous detail. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
