Talk:Office Assistant

Silicon Valley - Daily Active Users Episode

Parodies Clippit with Pipey. Should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.39.129 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed helpful?

Well, it's about time that those last three paragraphs were deleted. I wasn't vandalising! Any tips on how to INFORM the moderators that what I did was indeed helpful?

"Clippy" is not, and has never been the name of the paperclip. The (really lousy imo) comic strip User Friendly is responsible for popularizing the wrong name. The primary reference to the default Office Assistant should be "Clippit" throughout.

Also, I cannot find any reference to Seiko Sensei or the monkey elsewhere on the web. If the name is searchable when presented in its native language (japanese? chinese?) then the native language name should be in the article.

"Clippy" is used by Microsoft. A Google search on "site:microsoft.com clippy" gives "about 258" results. "site:microsoft.com clippit" gives "about 50" results. Microsoft themselves seem to prefer "Clippy" - David Gerard 19:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Clippit' was the original name, but Microsoft changed it to 'Clippy' about two or three years ago. I don't know why but my best guess is that 'Clippit' is some sort of trademark infringement. --Smallbone10 16:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Microsoft Word still calls it Clippit. Just look at the Office Assistant menu. -WVI

Would I be out of line to request that images of the Seiko Sensei and the Monkey be added if possible to complete the set, and as those are the least likely to have been seen by English-speaking readers? - IsaacSapphire 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference link on the article. --190.28.85.251 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

office assist

Rocky was actually inspired by a program not made by microsoft but by Hallmark (the card company). Amazingly rocky used to be a flying (superhero) dog named rover until microsoft saw the dog hallmark (it was software that acted like publisher) had made and decided to buy it. There is also a recent parrot.

Have you got any proof, 67.168.99.180? see edit history here --rjcuk 10:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are very very confused, Rocky is not the superhero dog or Rover. Rover was a different character that provided help in Microsoft Bob and the flying dog is Powerpup, he was an Office Assistant in 97 and isn't related to Rocky. --190.28.85.251 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

International Assistants

The article says that there are some office assistants that are exclusive to the japanese version of office XP multilingual pack. Are there assitants in other languages (like portuguese, greek, arabic, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.252.116 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

True or urban myth?

Remember hearing way back in the late 1990s about religious groups complaining to Microsoft about the anthropomorphic paperclip, but I've never seen any articles... but I can't seem to find any references on Snopes.com to confirm or deny this either. Any truth to this? --I am not good at running 22:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Easter egg

The article currently has an external link to a google search under the title 'Easter egg on a Google search for "Clippy"'. I don't see anything out of the ordinary there. Am I missing something, or should the link be removed? Rufous 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User Reaction

Should not the article say how universally detested this egregious, annoying piece of patronising silliness was? Adam 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a non-neutral Point-of-View, but there's no problem in adding a section on customer's reaction, if you can back it up with some good references. Rufous 14:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for it, under a "Criticism" section. 201.37.132.46 03:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who loved clippy (I'm one of them)

Who's that one guy?

I noticed on that picture showing all the office assistants, there's one that looks like Shakesphere (sp?). He's not listed in the part that describes the characters though. Define? --RedPooka 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, before reading your comment (but after you posted it), I added a caption to the picture listing their names. Powers ^T 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He is Shakespeare, he appears as Will in Office 97.--190.28.85.251 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bard must have been turning in his grave after that insult... 88.77.153.160 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Office 2004"?

It mentions an "Office 2004" in the page, but there never was an Office 2004... edit: Nevermind. I didn't think of Office Mac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.119.211.30 (talk • contribs) .

Download

How do you download Microsoft Word or have Office Assistant on Word Perfect?--Princess Homestar 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried the Reference Desk? Specifically, the Computing Reference Desk? Powers ^T 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yoiu have to buy Microsoft word, but you can't have Office Assistants in WordPerfect.

Melinda Gates

Nobody is going to mention that the PM of microsoft BOB was Bill Gates future wife, and that her product ended up being shoved into Office against the wishs of the Office team? 67.168.20.28 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should mention it because the facts don't line up. Melinda French was the General Manager of several products in Microsoft's Consumer Division in 1993 through early 1995, including Microsoft Bob, but also Creative Writer and Encarta. My recollection was that she retired from Microsoft with the release of Bob 1.0. The "PM" (which is known as Program Manager at Microsoft) was Karen Fries. Microsoft Bob was her brainchild. Product Managers were called PDM's. I do not recall the PDM for Bob.

I would argue that Melinda had very little (if none altogether) influence in Microsoft Office getting social user agents. Melinda left Microsoft in early 1995, Office Assistant didn't appear in Office 95, but did in Office 97. Ed Fries, Karen Fries' husband was a senior manager for Microsoft Word in 1995-1996. Finally, I would also argue that Office ignored many of the tenants around social agent interaction that Microsoft Bob had adopted.

Charles Oppermann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Overview"

The "Overview" section shouldn't just jump into criticizing the Office Assistant right off the bat like it does now. All the stuff about its negative reception should be completely separate from a neutral description of the program itself and, more importantly, come afterwards. It doesn't necessarily have to be a whole new criticisms section, but it should at least be separated out into its own paragraphs. --Foot Dragoon 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it has it's own paragraph now. --rjcuk 10:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bildung

I recall an older version of this article mentioned that in one version of word Clippy's credentials were present and indicated he studied at Brown University. Anyone know anything about this?

References

Someone added a bunch of "references", which I took the liberty of removing. They were really just external links to articles about the paperclip, but none of them were actually referenced in the wp article itself. --Duke33 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That F***ing Clip

I have no idea if it's true or not, but apparently Clippy goes by a different name within the Office development team: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=340399&cid=21122885 Richard W.M. Jones 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "TFC"

The article mentions this and cites a MSDN blog. The MSDN blog doesn't explicitly say what "TFC" stands for, but the ./ article does.

Not feeling bold today. Here, you do it. jdstroy (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: "TFC"

Excuse me... Could somebody please remove the beep word. Innapropiate. Please remove within 24 h Firefoxcub (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV!

This article is very anti-Clippit. Surely there is some good things about the Office Assistant? At the moment it is "clippism"! microchip08 14:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the article itself anti-clippit? The article mentions what the software is for, has a cited line stating the overwhelming public hatred (I just added a quote and another source to this effect), a section on the fact that Microsoft themselves had an advertising campaign which basically acknowledges the fact that everyone hates Clippit, and various references to him in other media. All of these things are factual. What else is there to say? If you can find something else that he's good for not covered, or reliable sources to cite showing that there are those who feel differently about him, Be bold and edit the page. If there's another side to the story, I've yet to hear it. 76.204.78.104 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just there's nothing pro-clippit. It's all "annoying", blah. microchip08 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is quite biased but I find it be humourous.Djskein79 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't anything pro-clippit out there, there doesn't need to be anything pro-clippit in the article. Indium (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to close debate on this one. I'm going to remove the tag. Maury (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Without tagging the article, it does seem that Clippit is presented as entirely negative. (And perhaps, by extrapolation, the technology, itself.) Comparing it to the enormously popular (and earlier) Talking Moose suggests that *some* aspects, at least, of Clippit were useful. On a subjective note, I read through the MS book on the subject, and felt the underlying technology was viable and even well-considered. I.e., even knowing Clippit's terrible reputation, I was thinking of using the technology.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between good idea and good implementation is key. Consider Balloon Help on the Mac, which was (IMHO) an excellent idea but nevertheless derided due to it's annoying implementation. Or AOCE. The problem with OA wasn't the concept, it was the implementation. And that it was widely derided, which is amply supported in references, is simply a statement of fact, regardless of whether or not the idea itself was a good one. Maury (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The tools that sticks out in my mind as the worst were the early versions of the Windows Troubleshooting Wizards. Not because rule-based systems are flawed, but because, as with OA, the implementation was flawed. The troubleshooting always seemed to be fixated on a different problem than the one I had, and invariably failed to provide help.

When a person needs help, and the tool solves their problem, they're all for it. I remember people using OA, even while complaining about it, even while occasionally getting good information. The wrong answers seem to stick in people's minds. What would be nice is if there was sentence or two in the article regarding something it did well.Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WordHelpers.PNG

Image:WordHelpers.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Since so many folks have edited this, there were many different styles and typos, etc. I've done a standard copyedit, with one exception in meaning, which is the sentence describing why the Clippit character is seen most often. It's not, as the original said, because users were trying to activate a different Office Assistant (that doesn't make sense, why would one end up with default if trying to install a different one). It's because using the CD for other Office changes is liable to set the character back to default — would that be right?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the default character is Clippit. But in earlier versions of Office (will have to look it up exactly when that changed), selecting/activating a different character required users to insert the original Office disc. Without the disc, it could not be activated. By activated, I mean it copied another character file from the disc to the HDD. (.ACS or ACG) So most users (who either didn't like inserting the CD or didn't have access to the CD at that point) were stuck with Clippy. This behavior was present even if the Office Assistants were set to "Run from My Computer" in Office setup. That's how he became the most popular. - xpclient ^talk 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing potentially harmful link

I'm removing the link to "Customizable Clippy Simulator," (http://www.rjlsoftware.com/software/entertainment/clippy/), as Google Safe Browsing and McAfee Site Advisor report the URL as potentially harmful. Both advisory sites report the presence of Trojan horses. Comments on the McAfee page describe the attacks as "pranks," but I'm pulling the link to be safe. ColorfulNumbers (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

I'm only kind of serious about this, but what if "stupid paperclip" redirected here? Aang94479 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

What is the clarification need on "It used technology" in the lead. The objection is to the word "technology"? This talks about Clippy using Bob code: "The Office group was looking to address the challenge of a rich feature set and an increasingly overburdening interface of cascading menus and dialogs. Looking for a solution, they adopted the Bob code and integrated it into Office’s help interface."

Clippit makes a comeback in Word Crimes by "Weird Al" Yankovic

Clippit, the animated paperclip Microsoft Office Assistant, makes an appearance in the music video at the lyrics, "Just keep in mind that 'be', 'see', 'are', 'you' are words, not letters. Get it together. Use your spellchecker."

DaDoc540 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Clippit vs. Clippy

The names Clippit and Clippy are used back and forth interchangeably in different parts of the article. Recommend choosing one to avoid confusion, leaving the notation in the opening section that "Clippy" is the popular moniker for what is officially called "Clippit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.38.247 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone's changed it all back to "Clippy" despite the fact that his name in Office is, and has always been, Clippit. Finding search result links with other people who also get the name wrong doesn't change the factual truth. Matt-thepie (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

https://xkcd.com/978/

Relevant 108.60.63.241 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The paperclip-demon introduced itself as Clippy. This is how it's referred to just about everywhere else but this one page. That includes on this page claiming to be from the person who designed it, as well as Microsoft's more recent communications about it. None of the citations given for the name seem to back up "Clippit".

I'm really confused. Oolong (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are two official communications from Microsoft that refer to it as Clippy. So far I've come up short hunting for one that confirms its real name is secretly Clippit.

2001 announcement of its retirement: https://news.microsoft.com/2001/04/11/farewell-clippy-whats-happening-to-the-infamous-office-assistant-in-office-xp/

2021 announcement of its partial resurrection:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2021/07/08/get-nostalgic-with-new-microsoft-teams-backgrounds/ Oolong (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I just checked through every citation in the article and found only one that used "Clippit". Unless anyone comes up with some drastic new evidence, I'll rewrite the article soon to use Clippy (with a proportionate mention of the occasional use of Clippit). Averixus (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Good find on the reference, though I still agree with the rewrite as Wikipedia uses common name and Microsoft itself is using Clippy. In rewriting, there is also the opportunity to better distinguish between the avatar and the assistant; Clippy is only the default avatar of the Office Assistant. While Clippy has broader recognition and cultural impact, it is only a subtopic of the Office Assistant. —Ost (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the name change throughout the article (although I haven't done any other restructuring). Averixus (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I had Microsoft Office in 1998, in which the character was called "Clippit". If you look through the references for this article, you will see that many of them note this.

• https://www.ibtimes.com/clippy-lives-microsoft-revives-personal-assistance-office-2016-tell-me-feature-1994158 — The paperclip balancing on a sheet of paper, officially named "Clippit,"
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070212204645/http://lis.dickinson.edu/Technology/Training/Tutorials/MsOffice/assistant.htm — Clippit, the default Office Assistant,
• https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-clippy-back-ai The former Microsoft Office mascot — technically named Clippit, though pretty much everyone calls him Clippy
• https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2022/08/origin-story-of-clippy-the-microsoft-office-assistant ut nearly three decades after its genesis at the Redmond tech giant, Clippit—better known as Clippy—improbably lives on.
• http://xenon.stanford.edu/~lswartz/paperclip/paperclip.pdf (reference one) cites the actual name as "Clippit" when it introduces the character on page 3 and later on page 22: Popularly known as “Clippy the Paperclip” (the default character, referred to in Microsoft Office itself as “Clippit”),

If you read through these articles, you will see that many of them note that the actual name of the Assistant was "Clippit" for at least the first twenty-some years of its existence. It seems unlikely that everyone had a mass collective delusion that Clippy was called "Clippit" for this whole time. It does indeed seem to be the case that Microsoft changed the name of the Assistant in later marketing materials, but this is something that should be noted in the article, and not retroactively imposed on on the last. I am reverting this edit. jp×g 08:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Good find on those sources. It's still clear that 'Clippy' is the overwhelmingly most-used name today. So as per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, that should be the one used for the article. But it would definitely improve the article if you were to add those sources and an explanatory section about the history of the names. Averixus (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

On closer inspection I think it's likely some of those sources are examples of "citogenesis", since they all post-date the time that this wikipedia article said the official name was Clippit. In any case, Clippy is the common name and the one we should use. If we're going to add a section explaining the naming history, we should focus on archive sources that are definitely old enough not to be citing this article. Averixus (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not true. I would recommend you read what I'm citing -- the last source (the Xenon link), which has been in this article for years, is basically a complete monograph on this character, and it was published in 2003. This article was created in January 2004. Moreover, the sources I give here are almost all from the article, and have been in it for years: they give the correct name in the body text, just not the headlines. jp×g 20:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

JPxG is correct. This is not citogenesis. "Clippit" was always the official name, and it didn't start being called "Clippy" until the Microsoft campaigns in later years about how everyone hated Clippy. Andre🚐 20:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

All the pre-2003 references I've been able to find call it Clippy, not Clippit - including screenshots of the software, on which Clippy introduces itself as Clippy.

Please let us know if you find anything solid to contradict this. So far we only seem to have one (unofficial and uncited) source for 'Clippit' that is slightly older than this entry (which goes back to 2004).

Thanks! Oolong (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken, and I would advise that you consider the sources more carefully. The software never introduced him as "Clippy." Andre🚐 15:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I had searched the article citations looking for uses of "Clippit" before but must have missed the ones you pointed out. In any case, by far the most commonly used name today is Clippy and so that's what should be used in the article. The fact the name was apparently different in the past doesn't have any relevance to what the common name is now. Averixus (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME has to do with the name of the article. but the article is called "Office Assistant." Which is an order of magnitude more common than either Clippit or Clippy. Andre🚐 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, but Clippy/Clippit is bolded in the lead, is the subject of much of the article, and doesn't have a separate article of its own. This page is clearly about Clippy/Clippit more than it's about other Office Assistants. If that's an issue with the intended scope of the page, then more drastic changes are needed, but that's not a reason to ignore general style guidance in the meantime.

Also consider in MOS:SURNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker." The majority of sources use Clippy, it is the common name. Averixus (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, the COMMONNAME, which is guidance on what to title the article, is "Office Assistant," as it has been since 2004. It's about the use of assistive technology in office of which, Clippit/Clippy is the most well-known example, but the article is not about Clippit exclusively nor does he need an independent article, in my opinion. SURNAME is a red herring as it pertains to surnames and the use of first names for fictional characters. It is not relevant here. Clippit has no first name or surname. His name is Clippit, and sometimes, and more commonly known as, Clippy. The article can and should use both names. Andre🚐 07:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC added to try and get some other input, since we don't seem to be approaching consensus. Averixus (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I would posit that there is a consensus here, i.e. the nearly twenty-year(?) status quo that was changed a couple weeks ago. jp×g 09:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not like that was the first time it's been changed, and there's a general consensus outside of Wikipedia that its name is Clippy!

This entry was started in 2004 using both names, but mostly 'Clippy'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:History/Office_Assistant&offset=20040110070929

So, no, we don't have a consensus in favour of 'Clippit'. Oolong (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There cannot be a consensus outside of Wikipedia. Andre🚐 15:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So we have at least one source that pre-dates Wikipedia's insistence on "Clippit", but it doesn't seem to cite its own sources for this claim. It also uses "Clippy" twice as often.

Can you find a single official Microsoft source for "Clippit"?

Thanks! Oolong (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources do not need to cite their own sources. Some of us actually had Office 97 and Office 2000. He was only known as Clippit until he became a pop cultural phenomenon as an unhelpful assistant in which he became popularly, and incorrectly, known as Clippy. Microsoft later referred to him as Clippy as well. Andre🚐 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No, but sources should be 'reliable' according to Wikipedia standards, and I don't think an unpublished undergraduate thesis counts, does it? However, neither does an email from the designer of the figure in question, which is what's finally convinced me that it really was officially called 'Clippit' prior to 2001! Many of us who used Office 97 at the time remember it as Clippy - do with that information what you will!

I guess now we just need to establish whether the name 'Clippit' retains any official status at all given that Microsoft now uses 'Clippy', or else move on and focus on which name is in common use and go with that... Oolong (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing unreliable or obsolete about [1] this article published in the 2022 issue of "Seattle Met", this article in Mental Floss[2], this article on Artsy[3], and as far as the Stanford thesis, it apparently was published (at least, it certainly was by the Wikipedia definition of published, which also includes things like a gravestone or an archive) and cited over 60 times[4] Since you've concluded that this as a Mandela effect (which, in this case, is just a bad memory, and not a mysterious quantum time travel phenomenon that people swear up and down happened to them or that they saw despite apparently not happening in consensus reality). Here is another academic source [5] [6]Many people complain that Clippit is not very intelligent. And another. [7] The experience with Clippit was compared to the equivalent interaction with an annoying human who shows up in your office uninvited, cited by 68. And even more The simple answer is that Clippit just wasn’t part of the user experience[8] Many people complain that Clippit is not very intelligent. [9] Office Assistant, named Clippit, because it has been the source of wide Clippit easier to hide in Office 2000. But the complaints kept coming in and now Clippit [10] There are about 400 academic links to Clippit[11] Andre🚐 18:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

...And about 2,000 results for Clippy. [12]

We've established that it was originally introduced as Clippit. The question is whether that 20+ year old name which is no longer prefered by the public or the original creators should still be given priority here. Averixus (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of those results do not pertain to the Office Assistant at all. The first 4 on the first page of results do. Then it starts to be other things, such as a Python CLI[13] or tissue engineering[14] or torque control in lingual appliances[15] I'd say something like half of those results aren't relevant at all. Andre🚐 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if half of them are irrelevant, that's still more than twice as many hits for Clippy as Clippit! Genuine question: do you believe that Clippit is the more common or widely-used name today? Or do you believe it's less common, but should have precedence because it was the earliest official name? Averixus (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am not arguing that Clippit is more common than Clippy, it's obvious that Clippy is more common despite originating as a simplification or an error. Clippy is a widely used nickname. It's not uncommon for a nickname to be more widely used than the official, original name. That does not mean we need to use that everywhere we use the name though. That is not what COMMONNAME calls for. COMMONNAME calls for the title of the article to reflect the most common name (which is "Office Assistant") Andre🚐 19:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Office Assistant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.microsoft.com/office/clippy/downloads.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Office Assistant. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070715025544/http://office.microsoft.com:80/en-us/downloads/CD010226181033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/CD010226181033.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true oder failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Office Assistant. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/desktop/dancers.mspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160623092248/http://sfist.com/2016/06/20/silicon_valley_hbo_season_3_episode_9.php to http://sfist.com/2016/06/20/silicon_valley_hbo_season_3_episode_9.php
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20110703064638/http%3A//www.ribbonhero.com/ to http://www.ribbonhero.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Explain criticism

This article mentions widespread criticism and has a section about it. However, it does not (or, to be correct, only very superficially) explain what was actually criticized about it. Since many of the younger readers probably didn't have joy to experience it themselves it would be great to include this as well. When I read an article stating all the time that something was widely criticized and badly received, I would really like to know why. 129.16.41.192 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A valid argument. Let us expand it somehow. Zezen (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Found this

And a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, recently highlighted by Vocativ, has identified one more reason why that little paper clip sent so many people into rage spirals: Digital assistants tend to make us feel powerless. It’s not just Clippy, in other words —  it’s his entire species. [...] The mainstream may never be ready for this particular social user interface. People value autonomy at work above all else, but it’s a hard thing to achieve when a smiley face (or a pixelated paper clip) won’t stop telling you what to do.

https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/people-hated-clippy-because-he-made-them-feel-powerless.html Zezen (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Names in other languages

[It’s not in the article yet, but I’d second it:] Is there any point in listing some foreign names for the main character (like, for instance, with Thomson and Thompson)? In German, for example, Clippit is called Karl Klammer, a combination of an older male name and “[paper] clip”. It’s mere trivia, and not particularly English-related, but it may illustrate a droll diversity in translation works. -- Gohnarch^░ 07:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mascot Suit

Microsoft owns a full size Clippy mascot suit. They bring it out for special occasions, mostly employee parties. Blurrr2 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether to use the name 'Clippit' or 'Clippy'

Should the paperclip office assistant character be referred to as 'Clippit' or 'Clippy'? Averixus (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Clippy. It is by far the most commonly-used name today, and is used by the vast majority of sources cited in the article. There's ambiguity about whether WP:COMMONNAMES and MOS:SURNAME are relevant here, because we're not actually discussing the title of the article. But since the paperclip is the best-known office assistant character and is the subject of much of this article (being bolded in the lead and without a separate article of its own), I think the spirit of those policies should still apply. Clippit may have been its official name at some point in the past, but is no longer commonly used by either Microsoft or the general public. It should be mentioned as a historic name but not used throughout the article. Averixus (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For clarity: I certainly think that whichever name is chosen, they should both be mentioned and the relationship between them explained. The dispute is which should be used through the rest of the article, beyond the point where the character is introduced. Averixus (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Both names, with precedence to status quo ("Clippit"). There are five sources in the above section, including ones which predate this Wikipedia article, which unambiguously say the character's name is "Clippit" -- not including the work itself from which he originated (i.e. Microsoft Office 97). If you are saying that Microsoft changed its name in the intervening time, then I would be glad to incorporate this into the article, but WP:COMMONNAME does not remotely say that you must always refer to things (even within an article) by their currently most commonly used name, or that the literal fact of someone's name is determined solely by common usage. jp×g 09:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

From WP:COMMONNAME:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)

So aside from the fact it specifically refers to the title (as I mentioned above, I think the policy should be applied in spirit even though this case is not actually an article title), that's exactly what it says. Averixus (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This policy does not work the way you suggest, even for article names. Frankenstein's monster is not at the title "Frankenstein", despite many people calling him Frankenstein for the last two hundred years — this is even true despite the existence of movies like Bride of Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, etc. Even if it was at that title, it would be absurd to retcon the article to call him "Frankenstein" throughout the whole thing. It may indeed be the case that "Clippit" is a stupid name (which it is) and that "Clippy" makes more sense (which it does). But it is completely inappropriate to rewrite articles to say untrue things because we think they should have been the case. jp×g 19:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many instances in the article as it stands where a sentence says something about Clippit and then leads to a citation which only uses the name Clippy - isn't that absurd? Averixus (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy doesn't comment on that scenario. but using JPxG's metaphor, it'd be like if we said that it was absurd that a source called Frankenstein's monster a Frankenstein, even though Frankenstein is the doctor not the monster, and we pretended that was a problem. Andre🚐 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this argument is seriously lacking perspective. If a group of people representing the general public were asked who in the story "Frankenstein" the name Frankenstein refers to, a perhaps embarrassingly high number of people might say "the monster" - maybe a few dozen %? Whereas if a similarly large and representative group of people were asked whether the paperclip is called Clippit or Clippy, the majority of people wouldn't know and of the people who thought they knew, I'm thinking over 90% of people would say Clippy. These two examples are not comparable.

If all editions since the first called the monster "Frankenstein" and the doctor "Frankenstein's creator" at the request of the author, your analogy might apply. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 90% of people would say Clippy. That's a personal anecdote. But I do think the number of people who would call the Frankenstein monster just Frankenstein would be probably 90% of children and a good percentage of adults. Neither of us can prove this of course unless it's been studied. It's not really relevant to the scenario. Andre🚐 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Use both names, but prefer Clippit (the original and official name for 20 years) and do not systematically remove Clippy (a common unofficial nickname that was later used officially). This argument is a misunderstanding of the application of COMMONNAME and SURNAME because the former refers to titles, and the latter refers to fictional humans with first and last names. Andre🚐 15:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use both names per Andrevan - Official name was Clippit before being renamed Clippy so both names should be used. –Davey2010^Talk 15:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Mention both names in article lead, use either name in the rest of the article There's no reason to argue about which name is used after it's established that "Clippit" and "Clippy" are referring to the same animation. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Use "Clippy", and have a small section on the history of its name further down the page. The original name hasn't been in common usage (including by Microsoft) for decades and this is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it is interesting and it apparently does have a valid source backing it up now. The primary goal should be understandability on Wikipedia and beyond, so use Clippy in the article overall, and then have a section further down called "change of name" or similar, saying "the original name was Clippit in [year] (source), and the earliest known use of Clippy is [name] [year] (source), followed by Microsoft in [year] (source). Microsoft has exclusively used Clippy over Clippit since [year]." And have Clippit and Clippy both redirect to this page.

I think that since no one seriously uses the name Clippit now* and being understood amongst each other and members of the public is very important, and since other similar-ish Wikipedia policies say we should use the most commonly-used and -known names for things/people, if anyone is advocating for the use of Clippit over Clippy in the main body of the article they are being a bit weird and they have a personal agenda, such as: popularising the older, more obscure name because they think everyone should use the older name because it's more legit in their opinion.

[*] I cannot stress this enough, this is not a big deal, and the name Clippit is not known outside of this page except by a very small handful of people! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 11:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is exactly right.

"Clippit" as a name is of minor historical interest, but nothing more.

"Clippy" is used in about five times as many Bing results as "Clippit", on pages that also mention "Office Assistant" (going by Bing searches). The ratio is even higher if you replace "Office Assistant" with another relevant phrase like "help with", more than 16:1. Either way this is a huge difference, which can be at least partly explained by the fact that the name "Clippy" was in already common use by 1997[16] while Microsoft itself had completely given up on using "Clippit" by the time they pushed him into semi-retirement in 2001. At some point, they seem to have made a corporate decision to memory hole the old name, and done so very effectively. Given the total lack of evidence of its creator-corporation using the old name in well over two decades, it seems safe to say that it is now *officially* "Clippy".

I wrote to the original designer of the paperclip-creature, who confirmed that it had been Clippit, but like the rest of the world, he refers to it as Clippy in public.[17]

As a side-note, this is a fascinatingly strong example of the so-called Mandela Effect! I was one of many who were incredulous that it had ever been called "Clippit" - an incredulity supported, of course, by the extreme difficulty of finding definitive documentation of the old, abandoned name. Oolong (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

personal agenda, such as: popularising the older, more obscure name because they think everyone should use the older name because it's more legit in their opinion. Really, you seriously believe this uncharitable idea that someone has a personal agenda for Clippit, and not that it's the original, official name, the name given by the creator, and a widely used name in sources? That is not very good faith. I believe that you have a legitimate argument that I disagree with, and I would never accuse someone of a personal agenda because that is a violation of core civility policies such as WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and I take it as such. You say it's not a big deal, so why personalize it with a spurious accusation and casting WP:ASPERSIONs? Andre🚐 18:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: if there was a standalone article for the paperclip character, would you argue that it should be titled "Clippit"? Or would you consider that WP:COMMONNAMES would justify titling it "Clippy"?

I'm just curious whether our disagreement here is about interpreting the policy itself, or if it's purely based on the fact that the policy doesn't apply here on the technicality of the name not being the article title. Averixus (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In the hypothetical example, COMMONNAME is clear that the article ought to be called Clippy, even though that's a nickname. Like Jimmy Carter. He's not a fictional character, but he's most widely known as Jimmy. But that does not, and it is not a technicality, require that the article refer to Carter as Jimmy the whole way through and never Carter or James. It's just a misinterpretation of the policy. COMMONNAME does NOT mandate consistency across all references to the person. Simply the title. Andre🚐 18:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. So in that hypothetical case, you would maybe title it "Clippy" and then use "Clippit" through the article body? Averixus (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be possible - it depends on the context - but in doubt, you WP:PRESERVE the status quo and do not wholesale change to be consistent (no more than you do with the UK English spellings - status quo has precedence over consistency). I also want to point out that I myself edited this article in 2004 and used "Clippy," so clearly I do not have the posited "personal agenda" against "Clippy." [18] If anything, my agenda is against anti-consensus consistency-mongering. Andre🚐 20:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So when you talk about preserving the status quo - is Microsoft themselves phasing out the name "Clippit" in favour of "Clippy" for their own product several decades ago not the status quo? Is "Clippy" being the official name that is chosen and used by the company of origin, which has been adopted by the vast majority of the people who actually know the name, not the status quo? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Microsoft did not phase out Clippit in their own product decades ago. If Microsoft started using Clippy themselves, it was less than 10 years ago. And as far as what Microsoft itself officially uses, that is not a consideration as far as I know. Companies all the time decide to rebrand their products or to change how their products or characters are named, but we do not necessarily have to align with that on Wikipedia if there is a reason not to. Andre🚐 22:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Microsoft did not phase out Clippit in their own product decades ago. If Microsoft started using Clippy themselves, it was less than 10 years ago."

I guess this is stuff I would put in the "history of the name" section. I'd want to see a source for the latest known time Microsoft used Clippit, and the earliest known time Microsoft used Clippy. If anyone can do that here concisely to help us make a decision that'd be awesome.

"Companies all the time decide to rebrand their products or to change how their products or characters are named, but we do not necessarily have to align with that on Wikipedia if there is a reason not to."

It would have to be a very compelling reason. Reasons might include the vast majority of present day users still using the old name, perhaps?

So, for example, as a not-very-frequent Wikipedia editor, I might expect to see something like the introductory sentence for Clip Studio Paint:

Clip Studio Paint (previously marketed as Manga Studio in North America), informally known in Japan as Kurisuta... [And then if the article refers to the app again by name it is called by its present name, Clip Studio Paint. The name change is described in the "history" section in the article.]

So, I'd expect to see that in this article. "Clippy, previously known as Clippit..." [And then if the article refers to it by name it is called by its present name. The name change is described in the "history" section in more detail.]

The original name is not the current official name and it hasn't been for some time now, it is not more well-known than the current name, it's not even the name the creator currently uses... "It's the original name" isn't enough on its own, by your own logic, and that's before you consider that the new name is also the current official name and the thing itself is pretty much only known by its current official name. I'm sorry, I genuinely can't see how "it's the original name" stands up at all. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're talking again about the title of the article, which is a different consideration than how the name is used throughout the article. When discussing the history of the character and its usage in Office 97 and Office 2000, it should indeed refer to the character as "Clippit" because that is what the character was called at the time. The "official" name, though, is not relevant at all. It'd be like if we changed every reference to Sean Combs to be P. Diddy or Puff Daddy. Clippy/Clippit has 2 names. A longer, original, originally-official name, and a nickname that later caught on. Consistency is not, and has never been required. Andre🚐 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm replying again because I re-read your response and didn't understand how it was an answer to my question.

Is Microsoft themselves phasing out the name "Clippit" in favour of "Clippy" for their own product even several years ago (if not more) not the status quo? Is "Clippy" being the official name that is chosen and used by the company of origin, which has been adopted by the vast majority of the people who actually know the name, not the status quo?

I am wondering what it would take for you to consider that the name Clippy is the status quo. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The "status quo" refers to the status quo of the article text. That status quo is the only relevant status quo. Microsoft's corporate policy and their PR strategy is none of our concern at all. Andre🚐 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, misunderstanding then. 👍 --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"a widely used name in sources?"

As far as I've seen so far, that is a bit of a stretch. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Over 400 hits on Google Scholar. Andre🚐 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Microsoft Clippy" gets 1,320 hits on Google Scholar, whereas "Microsoft Clippit" gets 242. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 23:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just "Clippit" on Google Scholar was the search. And even 242 is still a pretty decent result for my claim that it is a widely used name. Andre🚐 23:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)