# Talk:Company Picnic

I'm not sure how this would fit into the page, but these are the shirts and their colors: Black is Corporate, Purple is Rochester, Red is Scranton, Orange is Buffalo, Light Blue is Albany, Yellow is Akron, Green is Nashua & Blue is Utica.  The closed branches are Camden & Yonkers (& Stamford)
ChristopherHReid (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?  I've counted the episodes listed on Wikipedia and have only reached 91 episodes... how is this one #100? 128.253.185.233 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They must not be counting ssome of the hour longs as 2 episodes. the first 4 episodes of season 4 were hour longs, but count as 2 episodes each. But, episodes like Weight Loss counts as 1.--Mgmets5 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked on here only to see this:
The episode ends on an ominous note with Jim and Pam discovering that Pam has breast cancer.
I did however, erase it.--Mgmets5 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Officetalley.com, there was supposed to be a character in this episode that we havent see since season 2. who was it!?!--Mgmets5 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The deleted scenes on NBC.com show Meredith's teenage son in Clip #1 from the "Take Your Kids To Work Day" episode. 98.226.175.9 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen him on screen, he was in Stress Relief. --RremundO (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Company Picnic's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN":
From Michael Scott Paper Company (The Office episode): Fickett, Travis (2009-04-10). "The Office: "Dream Team" Review: Michael and Pam find some help in an unlikely place". IGN. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
From The Office (US TV series) season 4: Fickett, Travis, (May 22, 2008) "The Office: Season 4 Review," IGN. Retrieved on August 8, 2008.
From Casual Friday (The Office): Fickett, Travis (2009-05-01). "The Office: "Casual Friday" Review". IGN. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
From Cafe Disco: Fickett, Travis (2009-05-08). "The Office: "Cafe Disco" Review". IGN. Retrieved 2009-05-08.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved now? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got an uncited statement that the final scene took place in the Scrub's hospital, but I can't find a source for that anywhere. Does anyone know of one? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to this, I am sympathetic, but as those paragraphs stand right now, they need to be sourced as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's not enough to simply say it's in the continuity of the series; without a citation, it's just original research. (And for the record, I'm a fan of the show and have watched every episode, so I understand where you're coming from.) And frankly, even if you find a source, this information might not necessarily be worthy of inclusion because, according to, WP:TVMOS, "Unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided." There are exceptions for if there's a major mistake that's discussed by a reliable source (see New Boss) then it can be included in the Production section. This instance doesn't seem to fit that bill, but if you can get me a source then it's well worth keeping... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found a source for it and added it back, so it's now a moot issue. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the infobox picture with Jim and Pam after they've learned they're pregnant should be changed to another scene on account of it spoils the finale for anyone who hasn't seen it.--Muppeteer (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As per Wikipedia:Spoiler, it's not appropriate to remove content simply because it could serve as a spoiler. Years down the road, if people look back on the article about this episode, I think it's safe to say that the most important part of "Company Picnic" will be the fact that this is the episode where The Office viewers learned Pam and Jim were having a baby, so I don't think there could possibly be a more appropriate infobox image. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Company Picnic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 
Meets the criteria after some minor copy edits.  The prose could do with serious improvement however. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
ref #6 [1] is dead, I could not find it at the Internet Archive; likewise ref #27 [2] and ref #33 [3].  Done Use of this tools shows a number of news links which are due to expire or which change domain.  These need to be fixed. I've fixed that, I realised two were simply redirects to a British version of the site so tehse can be ignored.  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
ref #2 {http://www.officetally.com/company-picnic-qa-with-jen-celotta], #14 [4] and #36 [5] are to a fansite and not RS.Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think ref#2 [6] is ok.  I would like to see it introduced at first use with a phrase such as Office producer Jen Collata in an interview with OfficeTally said:; I fixed the link for ref #7 [7] to go to the second page of the artcile where the comment about the ehat is.  This should be cited as Jennie Tan [if that is her name] of fansite OfficeTally stated taht the temperature was.... - because it is just her saying that; ref #14 c [8] is more problematic. Where does it say that When Andy asks if a man wearing sunglasses is blind, he angrily replies that they are expensive Ray-Bans, a reference to the Bausch & Lomb sunglasses developer. Looks a little like OR to me. Again the source should be identified in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)  Done
c (OR): 

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): 

b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
OK, a number of referencing issues to be fixed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good now.  I am happy to pass this as a good artcile. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the other refs, but I'm not sure which of the links from that tool are problematic and which ones aren't. Can you give me more direction? Also, as far as OfficeTally, that is a fansite but I would argue it is an acceptable source. It's been used in several Office GA articles, like New Boss and Two Weeks. OfficeTally is not only an extremely respected and professional fansite, but one that has captured the attention of The Office writers and staff. As you can see from this article, she was invited to the set of "Company Picnic", and has also held Q&As with writers and stars of other episodes (like the two aforementioned GAs). Especially because of this, she has better and more reliable and direct information about The Office than most printed sources, so I think even if it falls in the fringes of the RS criteria, we should go ahead and allow it anyway, because the article would be far worse off without it. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. I have often seen this before about fansites - you may well be right about the respect, but we have no evidence of editorial oversight or independence from the subject - indeed the close realtionship with the producers moves this towards WP:SPS. As long as it is clear to the reader that this is information from a fansite editor then it could be acceptable.  If you were to take this to WP:FAC it would be thrown out straight away. the whole bit about the sunglasses and the other fancruft is not neccessary in an encyclopaedia article.  The interview with the producer is a different matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working with me on this. I think I've responded to your comments, but please let me know if you feel more needs to be done. As you'll see, I've removed the sunglasses bit altogether, as well as a bit about the temperature (which I don't think you specifically said had to be removed, but in looking it over I thought it warranted being cut). Let me know any other concerns! — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Company Picnic. 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 http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/video/clips/company-picnic-clip-one/1103581/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/video/clips/company-picnic-clip-two/1103591/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/video/clips/company-picnic-clip-three/1104871/
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uFQbo25L?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/15/ratings-abc-greys-anatomy-win-finale-thursday-but-declines-continue/18685 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/15/ratings-abc-greys-anatomy-win-finale-thursday-but-declines-continue/18685
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uFQYYfTD?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/08/thursday-ratings-abc-wins-southland-parks-rec-still-falling/18328 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/08/thursday-ratings-abc-wins-southland-parks-rec-still-falling/18328
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uFQV5j18?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/01/thursday-ratings-abc-wins-southland-continues-to-head-south/17815 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/01/thursday-ratings-abc-wins-southland-continues-to-head-south/17815
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201171736/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-5/59811/company-picnic/episode-528/60319 to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-5/59811/company-picnic/episode-528/60319/
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) 19:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)