This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The individual episode articles for One Tree Hill (TV series) are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of One Tree Hill episodes#Episode article review. Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On the grounds that " One Tree Hill: Fast Forward" is not its own tv series, or even miniseries. Not that the following are absolutely definitive, but neither imdb nor tv.com list this as a series in its own right. Having the various video documentary/commentary clips listed as "episodes" on the official site does not mean it should have its own article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.211.226 ( talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Having just rearranged and renamed the overall sections, and understanding this is a big change, please refer to the Wikipedia styleguide for television shows.
The next step (and hopefully someone else will pitch in so I'm not alone in this daunting task) is to condense the season recaps by a LARGE margin, and to rewrite them so the tone reflects a real-world perspective.
Also, there are too many lists, for instance the character list. Wikipedia is not the IMdB!
One of the final things which needs to be done (as per a wiki guideline I just read) is not to give so many characters their own pages, this is an encyclopedia.
Thank you, brandon.macuser ( talk) 03:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Should something be mentioned on this page about how each season is equivalent to half a school year? 72.224.21.120 ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all a reminder. Before anyone makes an edit in an article HAS TO come here and discuss about it and come to final conclusion. Second of all, I renewed the Music article with more information. I added a list with the artists that have appeared to the show & in which episode can be found. I mentioned the One Tree Hill Tour embarking by the WB. Last, I listed the soundtracks by volumes.
If there's anyone that disagrees with the changes, DO NOT change the article unless we all have a nice talk about it and conclude to something common! Any change tha will be made without coming through discussion will be erased and put back as it was(at least for "music"). ClassicDude
Does anyone know where the name of the show originates from? Is it related in anyway to One Tree Hill (song), by U2? There was an episode in season 5 called "Running to Stand Still" -- which is also a song by U2, from the same album (Joshua Tree), if I'm not mistaken. FashionNugget ( talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Might check the Disambiguation page for leads...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_tree_hill
Biffjohnson (
talk)
04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Tree Hill is the name of the town they live in. In one episode (I can't currently remember which one) one of the characters say's "There is only One Tree Hill".
Laboviorodruin (
talk)
20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oth209.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oth223.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Othseason4.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Going through the article for the first time, I notice there is no overall description of what the series is about, I guess a two-line synopsys might be worth considering. Just a suggestion (I do not know the series, or I would propose one myself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpadinha ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This should be done. The article as it stands makes it very difficult to discover the major themes of the show. For instance, in the section on the cast, in the discussion of character Nathan Scott, the article states that he is "the son that Dan did claim". This is the first time any suggestion of a son being claimed or not claimed is mentioned. This seems to be a major theme, and so surely should be mentioned right up front, but in fact nowhere in the article is this idea clarified. I would suggest that the major themes of the show should be made clear in the very first paragraph, and not left to be pieced together from random bits of information picked up elsewhere. Ash211263 ( talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As a regular member of the cast for season 5 and the beginning of season 6, I believe he should be included in the cast list. Thoughts? EBY ( talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
sountracks aid the national breast cancer foundation. apparently there's only one. the *American national breast cancer foundation* maybe?? or something like it anyway. 86.40.184.8 ( talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is an original research.It is stated within the show that they graduated in 2007.The season 5 takes place 4.5 years later.So it's 2011-2012(sason 5 and 6).Please edit or delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
About inconsistencies:there are plenty of them. It is a TV show not a documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Jackson Brundage (born on November 20, 2001 in California, USA) is an American actor . His acting debut was appearing as a son of a single mom and dancer at a casino on NBC's Las Vegas.
His biggest break came as he was cast as James Lucas Scott ("Jamie"), son of Nathan and Haley, in the CW drama One Tree Hill. The other cast members of the show describe him as an amazing little boy with a huge heart. Jackson is most known for his memorable one-liners such as "It's my life. I'm taking a stand." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmp ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the cast section needs to be reorganized slightly. Generally speaking, we avoid grouping characters in terms of "original" and "additional" cast members, in favour of listing the main cast and then other members. The main cast section would list all actors who have held that position throughout the run of the series, without the use of "current", "former", "was", or any such past-tense terms. (This is per the guidelines for presenting fictional characters.) I'd gladly help, but I'll need someone to point out who is a main character and who is recurring. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a template to the section for clean-up. I suggest a lot of the information be removed as only United Kingdom and Australia are notable. The information about the new Channel in Australia is good, but needs sources. That's all the section needs, I will make the edits myself soon, but if anybody sees it before I get around to it, that's all that needs doing. Jayy008 ( talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
3.3 and 2.7, obviously it would be better to have one figure, so is it appropriate to meet in the middle and put a 3.00 million average for the season? Jayy008 ( talk) 13:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
New editor Mkaylach keeps adding this material in, despite my informing Mkaylach that it is bad grammar and is unneeded plot, since it is already covered in a more coherent manner in the Cast and cast characters section. And unneeded plot falls into WP:PLOT. However, Mkaylach has insisted that he or she will continue to re-add this material. To that, I pointed out WP:3RR and stated that I would try and gain WP:Consensus here on the talk page about this.
So will others watching this talk page weigh in? As I told Mkaylach, we have formatted this article so that the Cast and characters section deals with details about these characters' lives, but not too much (per WP:PLOT). I would like things to stay that way. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, the sponsored plot elements are a part of "Plot elements." So is the series timeline, with the way Schwahn alters the timeline. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm off for a little while now, but everything you just said I agree. I only removed the themes section because it was unsourced, but a themes section would be better than "plot elements." Also, I really don't like the block quotes. Isn't there a way we could have some speech bubbles and some quote boxes? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What you just done is perfect. It already looks so much better. And the deletion thing, it's been brought up a few times, never seen any resolution from it, though. Either way, I can't see anything else on the article that needs changing now. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, the GA reviewer might also suggest that we cut some of the plot information in the Cast section. For GA or FA articles, the Cast section should not only be made up of plot, unless there is also a Casting section, and certainly not as much plot as some characters have assigned to them. We should also include some casting material. With the original main five, we can go ahead and add a bit of the casting material found in their individual articles to the Cast section in this one. I'll do Lucas's and Peyton's parts now. If it's not enough to only have the original main five with detail about why they were cast, the GA reviewer will let us know. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing, I can't find it. I think if you could show me their official fansites I would be able to find the information much easier. I will add a little on Keller, and shorten Julian Baker. The others are quite short and I think they'll be OK. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we not use a different cast photo as the current one is a CD cover and could be moved to music? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It's fine. I'm liking all the tweaks you've made. I don't think the page needs anymore "major" moves or formatting now. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: no dabs, but there are three double redirects. [5] Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, as you know, we got the article copyedited. [7] I took care of your latter copyediting concerns as well, as seen with the following edits: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] We also addressed your other demands, and things you didn't address...such as adding more casting and/or portrayal information to the Cast section (the first link being the additions; the others being the tweaks): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] While teendramawhore.com and onetreehillblog.com are not good sources, they are good sources for One Tree Hill information (especially the former), and I only used them for cast information (one time each) because they feature exclusive interviews (as in interviews conducted by those sites).
Like I stated, DVD Verdict is considered a reliable source for the information it is sourced to...so I did not remove that. I also did not replace the Amazon.com sources; looking and asking around, it turns out that Amazon.com can be considered a reliable source for home release information [28]...as seen with the Smallville article which made it to GA status using Amazon.com for exactly that. Like I stated on my talk page, I don't know where to look for that information. I Googled and there are different places, but I don't know which sites are considered reliable or unreliable for that type of stuff. Sometimes, it's easy to guess from a quick assessment; other times, it's more a matter of debate here at Wikipedia. I also did not have enough time, with only hours left, to assess such sites. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest editing out minor characters, merging of characters list into para, and removing details and redundant information already covered from "Characters" section. The section also needs citations from within the episodes if not from third parties. September88 ( talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the bullet points, I always thought it was preferred by the community/common practice to use prose where possible? Also, I was told that bolding names isn't allowed, can anybody verify? I'm glad some changes have been made, all I really want to do is overhaul the lead. Jayy008 ( talk) 13:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this article has become somewhat too detailed. An important aspect of a good article is that it isn't too long to the point where it's overwhelming and hard to navigate. I think this article is starting to cross that line. I think the two sections that definitely need to be reduced and made more concise are Departures of Murray and Burton and Critical Reception. It is full of useless and mostly unimportant details. The critical reception section does not need to include every critic review as it seems to be on the verge of doing. I also think the Plot section needs to be slightly more concise so as not to become a spoiler or anything. Cadiomals ( talk) 21:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this thing is way too long. It's overwhelming. I came looking for a little info on a show that I thought was canceled YEARS ago, and I land on someone's obsessive monologue about Brucas and Jeyton. The cast/character bios are entirely too long, poorly written, and I'm not sure they even belong here. WTF people, there are entire websites for fandom, and Wikipedia isn't one of them. 184.38.107.224 ( talk) 17:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
So you think having a subpar, overlong article is preferable? You do realize there's something in between, right? Even the GA reviewer said it was full of fancruft ( WP:FAN), and they were right. And I never said it "should have been" cancelled long ago. I don't care either way, seeing as I wasn't aware it was even still on TV. 184.38.107.224 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
How can you not see how much useless fancruft is in this article? I would say around 25% of the content (for example the "Departures of Murray and Burton" section) is useless details that only hardcore fans would care about. As a perosn who has watched but was never big on One Tree Hill, I got bored. Cadiomals ( talk) 01:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm the IP (I love how you say "IP" as if it's an insult.). And Wikipedia loves in-depth coverage, NOT long, rambling, overly-detailed crap. You have an affinity for walls of text--walls of text that no one reads. Good writers can balance the succinct with the in-depth. No one wants to read your fancruft-stuffed article (or your comments) because you write freaking volumes when someone asks you the time of day. There now, I'm eagerly awaiting your next long-winded tome.
Aaaaaaaaaannnnd GO! 184.38.76.247 ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I would list this article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, seeing as I disagree with Jezhotwells failing the article, [33] but, as that page says, it is more likely that it is not best to do so. Basically, I don't see how this article is below GA status in comparison to The Walking Dead (TV series) article which Jezhotwells recently promoted or some other GA television film articles, unless saying that the prose in this article isn't the best. But neither is The Walking Dead (TV series), and neither articles are the worst. I addressed all of his concerns, and only disagreed with two. He questioned the reliability of DVD Verdict. I was (and am) not about to remove a valid source simply because one editor objects to it. As stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict, DVD Verdict is a reliable source for the information that it is sourced to. Jezhotwells says, "With regards to DVDverdict, I read the discussions at WP:RSNand there was no clear consernus that it is reliable." No clear consensus? No matter that the discussion didn't consist of a lot of opinions, there was clear consensus that it's not necessarily unreliable. Two editors ( Peregrine Fisher and MichaelQSchmidt) with great knowledge of what reliable sources are and aren't said that it's okay for this type of information. It's quite apparent that "no clear consensus" means that there's no strong support one way or the other and that the site is not prohibited. So why should I get rid of a valid source that is adding information to the article that no other reliable source probably addresses in the same way because of one person's opinion? The same goes for Amazon.com. Finding sources for release date information is not the easiest thing. Looking and asking around, it turns out that Amazon.com can be considered a reliable source for home release information [34]...as seen with the Smallville article which made it to GA status using Amazon.com for exactly that. So saying that these sources cannot be used is more of personal preference than anything else. And considering that I addressed all the prose concerns Jezhotwells pointed out (if there were more, as he makes it out to be, then he should have pointed them out and should have been more cooperative instead of condescending and standoffish), this GA fail seems to be based more on personal taste than the GA criteria. And, yes, I know that Jezhotwells has a lot of experience with GA articles, a lot more than myself, but that does not mean that GA reviewers cannot sometimes be wrong. He criticized this recent change by me, which is an improvement compared to what was there: "The flashbacks show his relationships with Karen Roe and Deb Scott, and how he ended up with one woman over the other." Is this tweak really that bad? Jezhotwells acts as though no one editing this article understands English or grammar, and that the article is beyond help with us working on it. I suppose when I got other articles to GA status without any help from a copyeditor, those reviewers didn't understand English or grammar either. But, wait, Jezhotwells was one of those reviewers. Sigh.
After this article gets its second copyedit, I suggest that it is nominated soon for GA again. Jezhotwells will not be the GA reviewer, as I will personally ask a GA reviewer to review it. Jezhotwells would probably fail the article again simply because we still have not removed DVD Verdict or Amazon.com. Really, I don't mind if Amazon.com is removed...if there are reliable sources that can replace this information. But DVD Verdict, with its specific, helpful commentary about this show stays. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stfg, thank you for your help on the article. "Psycho Derek" isn't his birth name, but that's what they call him on the series. By all characters since his inclusion. Regarding the "emancipation" he did emancipate himself, officially, it was a storyline, not just an expression. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Final comment: I've done what I can just by copy editing, but this article really needs more than merely a copy edit. The real problem is that it's a quote farm - the worst such I've ever seen. It reads more like a scrapbook of press cuttings arranged into sections than a coherent presentation. Many of the quotations are low-grade chit-chat. This article is over 10,000 words. I've seen articles on films and TV programmes that give similar coverage in less than 5,000. It needs a serious effort to precis all but the most essential quotations using reported speech, and to remove the almost content-free, gushing stuff like "[Burton] is an old soul. She's great. She's always just thrilled to do the job, even though she's kind of new to acting. She's just a joy to be around" (to pick just the first example that came to hand). Sorry, but that's how I see it. -- Stfg ( talk) 12:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Do these need to be clarified? (Looking at notes in the article). All fans know what they are, and I don't see how we can really explain what they mean in a character bio. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The River Court is a significant part of the series. Probably the most prominent location, it's been in all in the seasons. In fact, there are usually scenes on it in most episodes. It originated with the lead character, who played there with his friends during childhood and right through until he was 24. It was also the place where the two brothers had their first real interactions and the high-school finale episode's last scene was there. It's hard for me to exactly explain. Also, I'm not 100% sure if COB has a hyphen, but yes, its belonged to Brooke, then Victoria, then Brooke again then it was sold. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of clogging up Flyer's user-page any longer. So I will keep it brief here. "One Tree Hill was renewed for a ninth[8] and final season, with 13 episodes." To me, that doesn't make sense. What does with 13 episodes mean? It claims that there are already 13 episodes. "13-episode order" or "13-episode production order" indicated it could change, which it could have. It could have been made shorter or longer. I also believe we should clarify that Galeotti and Bush are signed for one year. Saying "they're signed" doesn't indicate they aren't contracted for more. Also what is wrong with "while James Lafferty will return" over "and James Lafferty will return"? These changes I don't see as wording-changes, a lot of it changes the meaning of what was originally written, that's the only reason I intervened, otherwise I would have completely stayed off. Perhaps the Lafferty thing could be made into it's own sentence? That would be better. "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bush are signed on for a final year. James Lafferty will appear as a part-time regular." or something similar. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. And yes, in the industry, I've never heard the U.S. television world using "commission". The new version you just said is fine with me. And regarding the "it's clear to any reader." not necessarily, "Desperate Housewives" cast are contracted through season 9, yet season 8 was announced as the final season, so the network could change their mind if they need/want too. Again, industry things that aren't very clear. The reason I put "are signed for one final season" was because they signed with the knowledge that it would be announced as the final season. If I don't make it clear, a reader could assume that they are contracted for more and could also assume that The CW could change their mind, like they've done before. How would you word it? Sorry I don't make myself clearer. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
When I went to open FN85 (ref name=ew.com), it tried to open a program on my computer. -- Stfg ( talk) 10:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
My assertion that the article is overlong, crowded, and stuffed with information only relevant to users already VERY familiar with the topic (i.e., fans) is repeatedly removed from this Talk page, and I'm repeatedly accused of "Trolling," which, as I understand it in this context, means "having an opinion which contradicts that of another user." There are other users in the Archives who have made this same assertion (I suppose the Talk page has been Archived for this reason). So, if I take the initiative and trim down this article myself so that it is more easily navigable by the average user/reader, will I get banned for trolling, as has been threatened? I've been on the internet since I was like 13, and I've never, ever heard the word "Trolling" applied to what I'm doing--disagreeing with someone on a non-controversial, apolitical, non-religious topic. I really feel like I'm being bullied here, especially when an IP "defender" came in to threaten me after I disagreed with User:Flyer22, and then brought pedophilia into it. 65.6.114.88 ( talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Musicfreak7676 needs to stop accusing User:65.6.114.88 of trolling as he is not and false accusations are WP:INCIVIL. I've removed the 3O request as the ip has not made any edits to the article. Curb Chain ( talk) 04:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The individual episode articles for One Tree Hill (TV series) are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of One Tree Hill episodes#Episode article review. Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On the grounds that " One Tree Hill: Fast Forward" is not its own tv series, or even miniseries. Not that the following are absolutely definitive, but neither imdb nor tv.com list this as a series in its own right. Having the various video documentary/commentary clips listed as "episodes" on the official site does not mean it should have its own article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.211.226 ( talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Having just rearranged and renamed the overall sections, and understanding this is a big change, please refer to the Wikipedia styleguide for television shows.
The next step (and hopefully someone else will pitch in so I'm not alone in this daunting task) is to condense the season recaps by a LARGE margin, and to rewrite them so the tone reflects a real-world perspective.
Also, there are too many lists, for instance the character list. Wikipedia is not the IMdB!
One of the final things which needs to be done (as per a wiki guideline I just read) is not to give so many characters their own pages, this is an encyclopedia.
Thank you, brandon.macuser ( talk) 03:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Should something be mentioned on this page about how each season is equivalent to half a school year? 72.224.21.120 ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all a reminder. Before anyone makes an edit in an article HAS TO come here and discuss about it and come to final conclusion. Second of all, I renewed the Music article with more information. I added a list with the artists that have appeared to the show & in which episode can be found. I mentioned the One Tree Hill Tour embarking by the WB. Last, I listed the soundtracks by volumes.
If there's anyone that disagrees with the changes, DO NOT change the article unless we all have a nice talk about it and conclude to something common! Any change tha will be made without coming through discussion will be erased and put back as it was(at least for "music"). ClassicDude
Does anyone know where the name of the show originates from? Is it related in anyway to One Tree Hill (song), by U2? There was an episode in season 5 called "Running to Stand Still" -- which is also a song by U2, from the same album (Joshua Tree), if I'm not mistaken. FashionNugget ( talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Might check the Disambiguation page for leads...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_tree_hill
Biffjohnson (
talk)
04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Tree Hill is the name of the town they live in. In one episode (I can't currently remember which one) one of the characters say's "There is only One Tree Hill".
Laboviorodruin (
talk)
20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oth209.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oth223.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Othseason4.jpg 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 ensure 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) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Going through the article for the first time, I notice there is no overall description of what the series is about, I guess a two-line synopsys might be worth considering. Just a suggestion (I do not know the series, or I would propose one myself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpadinha ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This should be done. The article as it stands makes it very difficult to discover the major themes of the show. For instance, in the section on the cast, in the discussion of character Nathan Scott, the article states that he is "the son that Dan did claim". This is the first time any suggestion of a son being claimed or not claimed is mentioned. This seems to be a major theme, and so surely should be mentioned right up front, but in fact nowhere in the article is this idea clarified. I would suggest that the major themes of the show should be made clear in the very first paragraph, and not left to be pieced together from random bits of information picked up elsewhere. Ash211263 ( talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As a regular member of the cast for season 5 and the beginning of season 6, I believe he should be included in the cast list. Thoughts? EBY ( talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
sountracks aid the national breast cancer foundation. apparently there's only one. the *American national breast cancer foundation* maybe?? or something like it anyway. 86.40.184.8 ( talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is an original research.It is stated within the show that they graduated in 2007.The season 5 takes place 4.5 years later.So it's 2011-2012(sason 5 and 6).Please edit or delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
About inconsistencies:there are plenty of them. It is a TV show not a documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Jackson Brundage (born on November 20, 2001 in California, USA) is an American actor . His acting debut was appearing as a son of a single mom and dancer at a casino on NBC's Las Vegas.
His biggest break came as he was cast as James Lucas Scott ("Jamie"), son of Nathan and Haley, in the CW drama One Tree Hill. The other cast members of the show describe him as an amazing little boy with a huge heart. Jackson is most known for his memorable one-liners such as "It's my life. I'm taking a stand." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmp ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the cast section needs to be reorganized slightly. Generally speaking, we avoid grouping characters in terms of "original" and "additional" cast members, in favour of listing the main cast and then other members. The main cast section would list all actors who have held that position throughout the run of the series, without the use of "current", "former", "was", or any such past-tense terms. (This is per the guidelines for presenting fictional characters.) I'd gladly help, but I'll need someone to point out who is a main character and who is recurring. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a template to the section for clean-up. I suggest a lot of the information be removed as only United Kingdom and Australia are notable. The information about the new Channel in Australia is good, but needs sources. That's all the section needs, I will make the edits myself soon, but if anybody sees it before I get around to it, that's all that needs doing. Jayy008 ( talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
3.3 and 2.7, obviously it would be better to have one figure, so is it appropriate to meet in the middle and put a 3.00 million average for the season? Jayy008 ( talk) 13:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
New editor Mkaylach keeps adding this material in, despite my informing Mkaylach that it is bad grammar and is unneeded plot, since it is already covered in a more coherent manner in the Cast and cast characters section. And unneeded plot falls into WP:PLOT. However, Mkaylach has insisted that he or she will continue to re-add this material. To that, I pointed out WP:3RR and stated that I would try and gain WP:Consensus here on the talk page about this.
So will others watching this talk page weigh in? As I told Mkaylach, we have formatted this article so that the Cast and characters section deals with details about these characters' lives, but not too much (per WP:PLOT). I would like things to stay that way. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, the sponsored plot elements are a part of "Plot elements." So is the series timeline, with the way Schwahn alters the timeline. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm off for a little while now, but everything you just said I agree. I only removed the themes section because it was unsourced, but a themes section would be better than "plot elements." Also, I really don't like the block quotes. Isn't there a way we could have some speech bubbles and some quote boxes? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What you just done is perfect. It already looks so much better. And the deletion thing, it's been brought up a few times, never seen any resolution from it, though. Either way, I can't see anything else on the article that needs changing now. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, the GA reviewer might also suggest that we cut some of the plot information in the Cast section. For GA or FA articles, the Cast section should not only be made up of plot, unless there is also a Casting section, and certainly not as much plot as some characters have assigned to them. We should also include some casting material. With the original main five, we can go ahead and add a bit of the casting material found in their individual articles to the Cast section in this one. I'll do Lucas's and Peyton's parts now. If it's not enough to only have the original main five with detail about why they were cast, the GA reviewer will let us know. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing, I can't find it. I think if you could show me their official fansites I would be able to find the information much easier. I will add a little on Keller, and shorten Julian Baker. The others are quite short and I think they'll be OK. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we not use a different cast photo as the current one is a CD cover and could be moved to music? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It's fine. I'm liking all the tweaks you've made. I don't think the page needs anymore "major" moves or formatting now. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: no dabs, but there are three double redirects. [5] Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, as you know, we got the article copyedited. [7] I took care of your latter copyediting concerns as well, as seen with the following edits: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] We also addressed your other demands, and things you didn't address...such as adding more casting and/or portrayal information to the Cast section (the first link being the additions; the others being the tweaks): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] While teendramawhore.com and onetreehillblog.com are not good sources, they are good sources for One Tree Hill information (especially the former), and I only used them for cast information (one time each) because they feature exclusive interviews (as in interviews conducted by those sites).
Like I stated, DVD Verdict is considered a reliable source for the information it is sourced to...so I did not remove that. I also did not replace the Amazon.com sources; looking and asking around, it turns out that Amazon.com can be considered a reliable source for home release information [28]...as seen with the Smallville article which made it to GA status using Amazon.com for exactly that. Like I stated on my talk page, I don't know where to look for that information. I Googled and there are different places, but I don't know which sites are considered reliable or unreliable for that type of stuff. Sometimes, it's easy to guess from a quick assessment; other times, it's more a matter of debate here at Wikipedia. I also did not have enough time, with only hours left, to assess such sites. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest editing out minor characters, merging of characters list into para, and removing details and redundant information already covered from "Characters" section. The section also needs citations from within the episodes if not from third parties. September88 ( talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the bullet points, I always thought it was preferred by the community/common practice to use prose where possible? Also, I was told that bolding names isn't allowed, can anybody verify? I'm glad some changes have been made, all I really want to do is overhaul the lead. Jayy008 ( talk) 13:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this article has become somewhat too detailed. An important aspect of a good article is that it isn't too long to the point where it's overwhelming and hard to navigate. I think this article is starting to cross that line. I think the two sections that definitely need to be reduced and made more concise are Departures of Murray and Burton and Critical Reception. It is full of useless and mostly unimportant details. The critical reception section does not need to include every critic review as it seems to be on the verge of doing. I also think the Plot section needs to be slightly more concise so as not to become a spoiler or anything. Cadiomals ( talk) 21:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this thing is way too long. It's overwhelming. I came looking for a little info on a show that I thought was canceled YEARS ago, and I land on someone's obsessive monologue about Brucas and Jeyton. The cast/character bios are entirely too long, poorly written, and I'm not sure they even belong here. WTF people, there are entire websites for fandom, and Wikipedia isn't one of them. 184.38.107.224 ( talk) 17:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
So you think having a subpar, overlong article is preferable? You do realize there's something in between, right? Even the GA reviewer said it was full of fancruft ( WP:FAN), and they were right. And I never said it "should have been" cancelled long ago. I don't care either way, seeing as I wasn't aware it was even still on TV. 184.38.107.224 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
How can you not see how much useless fancruft is in this article? I would say around 25% of the content (for example the "Departures of Murray and Burton" section) is useless details that only hardcore fans would care about. As a perosn who has watched but was never big on One Tree Hill, I got bored. Cadiomals ( talk) 01:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm the IP (I love how you say "IP" as if it's an insult.). And Wikipedia loves in-depth coverage, NOT long, rambling, overly-detailed crap. You have an affinity for walls of text--walls of text that no one reads. Good writers can balance the succinct with the in-depth. No one wants to read your fancruft-stuffed article (or your comments) because you write freaking volumes when someone asks you the time of day. There now, I'm eagerly awaiting your next long-winded tome.
Aaaaaaaaaannnnd GO! 184.38.76.247 ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I would list this article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, seeing as I disagree with Jezhotwells failing the article, [33] but, as that page says, it is more likely that it is not best to do so. Basically, I don't see how this article is below GA status in comparison to The Walking Dead (TV series) article which Jezhotwells recently promoted or some other GA television film articles, unless saying that the prose in this article isn't the best. But neither is The Walking Dead (TV series), and neither articles are the worst. I addressed all of his concerns, and only disagreed with two. He questioned the reliability of DVD Verdict. I was (and am) not about to remove a valid source simply because one editor objects to it. As stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict, DVD Verdict is a reliable source for the information that it is sourced to. Jezhotwells says, "With regards to DVDverdict, I read the discussions at WP:RSNand there was no clear consernus that it is reliable." No clear consensus? No matter that the discussion didn't consist of a lot of opinions, there was clear consensus that it's not necessarily unreliable. Two editors ( Peregrine Fisher and MichaelQSchmidt) with great knowledge of what reliable sources are and aren't said that it's okay for this type of information. It's quite apparent that "no clear consensus" means that there's no strong support one way or the other and that the site is not prohibited. So why should I get rid of a valid source that is adding information to the article that no other reliable source probably addresses in the same way because of one person's opinion? The same goes for Amazon.com. Finding sources for release date information is not the easiest thing. Looking and asking around, it turns out that Amazon.com can be considered a reliable source for home release information [34]...as seen with the Smallville article which made it to GA status using Amazon.com for exactly that. So saying that these sources cannot be used is more of personal preference than anything else. And considering that I addressed all the prose concerns Jezhotwells pointed out (if there were more, as he makes it out to be, then he should have pointed them out and should have been more cooperative instead of condescending and standoffish), this GA fail seems to be based more on personal taste than the GA criteria. And, yes, I know that Jezhotwells has a lot of experience with GA articles, a lot more than myself, but that does not mean that GA reviewers cannot sometimes be wrong. He criticized this recent change by me, which is an improvement compared to what was there: "The flashbacks show his relationships with Karen Roe and Deb Scott, and how he ended up with one woman over the other." Is this tweak really that bad? Jezhotwells acts as though no one editing this article understands English or grammar, and that the article is beyond help with us working on it. I suppose when I got other articles to GA status without any help from a copyeditor, those reviewers didn't understand English or grammar either. But, wait, Jezhotwells was one of those reviewers. Sigh.
After this article gets its second copyedit, I suggest that it is nominated soon for GA again. Jezhotwells will not be the GA reviewer, as I will personally ask a GA reviewer to review it. Jezhotwells would probably fail the article again simply because we still have not removed DVD Verdict or Amazon.com. Really, I don't mind if Amazon.com is removed...if there are reliable sources that can replace this information. But DVD Verdict, with its specific, helpful commentary about this show stays. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stfg, thank you for your help on the article. "Psycho Derek" isn't his birth name, but that's what they call him on the series. By all characters since his inclusion. Regarding the "emancipation" he did emancipate himself, officially, it was a storyline, not just an expression. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Final comment: I've done what I can just by copy editing, but this article really needs more than merely a copy edit. The real problem is that it's a quote farm - the worst such I've ever seen. It reads more like a scrapbook of press cuttings arranged into sections than a coherent presentation. Many of the quotations are low-grade chit-chat. This article is over 10,000 words. I've seen articles on films and TV programmes that give similar coverage in less than 5,000. It needs a serious effort to precis all but the most essential quotations using reported speech, and to remove the almost content-free, gushing stuff like "[Burton] is an old soul. She's great. She's always just thrilled to do the job, even though she's kind of new to acting. She's just a joy to be around" (to pick just the first example that came to hand). Sorry, but that's how I see it. -- Stfg ( talk) 12:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Do these need to be clarified? (Looking at notes in the article). All fans know what they are, and I don't see how we can really explain what they mean in a character bio. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The River Court is a significant part of the series. Probably the most prominent location, it's been in all in the seasons. In fact, there are usually scenes on it in most episodes. It originated with the lead character, who played there with his friends during childhood and right through until he was 24. It was also the place where the two brothers had their first real interactions and the high-school finale episode's last scene was there. It's hard for me to exactly explain. Also, I'm not 100% sure if COB has a hyphen, but yes, its belonged to Brooke, then Victoria, then Brooke again then it was sold. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of clogging up Flyer's user-page any longer. So I will keep it brief here. "One Tree Hill was renewed for a ninth[8] and final season, with 13 episodes." To me, that doesn't make sense. What does with 13 episodes mean? It claims that there are already 13 episodes. "13-episode order" or "13-episode production order" indicated it could change, which it could have. It could have been made shorter or longer. I also believe we should clarify that Galeotti and Bush are signed for one year. Saying "they're signed" doesn't indicate they aren't contracted for more. Also what is wrong with "while James Lafferty will return" over "and James Lafferty will return"? These changes I don't see as wording-changes, a lot of it changes the meaning of what was originally written, that's the only reason I intervened, otherwise I would have completely stayed off. Perhaps the Lafferty thing could be made into it's own sentence? That would be better. "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bush are signed on for a final year. James Lafferty will appear as a part-time regular." or something similar. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. And yes, in the industry, I've never heard the U.S. television world using "commission". The new version you just said is fine with me. And regarding the "it's clear to any reader." not necessarily, "Desperate Housewives" cast are contracted through season 9, yet season 8 was announced as the final season, so the network could change their mind if they need/want too. Again, industry things that aren't very clear. The reason I put "are signed for one final season" was because they signed with the knowledge that it would be announced as the final season. If I don't make it clear, a reader could assume that they are contracted for more and could also assume that The CW could change their mind, like they've done before. How would you word it? Sorry I don't make myself clearer. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
When I went to open FN85 (ref name=ew.com), it tried to open a program on my computer. -- Stfg ( talk) 10:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
My assertion that the article is overlong, crowded, and stuffed with information only relevant to users already VERY familiar with the topic (i.e., fans) is repeatedly removed from this Talk page, and I'm repeatedly accused of "Trolling," which, as I understand it in this context, means "having an opinion which contradicts that of another user." There are other users in the Archives who have made this same assertion (I suppose the Talk page has been Archived for this reason). So, if I take the initiative and trim down this article myself so that it is more easily navigable by the average user/reader, will I get banned for trolling, as has been threatened? I've been on the internet since I was like 13, and I've never, ever heard the word "Trolling" applied to what I'm doing--disagreeing with someone on a non-controversial, apolitical, non-religious topic. I really feel like I'm being bullied here, especially when an IP "defender" came in to threaten me after I disagreed with User:Flyer22, and then brought pedophilia into it. 65.6.114.88 ( talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Musicfreak7676 needs to stop accusing User:65.6.114.88 of trolling as he is not and false accusations are WP:INCIVIL. I've removed the 3O request as the ip has not made any edits to the article. Curb Chain ( talk) 04:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)