Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series)/Archive 2

Notice of One Tree Hill episode article review
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. Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
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)

Major Rewrite
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)

Music
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


 * Did you come to discuss the changes you made to a well written section, before changing it to a messy list? No. The current version is well written, and follows wikipedia's standards. This isn't a fan site. Russell [ Talk ] 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Name?
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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oth209.jpg
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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oth223.jpg
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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Othseason4.jpg
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 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)

Synopsis
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)

Robbie Jones
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)


 * Fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he was a guest star, and never in the main cast. He hasn't even been in as many episodes as other guest stars. There is no reson that a guest character should be listed in the main cast. The main cast are the regulars! Russell [ Talk ] 11:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Robbie Jones was at the very least recurring, not guest. He appeared in over half of season 5. "Guest" is a short-term designation that is contractually well-defined (as it also is for award shows).


 * CW doesn't list him in the cast but then again they don't list many of the recurring characters that are noted in the Wiki article, so that isn't a helpful barometer.


 * His notability in regards to the show has clearly been demonstrated. I suggest, if this is an issue for some, that we organize the cast in the way that is done for other shows -   Main cast, Recurring & Notable guest stars.


 * This isn't a popularity contest on how people feel about a character. Including a character in the article and where is an issue based on criteria like notability and impact to the storyline, contractual status, and tenure. There's no questions "Quentin" should be included in an article on One Tree Hill - there question is, how & where. EBY (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Music section
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)

Timeline
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)
 * What is original research? The section is backed up by primary sources (meaning...the show itself), and additional reliable sources for other parts. It is fact that the characters were age 16 in 2003 when the show aired. It is fact that seasons 1 and 2 equate to one year, and seasons 3 and 4 equate to another year; the creator has said this, and it is shown within the series. What you have stated is simply an example of the inconsistencies of the timeline. The whole section should not be removed, but I can tweak it to include what you state if it is indeed stated within the series that they graduated in 2007. Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have tweaked the timeline section in response to what you have stated above. Are you okay with it now? Either way, I must state that the series has had several timeline inconsistencies, and did not even seem to follow being 2011-2012 in Season 5 (if that was even the year they were in, LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit I know the show started in 2003 but it's called FLOATING TIMELINE!!!There were no references to the real world events just to make script-writers work easier to upgrade the timeline.And read the birthdate on wiki-pages of Luk Scott1988) Haley(1988) Marv(1988)They are OFICIAL.They are 23 in the 5th season.So:1988+23=2011!!!!

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)
 * I see you've changed the article.Thanks.Should I delete the Timeline section in the discussion?I'm new to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is okay. The talk page sections should stay (that rhymes, LOL), until they are archived. As for the birth dates, that is exactly what I mean. With the first four seasons of the story, there is no evidence that the show is following our time, except for minor inconsistencies (such as new music that could only be from our timeline being played by the characters) and for when they magically have the same timeline as us when they graduate high school. In similar comparison, the show has not yet acknowledged that their timeline is ahead of ours within the series. Thus, it is almost as though we cannot be sure what year it is within the story. Due to this, I now see that we should let the readers decide, and leave the timeline the way that you and I have compromised with each other for it to be. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Brundage
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)

Cast section
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)
 * Okay, Ckatz. Sorry for just now seeing this message. I don't look at my watchlist anymore, and have not for some time. Instead, I simply check up on the articles I usually edit or know need watching.


 * The main characters are the ones listed as "Original cast members." But with cases such as Chad Michael Murray (Lucas) and Hilarie Burton (Peyton), are you saying they should no longer be listed as "main" because they departed the series in Season 6? I would think no, even though they will not be on for the rest of the show's run. I am not sure who is a recurring character right now. But until that is figured out, we could just go ahead and change "Original cast" to "Main cast," and "Additional cast" to "Others." Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for International Broadcast
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)

Season 5 ratings suggestion
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)

Poorly worded addition and WP:PLOT
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)
 * Update: Thanks for the help, Jayy. As I stated to Mkaylach on my talk page: This edit by you, [Mkaylach], is unacceptable and shows your inexperience in editing Wikipedia...or at least your inexperience in how things are supposed to be done here. Not only is that addition placed in an inappropriate spot, it is the type of needless plot information we removed from this article when there was a serious "too much" plot problem. All that edit would have done is welcome a "summary" of all the other seasons, when all of this stuff is already adequately summarized in both the Plot and Cast and characters section. And this edit is not much better, seeing as this information is already covered in Peyton and Brooke's listing. Why do you insist that we have this redundancy? And an example of your bad grammar? Here is one passage: Nikki jakes baby momma. Well... There's no comma after the word "Nikki". It should be "Nicki," not "Nikki." Jake is not capitalized. There's no apostrophe in "jakes." And you wrote "baby momma." I get that you are trying to help out, but your writing is not as sound as it should be, and we go by policies (aka rules) and guidelines here. You are lucky that I held off on coming back earlier, because I most certainly would have reported you for WP:3RR. What you need is a Welcome tag on your talk page to help familiarize yourself with Wikipedia.


 * Now, since you have decided to add your addition to the Cast and characters section, I need to go clean up your grammatical errors and wording. I have nothing to apologize for in the way I have reacted toward you, and so I won't be apologizing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that Mkaylach has expressed regret for his or her earlier actions. And I have tweaked Mkaylach's addition, as seen in this edit and this one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot elements and other matters
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)


 * Is the sub-section "plot elements" needed? All could fall under production, I think it looks messy personally. Jayy008 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having it all under "Production" doesn't specify that stuff such as the "Romance" section is not about real-life romance on the set. We have the Departures of Murray and Burton section, for example, which is about real-life and then we have stuff above that is not about real-life.


 * And as for this edit, the show is not just a teen drama anymore. It moved away from that years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence didn't make sense, and the young adult wasn't linked to anything to do with television. But I don't care if it's added back. I just want the production section sorted. Maybe a recurring elements theme for basketball etc like on the Supernatural page? Jayy008 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "young adult" can be added back without the link. And the Basketball and Romance section should be put back under a Themes title. That's the way I originally had it, and I agree with that. I can also source other themes that take place on the show, taken from a source in the Reception section. I don't agree with separating Murray and Burton out of the Production section, since that information has to do with Production. I'll go and make these edits. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 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)
 * Only the small text explaining that there are various themes was unsourced, but that was because it's sourced at other parts of the article. It's not contested that the show consists of love, friendship, rivalries, betrayal, forgiveness, and redemption. That doesn't need sourcing. Saying "Its two most prominent themes have been basketball and romance" does, I suppose. But then again, it's not like any of the other themes have sections devoted to them. Although "betrayal" is partly covered by the Romance section. Anyway, I changed it to this, with sources included. And I changed the line about "most prominent" to "two of the most prominent," which is a matter of fact by them even having sections. If you find that it's messy to have a subsection divided into two or more subsections, just look at GA articles like Smallville and The Dark Knight (film) where it's also done.


 * By "speech bubbles," are you speaking of the prettier quote boxes...such as this one? I don't see those used in most GA or FA articles. It's usually either blockquotes or quote boxes, or both. I don't mind quote boxes, and I like to use them, but some of what Schwahn has stated is too long for them. We'd either need to cut what he stated down to fit them in without it looking messy or word some of his statements in our own words so that we don't need a blockquote or quote box, or we can do both. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The one you just showed keeps being considered for deletion, the one I'm referring to are the ones used on the One Tree Hill (season 9) page. Mix & match. Some of those boxes and some block quotes would be good. But which ones? Jayy008 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about the the example I showed being considered for deletion. It still exists. And the one you showed me that's used in the One Tree Hill (season 9) article is a quote box. I never heard of it being called a speech bubble. But like I stated, some of these quotes are too long to place in a quote box; it would just look messy. Hilarie Burton's quote in the Departures of Murray and Burton section, for example, should stay in blockquote form. For the sections that the blockquotes are used in, I'll go ahead and limit the instances of blockquotes to just one per section. I don't care what quote box you use, as long as they are not harboring long quotes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made this cut on the blockquotes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 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)
 * What about the plot section, anybody have any issues with that? Jayy008 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The plot section is fine. Not too detailed or anything. That hasn't been a worry of ours for some time, ever since it was downsized away from being divided into sections about the seasons.


 * As for other things that need fixing...things an experienced GA nominator will bring up...one thing is referencing. We need to take care of any dead links or bare urls, as stated on my talk page. I'll also be adding these two YouTube urls for two sources in the Romance section. I was wrong to keep them excluded. Generally, YouTube is prohibited as a source. But when it is coming from the official channel, it is fine to use. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 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)
 * Agreed, I'll do it later. Jayy008 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, cast sections are usually bullet-pointed. Why did you remove the bullet points after I'd readded them? Were you copying the Smallville article? That article is the exception. Bullet points are in almost every play, television or film Cast section (unless the section is titled Casting instead). But I don't object much to not using them. I don't like bullet points being used, except in rare occasions, because it gives the sense of a lack of prose. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was doing exactly that—Copying from Smallvile—Though, I also have no objection if they're adding back. Since we both do not care either way, should we see what the GA reviewer thinks would be best for this particular article? Jayy008 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA reviewer likely won't bring it up. I added Casting information for Lucas, Peyton and Nathan, since they are the only One Tree Hill characters with casting information in their articles. I'll have to get some for the other two, and I know where to look (fansites that have interview details, such as links to online articles, etc.). Chris Keller has some casting (or rather "role") information in the List of One Tree Hill characters article that we can use. And why is he is the Main characters section, by the way? He is recurring more than anything. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 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)
 * I've done some minor changes to the cast. I can't navigate Bush's fansite, there's no box to type in what you want. You have to look manually which will take forever. Jayy008 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember...on my talk page, I said there's onetreehillweb.net and othfans.com, or even fansites for the actors. Onetreehillweb.net and othfans.com are easy to navigate through when it comes to finding casting/role information. And Bush has more than one fansite. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cast image
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)
 * I chose a cast image that I felt best represents the main five and their relationships (Lucas and Peyton in the middle, Nathan and Haley on the left and Brooke alone on the right). It doesn't matter that it's a CD cover. What image would you suggest as a replacement? Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The season 1 promo image, but I didn't know your reasoning's for the CD Cover. Jayy008 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Season 1 cover image, if that's the one you mean, I prefer the current image in the article. Going back to the reasons I stated above, it's also easier to name the characters in the caption for that reason -- Lucas and Peyton in the middle, Nathan and Haley on the left and Brooke on the right. With the Season 1 image, though Lucas and Peyton are still in the middle, Nathan is at the top -- away from Haley (most likely due to the Nathan/Peyton/Lucas love triangle) -- and Lucas has Haley and Brooke under his arms as though they are his girls (LOL). They are, but you know what I mean. It's not like he's ever been romantically interested in Haley (since she's like his sister). Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 23 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)
 * Yes, all I'm worried about right now in regard to this article is what I mentioned to you on my talk page -- the dead link and the end of the Sponsors section because it's unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit
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)
 * I'm not sure that the Cast section has any minor characters. I don't know because I haven't watched this show since Season 6. It may be that the main characters are the only ones included in the section and the minor characters are covered at List of One Tree Hill characters (linked at the top of the section).


 * Are you suggesting that the Plot section be referenced? Plot sections aren't usually referenced because the show serves as the reference (just like with film articles), and they are often sourced to what is found in the list about the episodes (in this case, List of One Tree Hill episodes) or the season articles. There was recently a big discussion about sourcing plot sections, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. The Cast section isn't meant to be too redundant to the Plot section, though there is always going to be a bit of redundancy in such cases. Redundancy is sometimes good, but, if you see any that isn't needed, feel free to remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was talking about referencing cast section. When the cast list is that long, it is best to balance it with out of universe information to avoid appearing fan-crufty. At List of One Tree Hill characters, apart from Lucas, Nathan, Peyton, Hally and Brooke, none has a separate article to them. As for plot, while I do see the need for trimming down and focusing on major aspects only, I'll leave that to you.  September88 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The cast members listed are all regulars, I don't feel we should remove main characters. There are no minor characters listed. I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but did you mean removing actors names from the plot section? I'm a fan of that. Jayy008 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * did you mean removing actors names from the plot section? No, but now that you've mentioned, it will be helpful to the prose if done :-) September88 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, September88. Yes, Jayy and I had a discussion about the Cast section not having casting detail. This is when I added casting detail for Lucas, Nathan and Peyton, but I haven't gotten around to adding some for Haley and Brooke. As for the others, it didn't seem that there needed to be casting detail for them, but I still felt that it was best that they have something about why they were brought on as the characters...and I still do. I'll try to add something for Brooke and Haley; can't promise that I will try to add some for the others before the GA review is over. We'd also cut down on the plot information in the Cast section, which is why you don't see much there per character. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding this revert by Jayy, I just want to point out that most Cast sections do use bullet-points, which Jayy and I talked about before. I think Jayy has a preference for not using them. But I agree with Jayy about the bolding. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done a general copy-edit, but might make a few more tweaks before 25. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you need further assistance, and good luck with the GA review. September88 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 23 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)
 * But, Jayy, I already explained to you in the discussion that bullet-points are preferred, or rather mostly used, for Cast sections. Not Casting sections, which are usually more about what went into casting. But Cast sections usually have bullet-points. You've seen that. So that is the preference. I don't see a need to deviate. But I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. Bolding is a no-no, yes.


 * Also, I doubt that all of the characters in the Cast section are main characters. Characters like Whitey, Skills, etc. Yes, Skills eventually became one, but is he still one now? A show always has minor characters, and I believe that is what September88 was saying. You can be a series regular and still be a minor character. That said, with the exception of characters like GiGi and Millicent, I don't feel that any of the characters should be cut from the section...since they were significant in their impact at one point or another.


 * As I stated in the GA assessment, while I know that time is up for this GA review, I just want to let you all know that I received an email that another copyedit is on its way. This is a different copyeditor from the guild, someone I hadn't met until today through email, who wants a shot at copyediting this article. He or she will start on Wednesday. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot you had explained that before, you're right, it's just a preference. Also, Whitney and Skills were regulars, I think anybody included on the infobox should be included in the article? I'm confused, though, do you mean in the plot section or the cast section? I believe the cast section should include all regulars. Jayy008 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayy, why would I mean the Plot section? Of course, any minor character should be mentioned in the Plot section if they are relevant enough to which ever season(s) they appeared in. As for the infobox, any actor or actress who portrayed a minor character that did not have a significant impact on this show (GiGi, Millicent, etc.) should be removed from the infobox. The infobox of this article is longer than other with regard to listing who stars on this show. Some of them simply do not belong there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Excessively detailed?
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)
 * It is not true that an important aspect of a good article is that it is not too long. If that were true, I'd never have gotten the Avatar (2009 film) article, which is significantly long, to GA status. The Dark Knight (film) article, as well as many other GA articles of different topics, wouldn't be as long as they are either. The GA reviewer, who is extremely experienced on the matter of GA articles, would have mentioned this as well if what you state is true. This is article is not too long, if we go by WP:SIZE. An article can be quite long and of GA status, as long as the material is actually enhancing the reader's understanding of a topic and the article is not difficult to navigate through. Suffice it to say, I feel that the material you criticized is enhancing the reader's understanding and that the article is not difficult to navigate through. For the sections you mentioned, I see no "useless and mostly unimportant details." What you call "excessively detailed," I call adequately covering those topics. There is more than a little to address about Murray and Burton's departures, and it's not like that section is covered by many paragraphs; it only consists of four paragraphs, five if you count the blockquote. I am well-aware that not every critic needs to be mentioned. The Critical reception section is simply going over the major topics, with brief mentions from different critics on those specific topics, and then it stops after that. There is no rule on how long a Critical reception section should be, and I quite feel that this is one of the better Critical reception sections...in contrast to those small ones that don't even begin to go into deep analysis about the topics. Also, the Plot section has been significantly cut down, during its recent copyedits as well. No more can be cut without removing needed details. As for spoilers, all of that is spoilers. If readers don't want to be spoiled, they aren't supposed to read the plot sections. See WP:SPOILER.


 * If this criticism of yours has anything to do with my and Jayy reverting you, then understand that it was not meant as a slight against you. I want to be clear about this because I have, on more than one occasion, seen editors who have had their edits rejected try and sabotage a GA review. If your criticism is unrelated to the reverts, has merit, then I apologize. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i agree with Flyer. i saw this article listed at the copyeditor's guild, and maybe a better copyedit could have been done on it (another is coming soon, according to Flyer), but it's good enough for GA. the critical reception portion is well-rounded, going over prominent aspects and i like that. maybe the section about Murray and Burton leaving could do without a sentence or two, but that material is pretty relevant. seems to have cause quite the controversy. i don't detect any irrelevancy or randomness in either section. 107.21.90.242 (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First let me say I'm not mad at all that you reverted a few of my small edits. I rarely am. If I was I would challenge it. Usually if I ignore a reversion of my edits it means i thought through it and realized it didn't need to be there. Anyway, I've sort of come to see your view point. I actually think its me just not used to seeing sections that are this long or detailed and not whether its actually good for the article. In many TV show articles the critical reception sections usually are brief, sometimes to the point where you don't learn enough. So I guess more is better than less in this case. The reason I called out the Murray and Burton section was because it was never that big of a big deal to me, instead of whether it was actually relevant or quality work. And I was wrong about the plot, it most cases it does act as a spoiler but that's okay. The bottom line probably is I was not used to seeing TV show articles that are this long and detailed, even among shows that are much more popular than OTH. I guess I was acting more on personal opinion than objective analysis. Thanks for responding, and I hope this makes it into GA status, and maybe sometime in the future even FA :) Cadiomals (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Cadiomals. Sometimes such sections can do with a little bit of tightening, so you weren't too off in your reasoning. I only reverted you on one thing, and disagreed with part of Jayy's revert of you -- the bullet points for the Cast section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 27 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)
 * There is no "obsessive monologue about Brucas and Jeyton" in the article. As for everything else you stated, it's covered in my previous response about detail above. But, yes, the cast/character bios are of appropriate size and belong here. Check out Smallville and the other examples I listed above, although The Dark Knight and Avatar cast/character sections aren't as big because they are films. The cast/character section in the One Tree Hill article could be better written, I agree. I wouldn't call it poorly-written, but we will work on that. Something to make very clear, though, is that just because a person wants a little information on a show that they likely feel should have been cancelled long ago is no reason to have a subpar, inadequately-detailed article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 7 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)


 * Nope, IP. Comparing this article to various other GA television articles, it is not subpar. My experience with GA reviews on popular media topics such as this tells me that this article would have made GA status with a different GA reviewer. Why? Because, in addition to basing articles on whether or not they meet all of the WP:GA criteria, it just so happens that whether an article makes or fails GA also often depends on an editor's personal criteria. Negating my testimony, you could ask other experienced Wikipedia editors about that, but I'll get to that part of your comment in a moment. As stated before, this article is not overly long. There's no use in me repeating myself on that again. But to briefly reiterate, this article is about the same length or isn't much longer than a lot of other Wikipedia articles about television shows that have been on the air for several years. The GA Smallville article that I continue to point to is a prime example of that. Look at it. If you think it's the only example, I'd be more than happy to point you to other examples. GA examples. But going back to the GA review, good of you to bring it up. That, and your citing WP:Fancruft, is exactly why I don't believe you to be just some random IP. And to set you straight, note that we tackled the GA reviewer's issue of fancruft. After that, the GA reviewer made no further mention of fancruft or excessive detail. This article was failed because, as the GA reviewer stated, "the prose is poor and editors appear incapable of improving it. With regards to DVDverdict, I read the discussions at WP:RSNand there was no clear conse[ns]us that it is reliable. Discussions at RSN have also shown that Amazon is not a reliable source for release dates." Translation: It was failed because the GA reviewer felt that the prose was still poor and because he disagreed with the use of two sources -- DVD Verdict and Amazon.com. Not only in the GA review and after it did I point out that DVD Verdict is a reliable source for the information that it is sourced to and why, but also that there is no guideline, rule or consistent precedent against using Amazon.com for release date information. The Smallville article, for example, made GA using Amazon.com, and so have others. Which just furthers my point about "personal criteria." And I never stated that you said that One Tree Hill should have been cancelled long ago. I said "likely feel should have been cancelled long ago," which is easily inferred by your statement. Anyway, the article got a second copy-edit after the GA review, and, with a few more tweaks that I will be implementing at a later date, it will be reviewed for GA again. If you think it won't make the grade, well, you are wrong.


 * Cadiomals: If the IP is you, which I believe that it is (even if you deny it), then just post under your registered account. Don't play silly games with me. First, you say that you understand my view of the article and that "[you] guess [you were] acting more on personal opinion than objective analysis" and now you come back to again complain about "how much useless fancruft is in this article" -- the same exact section you complained about before? Nice. There is nothing fancrufty about that section, as I've made more than clear above. If there was, the very experienced GA reviewer would have specifically pointed that out. It is only fancrufty to you because, in addition to only wanting small, concise articles for topics such as this (except for The O.C. article, it seems, which is about the same size as this article), you don't believe that Murray and Burton's departures were a big deal, despite the fact that the reliable sources say otherwise about that. All that section is doing is reporting, in four paragraphs (one blockquote), the much-discussed circumstances for these actors' departures. That is not the definition of WP:Fancruft. I have nothing more to state on this subject, really. But thank you for removing this post from my talk page. Yes, I am experienced in getting articles to GA status, as well as helping them keep their GA status. If you removed that request because you now think that I don't have a good grasp on what it takes to get an article to GA status, then that's that. But since I don't review articles for GA, I would have declined your request regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's weird that you would accuse me of being the IP, because I truly am not, but I can see why you might think I am. I left this alone for a while as you can see but seeing someone agree with me even if it was an IP encouraged me to reply again. Fine, I'll back out of this altogether. I've never even contributed to and in the end really don't care about this article. Cadiomals (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And just to let you know, this is my IP. It's weird how you get very defensive and uptight when other people criticize you. I don't; I try to see their point of view. 76.231.80.25 (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that you are talking to an experienced Wikipedia editor here. I've seen this before. More than once. Which is why I don't feel that it's weird that I would accuse you of being the IP address in question. The IP address shows up out of nowhere to comment. I comment four days later, then the IP comments only a couple days after that...as though the IP has been waiting for my response...and even cites WP:FAN and the GA review. Those are not the signs of a random IP who just happened along this article. A random IP would not typically still be waiting for my reply, and, if they were, would not be so eager for it that they would make a habit of checking this talk page to see if I replied. Again, I hadn't replied for four days. Any random IP would have moved on by now. But this one replies only two days after I did, and then you show up to support the IP forty-one minutes later. The same arguments ensue, with even WP:FAN and a GA review being pointed to by the IP, as well as the same disinterest in the show. Random IPs, as in people who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works, do not cite WP:FAN or read GA reviews. So, yeah, not seeing how it's weird that I would accuse you of being the IP. Like you stated, you can see why I would. And you're wrong that you've never contributed to this article. You have, but were reverted a few times (as partly shown above). I know what you mean, however. You mean that your contributions have not stayed. Putting that aside and revisiting the topic of weird, though, it's weird how you generalize that I "get very defensive and uptight when other people criticize me" and that I don't try to see their point of view. Firstly, you don't how I generally act on Wikipedia to make such a statement, unless you follow me. Secondly, it's more a criticism of my edits than of me, but anyway. Lastly, I always try to see the other point of view. That is essential to working on Wikipedia. So of course I tried to see yours, which is exactly why I analyzed your points (right down to your being mistaken about spoilers, per WP:SPOILER) and gave you an in-depth reply going over them. It's exactly why I stated, "Sometimes such sections can do with a little bit of tightening, so you weren't too off in your reasoning." But, again, whatever, I don't have time for this. The other IP can come out now and deny being you and repeat the same thing that was stated before, once again disregarding what I stated about why the "too long" and "fancruft" arguments are wrong, and then we can move on. Your having a different IP address right now does not relieve my suspicion, since people's IP addresses can change (for example, through a proxy). But if you are not the IP address, I still point out that this IP address is not simply random. This is not someone who is unfamiliar with at least some aspects of Wikipedia's inner workings. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's nice that you make sure to give long, in-depth responses to people's short replies. However, i still think it carries over in your actual article work. I'm done here anyway. Don't expect to hear from me again, IP or not. Cadiomals (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean that "in depth" has carried over into my article work, yes, it has. And it's worked well for me, seeing as Wikipedia generally loves in-depth coverage and the GA and FA criteria/experienced reviewers are big on that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 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 say "IP" because that's what you are. Every registered editor on Wikipedia refers to IPs as IPs. I don't know your name, now do I? If "IP" was used as an insult, it's because I equated you with another user (seeing as I don't believe that you are an IP who just happened upon this article). I don't care how often you do your WP:Trolling and state that there's "long, rambling, overly-detailed crap" in this article. It's not like I'm going to agree. It's also not something that the GA reviewer, who passed a different article I significantly expanded to GA, stated either. All saying I "have an affinity for walls of text" shows is that you, like I stated, are not some random IP. You are more like a WP:Stalker if you are that familiar with things I have written on Wikipedia. But for arguments sake, I wouldn't have gotten any article to GA status or helped others attain FA status if I was writing "walls of [article] text that no one reads." Nor would I get comments from true random IPs commenting positively on my work, even from those criticizing parts of my work, as well as random emails doing the same. So you can continue to bitch and moan here all you want. If you haven't noticed, your opinion doesn't matter much to me. Just because you have issues with your attention span (reading a section consisting of few or several paragraphs, like many GA and FA articles, in addition to reading a two-paragraph reply) doesn't mean that others do. But nice try in attempting to make me think that you are an editor who just happened upon this article. Your taking such a long time to reply after Cadiomals "last" statement above doesn't at all help to convince me that you are someone else. If anything, it helps to convince me that you are exactly who I accused you of being, since there was no commentary from you the day of or soon after Cadiomals's "last" comment, even though you were editing elsewhere. And if you aren't Cadiomals, I still don't care. Obviously. So you go ahead and comment again so that I can reply one last time and archive this damn section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Archiving with the rest of the talk page. Not interested in anything else you have to say, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
I would list this article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, seeing as I disagree with Jezhotwells failing the article, 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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47, 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...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)

Late December copy edit

 * Plot, 4th season: "Psycho Derek". Is this the name of a character (as implied by the capital P) or is it just saying that the Derek already mentioned is "psycho". If the latter, "psycho" should have been in lower case, but in fact this abbreviation is slang. Do we know that he is psychotic? If not, let's think of a more encyclopedic everyday term. --Stfg (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cast, James Lafferty: "emancipating himself". Strange expression. "Emancipating" is wikilinked to Emancipation of minors. Are we just talking about coming of age here? --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 28 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)
 * Hi Jayy008. Thanks for this. We can explain the term "Psycho Derek" higher up in the paragraph. Before I try to, does this nickname refer to the real Derek or to the impostor? On the emancipation, yes, I see. No change needed, I think. --Stfg (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Psycho Derek" refers to the imposter, the real Derek has always been called simply "Derek" as far as I'm aware. In case you need it, the imposters real name was Ian Banks. Jayy008 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of capitalization... Stfg, when it comes to mentioning seasons, I've seen the word "season" with and without capitalization. For example, Season 2 and season 2. Which one should we use? I figured that since these are the official names of the seasons, they should be capitalized, just like "Psycho Derek," though not an official name, is the nickname of the character Ian Banks. But if you look at any article title for the seasons of any show here at Wikipedia, the word "season" is without capitalization...such as with One Tree Hill (season 1)...and the copyeditor before you (September88) removed capitalization as well. This led me to go through the entire article and remove any capitalization...for consistency. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and September88 about this, Flyer22: lower case is better. I can find nothing in MOS:CAPS, nor think of any logical reason, to mandate caps for this. --Stfg (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Plot: season 5: First mention of Tree Hill Ravens by name. Is this the high school basketball team mentioned in the first paragraph? --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sponsors: "AT&T has been inserted into the show as a sponsor. An example includes the choice to have Nathan and Taylor kiss in season 2." How is that choice an example of AT&T being inserted into the show as a sponsor? By the way, the source only says that viewers can vote and the vote will determine the storyline. It doesn't say how they voted; hence the tag. --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Departures of Murray and Burton: "In January 2011, Burton confirmed at the Winter TCAs that she would not be returning". The source doesn't mention TCAs, but a conference call. I've deleted "at the Winter TCAs". --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 30 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)
 * Thanks you for your copyediting, Stfg. I changed the AT&T sponsors line to this. If there isn't a reliable source saying that fans chose Nathan not to kiss Taylor, we can always state that he didn't kiss her by sourcing that information to the show (seeing as plot information can be sourced to the show itself). I am pleased with your copyedits. The only criticism I have is that you sometimes don't check sources thoroughly enough, as seen here and here. I somewhat agree about the quoting issue you have with the article, but not entirely because there are other television or film articles of GA or FA status with just as much quoting, or more, as this one. I also don't see the problem with this article's size, per what I stated in the discussion above. There's nothing irrelevant in the article, other than maybe the issue of gushing quotes like you mentioned. Most of what is in this article is needed to adequately cover the topic of One Tree Hill. Some television show articles are of 5,000 words or less; others, like this one, are not because either the topic cannot be adequately covered around that number or there is a lot of unneeded material in the article. Like I stated, there is not a lot of unneeded material in this article. Other than quotations that would serve better as summarized wording (although Critical reception sections are usually quote farms anyway), I don't see any unneeded material. I say this as someone who has watched the show for years (up until season 6 so far; only a little of season 7), and isn't as big of a fan of the show as Jayy or others. I say all of this as an editor who can differentiate cruft from comprehensiveness. And, again, I thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue about the AT&T example, at least for non-American readers, is to understand what AT&T have to do with anything mentioned in the source (FN70), and thus how it is an example of their sponsorship. In the case of the first quote, I saw the, ahem, IP's edit summary, and I already knew that, but I disgree with its application here. The words "However, Lafferty has said ..." separate the two quotes, making a citation for both desirable. If they had been linked with something like "... but he went on to say ...", then it would have been less of an issue. Anyway, the IP did the right thing about it. (By the way, in the same diff the IP also undid something else I did, rather missing the point, but I won't edit war with him. I'll leave you to decide which you prefer there.) In the case of the second diff you mention, I don't know whether I would have spotted if the citation if the page number had been given, but there could be no harm in it. By the way, a copy editor wouldn't usually expect to check citations, except in cases where he thought it might help clarify something ambiguous in the article, or to check for a suspected misquote. To say "you sometimes don't check sources thoroughly enough" is ad hominem; I'm sure you didn't intend a personal attack, but we do have to be so careful, don't we. I think my work here is done now. Happy New Year. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't mean it as a personal attack, Stfg. You have been very helpful, and, like I stated, I am pleased with your copyedits. It just irks me when editors add citation tags when the citation is already given, and they simply overlooked it or didn't check thoroughly enough. I mean, I feel that if a person adds a citation tag, they should be sure that the material is uncited. But everything has worked out well, and I'll definitely consider your advice about cutting back on the quotes. So you feel that the AT&T example is still not as clear as it should be? What would you suggest for the wording? Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but I still think the first citation-needed tag was right, for reasons given before, and what the IP did is what was definitively needed. On the second, we may agree to disagree, but I don't think you have enough basis for the generalisation you made about my source checking. If editors add citation tags because they've overlooked something, it's a small matter to say so. If, on the other hand, they haven't overlooked anything, they may have smoothed your path to GA. On AT&T I'm afraid I can't help with the wording, because I just can't see AT&T in the source (FN70), so I don't know what it is that we're looking for words for. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention earlier that the size of this article may not be 10,000 words. Was it only the prose size you checked, as mentioned in WP:SIZE? References add a lot to an article's kilobyte size. But either way, even if 10,000 words in prose size, I stand by what I stated above about its size.


 * My comment about your source-checking was based on only two instances. I apologize if it was a miscategorization of your source-checking in general. Again, it was not meant to be a WP:Personal attack. It was meant to be "my only criticism" about your copyedits. Maybe I should have used the word "overlooked" in my initial response, but if I had, I still would have said "The only criticism I have is that you sometimes overlook things that are already cited," etc. You already explained about the first case, but wouldn't it have been better that you simply duplicated the reference there instead of making it seem like the line was uncited? Anyway, I understand that you most likely check sources quite well in your usual editing. My criticism was more about the two instances in this article, since I don't know how your editing is in general.


 * The AT&T line probably says "AT&T" because it is where Cingular Wireless, which the source mentions, comes from. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is the word count, calculated by User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. The link of Cingular Wireless to AT&T isn't common knowledge outside the US. No, it wouldn't have been better to do that. There were two quotations with separating language between them, hence they both need citation. One of them was uncited. Finding the citation is not a copy editor's job. I find a generalisation about me from two instances in a 10,000-word article to be ad hominem, even if we agreed about the instances, which we appear not to. This is my last post on this. I'm dropping it from my watchlist now. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I've had limited Internet activity this past week and have been focusing on a couple, or few, articles at a time. I do feel that it would've been better that you simply duplicated the reference where you felt it needed to be instead of making it seem like the line was uncited. My point is that the line was not uncited and your edit made it seem that way. It may not be that finding a citation is a copy editor's job, but you stated that you were already aware of where the citation was. You didn't have to find it. Therefore, all you had to do was place it where you consider to be the appropriate spot. Instead, you chose to add a citation tag. I don't see why it should be the copyeditor's job to add a citation tag more than it should be to duplicate a reference to a line that they see is cited. I'm not sure what else to state about my minor criticism of your edits. I already explained above, explained that it was more with regard to this article, and I apologized for making you feel that it was a gross generalization.


 * Thank you for wishing me a good year. I wish you one as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rivercourt" "Clothes over Bro's"
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)
 * Jayy, these articles aren't just supposed to be for fans of the series. I don't see anything wrong with clarifying what these things are or how it's difficult. All you do is mention briefly that the Rivercourt is an outside basketball court, if it's not already clear from saying that basketball is played there, and mention that the latter is a clothing line. Stfg placed the "clarification needed" tags because Stfg either doesn't know what these things are and/or feels that it should be clear for anyone (viewers and non-viewers) what these things are. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, thanks. I didn't know and I felt that readers would not like to have things mentioned that they hadn't been introduced to. (BTW, if you ever feel the need for a pronoun, I'm a "he" :)) --Stfg (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, yes, my need for a pronoun was obvious. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Rivercourt just any outside court, or is it somehow significant to the plot? If it's just any court, maybe it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. Does Clothes over Bros have a hyphen (as above) or not (as in the article)? Does it belong to Brooke? --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 29 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)

Lead changes
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)


 * It was you who started this at Flyer's page.
 * Adding "order" or "production order" doesn't communicate that anything might change. "One Tree Hill was renewed for a ninth[8] and final season, with 13 episodes" means that the season will have 13 episodes, which is what the sources, FN8 and FN9, say. They give no indication of possible change, and neither does your wording.
 * (your version from yesterday) said: "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bush are signed on as full-time regulars, ...". You said nothing about one year. Nor did the article before I came to it. Nor did, the version of 19th December that September88 was presented with when she began work. I merely removed removed "on".
 * Please refer to While. The simple way to remember it is: if "and" works, then "while" doesn't. You were happy to have one sentence with "while". I think you now just don't want to accept my work.
 * There is no change of meaning in any of my edits. I refer you once more to the GA reviewer's comments.


 * Flyer, I'm very sorry, but this is ridiculous, and I really don't see how it's possible to proceed now. --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I've figured out what you may have meant by the 13-episode "order". The problem, Jayy, is that "order" has so many meanings, and the reader can really only figure out what "with a 13-episode order" means if they know how the industry works. Most of us don't. The only way I discovered it was by noticing that One Tree Hill (season 8) has the same problem in its opening sentence, but it all becomes clear when the back-order is mentioned. Since "back-order" has only one specific meaning, that clears it up. I've suggested a re-word in the article: "... ordering 13 episodes to be made". That's unambiguous, but clumsy: I prefer "... commissioning 13 episodes". Does that suit you? --Stfg (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's taken me so long. I started on Flyer's talk-page because I wanted a quick response, I didn't wish for a discussion to be there. Also, sorry I didn't explain myself well, and you're right "order" may only be known to people who know the industry. I agree clumsy, so I don't think we should use it. I think it should be worded some other ways. Commissioning would be fine but again, it's odd. Here in the UK, commissioning is used to describe orderinng a new series (season) and I thought U.S. articles were supposed to reflect U.S. terminology's? "... ordering 13 episodes to be produced." "... with a production order of 13 episodes." Something like that could be best? Also, as I said before I didn't check all the history so I didn't know who removed the "one year" thing, but that's important information. When new contracts are signed it's usually for two years, in this case it's one. And it's important to note they're only contracted for this season. Since you didn't remove it, do you have any objections to me specifying that? Also, I'm going have a little re-word of the season 9 plot. I'm going to remove the speculation and put only facts. Jayy008 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I'm in the UK as well, but I think the meaning of "commission" (as a verb) is the same on both side of the pond (unless it has a specialised meaning in the television industry, which I wouldn't know). "Production order" has the same problem as just "order": in the reader's mind it may call up a sequence of events. I think we need a verb here. How about the full sentence reading: "On May 17, 2011, The CW renewed One Tree Hill for a ninth[8] and final season, placing an order for 13 episodes."


 * Now I understand what has happened about the one year thing. As this is the final season, it would probably be clear to any reader that the contract is only for that season, but I'm fine with you putting in something explicit if you like.


 * I've seen the plot reword, and it's fine. --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 31 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)


 * OK, these words are clear. I've put them in. Happy New Year. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you, too. Sorry if I've been difficult to work with, thanks for all of your help! Jayy008 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have, too :)) Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Source warning
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)

So...will I be banned for contributing, then?
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)
 * It's already been discussed so drop it, please. The article does not need trimming down and you are WP:Trolling. I'm not here to bring other subjects into it, but from what I've read, it's been discussed and settled with. Now leave it, please. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * NO, I'm not trolling. It has not been "settled with;" it's just that all the editors who held the same opinion I do eventually threw their hands up and walked away. I came back to see if anyone had made any progress, and I saw that I apparently can't even touch the Talk page without effectively being told "Go away, this is our clubhouse."
 * So what you're saying is that I can't edit the article?65.6.114.88 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you the article does not need editing. It's fine as it is. You just don't like it, but we've told you and others it's absolutely fine the way it is. Accept it. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 21:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But I think that if I worked on making the language more precise and less verbose, it would improve the general readability of the article, and it could maybe get to GA status.65.6.114.88 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Provide me of an example then because I don't find the "language" of the article verbose. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Are you serious? 65.6.114.88 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it sound like I'm joking to you? I'm giving you a chance to prove your point. So either prove it or I archive this and you'll be officially WP:Trolling. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 03:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what? At this point, this discussion isn't going anywhere.  I'm not sure if maybe I've caught you on a bad day or if you just don't like me for whatever reason or what, but I've read through lots of the policy stuff, including the WP:Trolling(which I don't think applies to me), and I'm not sure why you are so adamantly against my attempt to make any contributions.  Like, I even ASKED on the talk page before trying; it's not like I'm in there deleting stuff willy-nilly.  Either I'm really dense, or I've been misinformed as to what Wikipedia is.  And I don't see us building up to a civil discussion re: under what circumstances I WOULD be allowed to work on this article.  I think, at this point, we should maybe ask for a third opinion?  65.6.114.88 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going off of previous discussions held on the archived talk page, which clearly outlines it's not overly written or anything else. I asked you a simple question of you providing an example and you couldn't do that. Clearly you're not serious about wanting to even attempt improvements so I'm considering this discussion closed and over with! Music Freak 7676 TALK! 04:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But in those discussions, it isn't "clearly outlined." There are users who said that there is a problem, and users who disagreed and more or less seemed to either scare them off or wear them out.  And at this point, I don't think anything I show you will convince you to let me edit because our opinions differ.  And I feel like I'm handing an assignment in to a teacher who has already decided to fail me. 65.6.114.88 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I'm trying to give you the chance to show me an actual example before I let you go and make tons of edits to an article that I personally believe does not need changing. But since you do not want to do that and wish to be difficult, consider the discussion finished. And in fact you are WP:Trolling since I asked you to provide an example, which you refused to do yet tried to continue to prove your point. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 04:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like you said before you changed your comment to add that last little stab (accusing me of WP:Trolling AGAIN), yes, for the time being, let's say the discussion is finished. I'm going to go make some nachos and watch Portlandia_(TV_series) on YouTube, lol. 65.6.114.88 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to try to tell you in as polite a way as possible why I considered you to be trolling. It's really like I told you at User talk:184.38.76.247 and User talk:176.227.192.114. I wasn't really bringing "pedophilia into it." I was just saying that "my IP-proxy hopping and defense of editors who keep pedophiles off Wikipedia are well known" and one reason I defend my sister is because she is one of those editors. But I do look for the merit in her arguments before blasting away in her defense. I'll say right now that I'm very suspicious of the fact that you brought this up again the day after my sister was blocked for my actions, that you are trying to make a move now that she is currently blocked and is not here to defend the article, but I'll just mosey on to why I find you to be trolling or are at least not being productive in how you are going about this. You are always saying that other editors said the article is full of fancruft. But, in actuality, there was only one editor besides you who said that. Cadiomals, who my sister very much believes (or used to believe) is you. The GA reviewer noted fancruft, but not to the extent that you are, and my sister got rid of the only fanfruct that GA reviewer noted. Outside of that, only one editor besides you noted that the article may be too long. That was the second copyeditor. But his comments on that particular topic were more about overquoting. He did not say the article needs to be drastically cut. You keep telling us that there is too much fancruft in the article and now you say that you can get the article to GA if we do what you want. But allow me to ask you: What do you know about getting articles to GA? The GA reviewer didn't cite your reasons as reasons for why he failed the article as GA. My sister directed you to GA examples that are basically the same in their structure as this article and you ignored that every time, maintaining that you know best. You even put aside Musicfreak's request to show us how this article fails in all the ways you say that it does. Did you not comprehend what I told you before? I said: "[My sister] even pointed to the very long Avatar (2009 film) article that she got to GA, and I had a hell of a lot of fun reading that without being a fan of it. If its detail and length aren't hurting readers to understand the film, I don't see how One Tree Hill's length and detail are. [My sister] mentioned this before, but it's the average length for an article about a television show that has been on for several years. Her Smallville (TV series) example serves that point. Even The O.C. article does. So I don't understand your complaints about the One Tree Hill page. [My sister] is right that you didn't even specify your complaints, besides criticizing the cast/character section, which is actually average length. If one of your complaints is mentioning the popular couples, I say so the article discusses romance as a theme of the show. So what? Romance is a major theme of the show. Naming the romances and what effect they had on the audience/fans is not fluff. Going into detail about the exit of two of the show's main stars is not fluff. Having a critical reception section that is longer than three or four paragraphs is not fluff; most of the critical reception sections on Wikipedia, of good or featured articles, are that detailed. In my opinion, you need to poke around Wikipedia more and see what works according to the community. Articles with detail like these articles work."


 * It's soooo odd that you are fixated on this article, while claiming not to be a fan of this series and not knowing that it was still on the air. If you don't care for the show to that degree, why do you care to get this article to GA? The last discussion about this was archived because it was not going anywhere positive. It is illogical to keep bringing up the same topic every time past discussions about that very topic are not benefiting the article and are subsequently archived. Are we supposed to let you do this every time the discussion goes nowhere and is archived? Are we supposed to just let you make drastic changes while ignoring GA examples that are like this article and without giving good reasons for why your changes should be made? 176.227.192.114 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? So you're a sibling of User:Flyer22??  I'm so confused 184.38.21.202 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. See her talk page. She's been blocked because of me, but I'm not allowed to divulge personal information about what has happened to her since then. I'm sick with guilt, and I'm doing what I can to look after the articles she contributed to or watched over. The only reason I came at you the way I did (in the past and as recently as this discussion) is because I considered you to only be hounding my sister instead of truly listening to her points about the article's design. She agreed with you that the cast/character section needs work and she said she isn't done tidying this article. Remember, it was failed because the reviewer believed the following: "This is a clear fail - the prose is poor and editors appear incapable of improving it. With regards to DVDverdict, I read the discussions at WP:RSNand there was no clear consensus that it is reliable. Discussions at RSN have also shown that Amazon is not a reliable source for release dates. Not listed." It was failed after one copyedit and upon the disapproval of two sources. It got a second copyedit after it was failed. I'm sure that my sister would have worked with you to tidy up this article if you'd been more specific about what you think should be done with it and hadn't been so dismissive of her points and as combative as she describes me to be. In general, I don't see much more improvement that is needed. That is doubled when I check this article against other GA and FA television series articles. 176.227.192.114 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I were in a better emotional state, and didn't have to leave for the time being, I'd suggest some phrasing changes for the cast section. 176.227.192.114 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
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)
 * Musicfreak7 had it right, in my opinion, per my commentary higher. 176.227.192.114 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)