Talk:The O.C./Archive 1

Archive 1

"Welcome to the dark side"

I just watched the first episode for the first time and it's definitely Ryan, not Seth, who says this line. I didn't just swap the names in the article because it seems like there might be some further editing necessary. Someone care to take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.165.127 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 March 2005

---

Actually, they *both* say "Welcome to the dark side". Seth says it as they enter the fashion show, thinking that the cocktails and superficiality is the dark side; Ryan says it as they enter the party.

Daydream believer2 06:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on "Jewish controversy"

I really question this information. TV shows have feautred Jewish-Christian marriages for a very long time - at least since Bridget Loves Bernie in the early 1970s. Which Jewish groups have criticized this show? When? Also, this article makes it seem as if Jewish groups are criticizing the show because a non-Jewish actor is playing a Jew. Huh? This has also been going on for a very long time. I'd like to see some evidence of this "controversy," please. Moncrief 16:52, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony Sidaway, for taking it out again. It's such a silly thing - a few people on blogs complaining about it signals a "controversy" - but I was trying to find consensus by at least moderating the langauge. I'm glad someone else is watching it, and understands that at the very last it requires a citation or two. Most Jews have much more on their minds than a FOX television show whose worst offense is showing a couple who are intermarried - something that reflects reality since intermarriage has been very common in the U.S. for decades (though it's true Orthodox Jews don't like it) and has been portrayed on television for decades as well. Moncrief 02:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does *anyone* actually believe Trey lived? I mean, he did get shot straigh through the chest, and it looked to me like they were trying to clearly show he was killed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.58.113 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 May 2005

He was shot through the right side of the chest so it would not have hit his heart, it's definately possible to survive a bullet wound in that area of the body. I'm not really sure what your message has to do with Judaism in the OC but there's your answer. --Iscariot 17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

besides, with modern day medicine anyone could live with basically any injury as long as they medical attention almmost immediately--JG ROX 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was a battalion surgeon in Iraq last year, and I have resuscitated at least three soldiers that I can remember that were shot in the chest (on the right side).--Beezer137 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to TV (Tome)

Since I don't want to start a revert war: Any specific reason the link to TV.com was reverted? TV Tome no longer exists and accually redirects to the new link. RoToRa 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to clear up that this is because tv.com has merged with the cnet affiliation and now uses the same layout as gamespot.com its much easier to go through now and easier to maintain your own personal profile === Razorwave 1:11am Feb 7 2006

I prefer TVRage. It's easier, and it is 100% better. --andrew 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the spam and correced the sneaky change of the tv-id. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Around the world

I question whether the "Around the World" section is actually required. It's getting very long and no other articles about TV shows seem to have it.

Would anyone object if I removed it? --Kevin 10:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be a problem that it is getting very long? If it doesn't look good to have such a long list in this article, you could always create a Countries and Channels The O.C. is aired in, or something similar. Wouldn't it be interesting for a reader of this article to see that it quite a popular show around the world, and just not in the U.S.? --Konstantin 13:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's too trivial a thing to deserve an article of its own. To show the popularity of it something like "As of August 2005, The O.C. is syndicated by {x} networks in {y} countries." --Kevin 22:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I say remove it, I haven't seen ANY other television show on wikipedia that has a complete list of countries, names, etc. like this show does. It's wholly pointless, basically it serves as a TV Guide, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. A line as suggested by Kevin is more that sufficient. Batman2005 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should, instead of remove it, create a separate page for it, like these two: Airdates of Lost and List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases--Morpheos 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Runtime

How to count how long the show runs? I remember after seeing the first season DVD, that each episode is slightly less than 42 minutes long. Should the credits be counted to the shows runtime? --Konstantin 13:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Credits should always be included. We should count the actual running time, meaning without the ads, and that's the episode on the DVD which is always more than 41 and less than 44.

According to the DVD boxsets the running time is 42 mins approx, Shouldn't that be the show's running time? --Ryan2807 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Character List

Some of you might notice that the character list is a little bit different than it was previous. I removed many of the descriptive words (devious, sexy, overbearing, obnoxious, ruthless, etc.) as they are not Neutral in Point of View. These are obviously words that were included based on the feelings of the poster who wrote the article and by editors that followed. The goal of an encyclopedia isn't to sway an opinion one way or the other, nor is it to provide the reader with information that would provide a prejudiced view of a show or characters in a show. Saying "Sandy's obnoxious and overbearing mother" is not Neutral Point of View. Saying "Sandy's mother, known as the Nana" is Neutral Point of View. I expect that these edits will be reverted as quickly as they were made. At which time i'll post a header about the neutrality of the article being questioned and let a moderator sort it out. Batman2005 06:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article for the television show The OC, if you need your questions answered, then please visit one of the many fansites or internet blogs that discuss the show. Batman2005 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable Plots

Do we really need this section, as there is already a brilliantly laid out List of episodes of The O.C.? The plotlines are too hard to lay out chronologically with people leaving and arriving, and the events each of them go through. I think it would be better to lose this section entirely, and just use the episode list.Iorek85 11:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This was started in 2004, because the episode list didn't exist yet. We should have a formal vote, though. Plus, it seems as if the whole article is written in bulleted list format. -Whomp 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with merging the plot lines into the list of episodes of the O.C. article. Batman2005 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm for getting rid of them entirely. They are good for less popular shows, but not for this one. A somewhat better route to take is to do what is on the One Tree Hill article, with season synopses. But, that may not work that well, either. Either way, the plot lines system is too messy for this show. -Whomp 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to be bold, so I deleted it, and replaced with list of episodes. Iorek85 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

This thing is a huge mess. Plot lines when their is a list of episodes, and list after list after list make it the perfect canidate to have a rewrite. Now, I could definetly help, but I can't do it myself. Any ideas to improve on? -Whomp 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a complete rewrite. I think the plotlines section needs to be deleted, as I've said above. Some of the 'trivia' isn't, really, but otherwise, it's O.k.Iorek85 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, changed to a cleanup tag. But the thing still is a bunch of lists. -Whomp 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be greatly improved if the Trivia could be included in normal paragraphs and not as lists. For example we could go like:

==Production==

Originally produced by [[McG]], who attended [[Corona del Mar High School]] in Newport Beach, the show was about to be named ''Orange County'', but a film with that name was released before the show, so the title was changed to '''The O.C.'''....

Just eliminated two trivia... --Alexignatiou 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Had a go at cleaning it up, but there aren't too many that can be removed. My cutoff for trivia is - if you don't know it by watching the show, then it's trivia. i.e kirsten being a W.A.S.P isn't trivia, but Brody's fear of water is. Iorek85 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added back in the piece about Rachel Bilson and Melinda Clarke not being regulars at the begining, for people that haven't watched the show since season one, this is trivia. Crazynas 08:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again before reading this, sorry, but you'll note it is still mentioned nearer the top still, along with Luke; "Chris Carmack and Tate Donovan both were regular cast members during the first season while Rachel Bilson started as a guest star, even though Carmack and Donovan were not in every single episode during the season and Bilson was. Bilson was later added as a regular cast member, as was Melinda Clarke, while Carmack and Donovan were eventually dropped from the regular cast and soon thereafter removed completely from the show." I agree it's trivia, though. Iorek85 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, didn't see that one. Crazynas 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well hang on, i only just started watching the OC half way through season 3, i need plot info so i can catch up on the two previous seasons that i missed--JG ROX 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Some photos from the episode list, that show guest characers could be put in the Guest Stars section to lighten them up. Please, try to find some pictures with main color other than orange, because it would still look bad. Everything would be orange, and I'm saying that we should be careful because most pictures in the list are orange. --Alexignatiou 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but that's bcause its supposed tobe all sunset and stuff, orange is a key colour!!! LOL-- JG ROX

Spoiler

PUT A SPOILER – ALL OTHER TV SHOWS HAVE THEM – IT”S ONLY RIGHT

Don't you think that point on Marissa dying in the season finale should be given a bit more of a spoiler warning? If I find out who put that there I'm KILLING HIM! _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like it's one of the usual pre-finale hypes Josh Schwartz is so fond of. Erased. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do we definitely know that Marissa dies, I mean I've seen some clips on the net (hasn't aire in Ireland yet) and I haven't lost hope!! 213.202.172.97 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)CoNNorC

• yes, we do definately know that she dies. on the the encyclopedia page it outlines the whole process--JG ROX 11:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

i think that they so should not tell you that marissa dies, or, atleast not HOW, to leave you to actually want to watch it, the episdoe

SAT challenge words

I read somewhere that the first season of the OC used SAT challenge words in an effort to make people more intelligent. people complained that real teenagers didnt talk like that and they stopped writing the words into the script. I dont have a source, but if someone does you should add it to the trivia

Trivia: Adam Brody and his fear of water

Can anyone confirm that? According to theocshow.com, Brody spent a lot of time surfing. Doesn't that imply he's not aquaphobic?

New Section

For quick reference, I added a Cast & Characters section that encompasses all regulars, past, present and future, in one section:

Characters that have no season marking have been regulars since the Pilot.

• Peter Gallagher as Sandy Cohen
• Kelly Rowan as Kirsten Cohen
• Ben McKenzie as Ryan Atwood
• Mischa Barton as Marissa Cooper (Seasons 1–3)
• Adam Brody as Seth Cohen
• Chris Carmack as Luke Ward (Season 1)
• Melinda Clarke as Julie Cooper-Nichol (Season 1–4)
• Rachel Bilson as Summer Roberts (Season 1–4)
• Alan Dale as Caleb Nichol (Season 2)
• Autumn Reeser as Taylor Townsend (Season 4)
• Willa Holland as Kaitlin Cooper (Season 4)
• and Tate Donovan as Jimmy Cooper (Seasons 1–2)

Jwebby91 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast is already listen, please read article. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blind, I can clearly see the cast is listed. But I don't think it's necessary to have all those descriptions if each character has his or her own page. Jwebby91 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that is the way it has been done in this article and thats what makes it a good article. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah whatever.. it looks a lot neater this way, but whatever Jwebby91 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neater? The current article is alot better. We dont have to list everything. The current version is much better in that it gives a back story/looks neat and tidy and is generally easily accesible. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ahaha you reported me.. that's pretty funny. whatever man Jwebby91 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually no i didnt, Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mischa Barton played Marissa Cooper, the first of the "core four" to leave the series at the end of season three (episodes 1-76). Marissa was arguably the most conflicted of the main characters, battling with drug and alcohol addiction" I don't recall Marissa ever being addicted to drugs...she got some off Volchok once but I think that was it...?

What about the overdose in Tijuana?? Not to mention the fact that she actually died from it in the 'parallel universe' on the season 4 chrismukkah episode...but then again it wasn't really an addiction as you said. SilverNightFire 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Spoilers" for season 4

Please don't add rumours from spoilerfix - they aren't even close to appropriate for Wikipedia. We present verifiable facts and viewpoints, not unconfirmed rumours, and especially not as fact. Even if you ignore that, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Iorek85 08:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable guest stars

I was just looking at the list of guest stars and i was thinking, aren't there too many there especially for season 3? At the rate its going shouldn't we start adding the names of the extras that appear every week?? Most the names are relatively unknown, surely that can't make them 'notable' guest stars, shouldn't maybe a few be taken off? A couple don't even have articles about them. I'm not really bothered about it all, i'm only suggesting it. -- Ryan2807 13:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the red links should be took out. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a List of Recurring Characters in The O.C. I think someone could really reduce the guest stars on here Milchjon 23:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a good link?...

About a week ago, I tried adding a link, but it was reverted. Since I'm not as big of an OC Fan as you guys are, I was wondering if you think [tvrage dot com/The_OC this] would be a good external link. If you guys like it, you can add it if you want. --andrew 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable enough for wiki; Also doesnt give any credit to sources etc (ie. i notice how the cast image is just a saved thumb of the wikipedia one.. which still has something i left on it when i cropped it nor does it credit an original source. Also it needs to have relevance to the article, which it doesnt; It covers stuff already covered. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the feedback Matt. Sorry about before. --andrew 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

is now here while i do some work to it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Information on Season 4

Shouldn't some information on season 4 be added now? I'm not talking about spoilers, but facts, since the first episode is available, and contains quite a lot of information on what has happened in the past few months (between season 3 and season 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.62.87 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 October 2006

Editing the navigation box?

How do I edit the navigation box at the bottom of the article? It seems I need to edit the "OCNavigation" tag, but I don't know how. I want to change the link of Rebecca Bloom to List_of_Recurring_Characters_in_The_O.C.#Rebecca_Bloom. Thanks for the help, Jayden54 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out myself, I had to edit the Template:OCnavigation article. Jayden54 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Looks like bad ratings again...[1] Mad Jack 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably means we won't have a fifth season of The O.C., and season 4 will probably only be 16 epi's. Should this rating figure be included in the article somewhere? At the moment it only has the premiere's rating. Jayden54 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what it probably means is that the current episodes may not be aired, and Fox will just cut the show off the schedule after a short awhile. Maybe air the remaining episodes during the summer (I'm also not sure if they've filmed all 16 yet) Mad Jack 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 canceled?

I've just reverted two edits made by 86.5.171.171, because I don't believe the changes that were made concerning the cancellation of season 4 are true. I've looked at the official website, and I couldn't find anything about it. If the information is in fact true, please add it back in, but make sure you also add a reference so it can be verified. Thanks! Jayden54 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh.. this page is becoming a mess wih all these annons adding information like this - we need to tidy it up and get it up to a better standard again. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 isn't the end yet, although some ignorant fan keeps deleting my contribution about its viewership diminshing in recent years. Its the truth, and people shouldn't be surprised if and when the show does go off the air. Saying its a success is a lie these days.--Sam-El 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode List

OH CRAP..I deleted the entire article! I'm not sure how I did this but is there a saved database for this article?? This was a complete accident, huge apology!!

For ages I've been adding quotes, plots etc. to the episode list. Season 4 has already begun and Season 2 isn't even filled in properly, can sum1 plz help, I don't know how to set up the navigation boxes etc. so once they're all there (which i think they are now) i can probably continue filling in season 2. I've already done quotes for all of season 1 but i'm not doing everything by myself! JG ROX 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes _do not_ belong here. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Malibu Shores

I was going to add in the 'Trivia' about the short-lived (10 episodes) 1996 Aaron Spelling show 'Malibu Shores', which has uncannily similarities to The OC. Anyway when I looked the Trivia section is gone! :O So yeah I have no idea where to put it, so it'd be great if someone could stick a wee mention to poor MS somewhere please! Dustin ॐ 08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite that it has similarities? Also the fact would be trivial its self (WP:AVTRIV). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

I have proposed that Jess Sathers, Sophie Cohen (The O.C.), and Charlotte Morgan (The O.C.) be merged into this article, per WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." Each ought to reside in a list, either in the main article, or if it becomes too large, in a separate list article. Since they are not major characters, per WP:FICT, I believe that they ought not have separate articles. Others' comments are greatly appreciated! Charlie 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already got a list (List of recurring characters in The O.C.) - Also there is some conversation regarding characters here as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cancellation

FOX has cancelled The O.C., American Press reports: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16459382/

I just heard it too, on CNN. VolatileChemical 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see it coming, but Fox made the right decision (at least from my point of view). You can tell they're getting desperate when they start having people like Chris Brown on. Everyone seems to like him these days (??). Anyways, I think network fare has gone downhill these days, and I think the OC's unexpected cancellation may lead to an improvement in network fare. Life lesson learned for Fox: Shows like 90210 are one of a kind and hard to duplicate. But, for the fans: RIP The OC 2003-2007. WizardDuck 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot Section

I have recently added a Plot section as part of my major overhaul of this article. I have wrote a brief summary of the plot of The O.C. over the past four seasons. I would appreciate if someone could add any major plot lines that I have missed. Thanks. Stickeylabel 07:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the show within the show

Please be kind--I'm trying to learn the ropes of editing here... On the Feb. 15, 2007 episode (next to the last of season 4 and the series), Ryan and Seth are in Ryan's hospital room and they have a discussion about Ryan receiving Seth's blood in a transfusion. You've all seen it, I'm guessing--The part where Seth says if they could have turned it into a body-swap comedy they might have eeked one or two more seasons out, with an exact quote would this be appropriate material for the section "Cancellation" or "Pop Culture References"? Thanks 24.56.181.138 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yakuza Prep

It seems most obvious that the in show Yakuza Prep was based on the Japanese movie Battle Royale, as they have exactly the same theme. In light of this, I mentioned it in the article.

Noob question

If the VoABot II reverts your edits with the reason "Information" how do you know which links that you added were bad?

Marissa - section change question

-Seeing as how all the characters are former roles, does anyone think Marissa should be moved to the main characters section. Lets be completely honest, she was a MAIN character (just like Seth and everyone else was a main character), now that the show is over I think the character deserves to be listed with the rest. Regardless of people's feelings towards Mischa Barton, or the fact that her character died. Nothing changes the fact that she was a main character. Listing her with Jimmy and the rest of the noteable recurring characters doesnt seem right. Especially considering, she was on 75% of the show and her character was just as main and important as everyone else. Blahblahblah, im just rambling now, someone make the change, although Im sure someone else will find a reason not to, but they'd be wrong. Think about it, the shows over, move her to the main.

EDIT: haha, as I was writing this, everyone got changed to just "characters". Good call.

Is not Was!

Please please people, I beg of you, stop changing 'is' to was in the main article.. The show still exists! Okay? I do not mean to be rude, but people have done this at least 3-4 times in the last few days.. I do not want to start an edit war, and I will not, but I beg you, please do not change from 'is' to 'was', please... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect, the show has ended and it is proper to refer to it in the past-tense. I'm not going to sit here and continue to argue, however, as I will probably get banned or something silly. I find it annoying that just because you believe it is correct, you keep changing my edits. You win!!..OKAY YOU WINmicrobunny (Talk • Contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2007 (EST)

It is not proper, it still exists, unless all copies of it somehow are destroyed. And, I am NOT the only one who is reverting. I can count at least three other people who are also reverting.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is "was". The show is over; it's in the past. All other pages of ended television shows say was. It is more important to be consistent with the rest of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsiman785 (talk • contribs)

Firefly (TV series), M*A*S*H (TV series). Please do not change the page until a consensus is reached on this talk page as this is turning into a edit war. BJ^Talk 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, my gut says go with 'was'. However, movies are 'is', even after they have ended their cinema runs. Books are always 'is', though they didn't have an air date. Events cannot be reproduced; thus, the 1960 F.A Cup final (or Superbowl) is a 'was', but a T.V show (Which will still be airing on Soapnet, btw) can be seen on DVD, and thus still 'is'. I suppose once the O.C cannot be bought on DVD, and is no longer aired on any T.V channel, it can be 'was'. Iorek85 08:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Creative works "are" not "were" unless lost or destroyed. The O.C. is syndicated world-wide, it's still aired in America and is also on DVD. If people are claiming it's all destroyed then you will need some *super strong* secondary sources to cite, pertinent to this "was" is *incorrect*. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Verb tense debate needs to go to Wikiproject:Television

This debate has implications for all television articles. Therefore, it needs to be addressed at the WP:TV level. Please participate in the straw vote going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Straw Vote: Present or Past tense after cancellation?. Dl2000 15:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not decide on things though votes (so I've removed it), this debate is also not new, it has been had *many* times on *many* articles. It *is* incorrect to use past-tense for existent works in an encyclopaedia. Every time a TV show ends it's common for people (who are generally mourning the less) to use search engines and end up here, and quite often (and often naively and innocently believing they are correcting something to help) several anonymous (and new users) change it to past tense, there's however always one or two who become infatuated in making it past tense. What people don't realise is a shown isn't an event. This is just another stone in the bucket. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, I don't want to start a huge arguement on here. This wole wiki thing is great and I'm just going to bow out of this now. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I don't edit many things on here unless I am truly interested in the subject and I'm offended that the few changes/edits I make get deleted by people. I do not wish to fight about this, do whatever you feel is right and I will opt out of editting anything on here and just enjoy reading. I'm obviously not going to get anywhere so again---YOU WIN...OKAY...YOU WIN! microbunny (Talk • Contributions) 5:46, 24 February 2007 (EST)

I take it you're 76.169.137.116 and perhaps Pepsiman785 and Martiansunrise then.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you asing me if I've come on here as 3 different people, the answer is no! Why would I do that? Why do you seem to want to pick a fight? I said that I wouldnt change anything else..do you want a damn apology too? You get your way..ok.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by microbunny (talk • contribs)

I do not want an apology in the first place. I do not pick fights, I was asking, because your account only changed it once, and you seemed to imply that you changed it multiple times. Looking at your contributions, you only changed it once diff. You said previously here "I find it annoying that just because you believe it is correct, you keep changing my edits.", you used plural, so that is why I asked.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean but whatever--I know I changed it at least 3 times and you obviously kept changing it to suit your belief--you seem to have something to prove. All I wanted was to contribute to this site and you have seriously sucked the fun out of this. I can imagine that you probably don't care how others feel and I'm regretting wasting all this time on fightin about this with. By the way, I think it would be pretty lame to sign in as multiple users just to prove a point---again, I am only 1 person. User:microbunny 07:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, this was just a disagreement, until you crossed the line by attacking me on my Editor review and vandalising my user page.. I do not think I could ever understand people like you.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also, just to inform you, I was hardly the only person, people were reverting edits like yours before I even stepped in, and if you think that I want things my way, read that hidden comment, you were going against page consensus.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to proceed--we don't agree and you can't take a negative review on your page so I guess we are at a stop!?? I'm sorry if you feel that I vandalised your page--that was not my intent--I just feel that you deserved a very negative review on your editting.microbunny 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I qualify what you wrote as vandalism, and the person who reverted you (was not me) apparently thought so too, if you wanted to leave a message for me, that's what talk pages are for. And, about the editor review, 1-You attacked me with names (I've not done that to you), 2-You only judged me on one occasion, and 3-You could have posted that maturely.. Anyway, I'm ending this. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt attack you. I posted a highly-negative review that displayed how I feel about your editting. You obviously are upset because you want to get a promotion around here and negative reviews would hurt your campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by microbunny (talk • contribs)

No, I wanted intelligent reviews, unlike the one you wrote me, and your judgement is clouded by my reverts, you just need someone to attack if you do not get your way.. And, this is getting off-topic, so I am terminating this "discussion". Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Full House, Beverly Hills, 90210, Home Improvement, Will and Grace, Boston Public, NYPD Blue, Boy Meets World, Malcolm in the Middle, Yes, Dear, Everybody Loves Raymond, Dawson's Creek just to name a FEW "was"'s and all I'm saying is to keep Wikipedia a consistent source for information things should be uniform and since the majority of the old TV shows seem to say "was" we should keep The O.C. a was. Also, just out of curiosity who made Illyria05 dictator of The O.C. Wikipedia page?? Pepsiman785 08:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Its also funny and kind of sad to note that after I posted these TV shows to make a point psycho Illyria05 changed them all. I am not a Wikipedia nerd so I do not have the energy to keep up with this, I actually have a life that doesn't revolve around watching TV and then writing about it online. Pepsiman785 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OOPS!! Better get Joey (TV series), The Jetsons and Bewitched while you're at it, ha. In fact I challenge you to change every single TV page on this site that says "was" to "is" otherwise I will be very disappointed in you! Pepsiman785 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In American English, is is correct so long as the work is still being shown, either through reruns, or DVD productions. Once it is no longer aired or DVD's no longer printed, then was would be correct. I do believe Joey fits into that category, the jetsons might be, and bewitched is still shown on TVLand. -M^ask

In my opinion 'was' is only correct if all copies of a certain television show have been destroyed, or are unavailable. Even after reruns and DVD's have stopped, a television show is still 'is', due to the fact that it can still be reproduced and replayed. As long as one human being has a DVD Player and a copy of all seasons of The O.C. on a DVD or via any other medium, in any given location, in the world, the article should use 'is'. Stickeylabel 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For example, the lost Doctor Who episodes that BBC re-recorded on their master tapes of those episodes, that would be considered was, so pepsiman, you can jump up on that.. ;) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about the first sentence read "The O.C." is an American sitcom that aired from xxxx-xxxx on FOX. It's last episode aired xxxx. Work for everyone? -M^ask

Fine by me :) of course :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An existent creative work "is", when it's no longer in existence and has been destroyed, then it's "was" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd'ed This is also specified in the Manual of Style. The creative work still exists. So you need to use "IS". "The show is a sitcom about" and "The show WAS originally broadcast on NBC from ...date to date. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To: Pepsiman: I was changing them, because frankly, it is proper English, I've not heard you give good any good reasons, and I do not understand you people, you all attack me, and I did not start this past tense thing, and I will not be the last, and by the way, hardly is "all" true in the slightest. Here are some articles that have had "is" all along: Firefly (TV series), Tru Calling, Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Original Series, Arrested Development (TV series), Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Charmed, Angel (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The X-Files, Quantum Leap (TV series), Dark Angel (TV series), MacGyver, Land of the Giants, The Prisoner.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryan and Taylor

So yeah, changed summary was fourth season from Ryan and Taylor has a purely physical and short-lived relationship to tumultuous relationship. It got changed to just relationship, yeah sure whatever. But now it's been changed back to purely physical and short-lived. That's not a very accurate definition, while the relationship was physical it also had it's emotional side. Gift that Ryan gave her, the winning her over with poetry, admitting they loved each other, not a purely physcial relationship here. Also, "short-lived" seems a bit odd considered that the relationship lasted most of the season... oh wait, is it in comparison with the other relaitonships on the show? I'll sign in later. ~Cherries Jubilee.

actually, the season finale showed that they were still together for seth/summer's wedding. The undertow 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so can I remove the "short-lived and purely pyhsical" bit? Cherries Jubilee 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely remove it. It's open to interpretation whether they are still together at Seth and Summer's wedding, but the relationship is clearly shown to be more than physical. Both of them admit they love each other, and there's no on-screen evidence that they even had sex until the series finale, after they'd been broken up for several months. Baskingshark 01:35, 27 February 2007

Also, there seems to be a lot of anti-Taylor and Ryan and pro-Ryan and Marissa POV on their pages. It seems to be mostly fan speculation. Eg. on Ryan's page "pathetic stalker Taylor", "At Chrismukkah, Ryan realizes he can move on wothout Marissa, although he still loves her.", in Ryan's future "He still remembers and loves Marissa.". Cherries Jubilee 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After some research all those little comments about how much Taylor and Ryan don't care for each other and how his true love is Marissa was all from the same person. And I've edited the pages to reflect how they were before that person edited it to reflect their ship. Cherries Jubilee 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed more shipping comments and opinion from the characters section. Iorek85 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Made a minor alteration to the Season Four synopsis, as Taylor didn't "persuade" Ryan to help her get a divorce, she tried to trick him into it, he refused to help, then changed his mind because he felt sorry for her. Baskingshark 12.59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Age

We really need a set way to refer to the characters ages in their pages. Current ways are "49 (flashforward) 44 (last appearance)" "19 (last appearance) 15 (first appearance)" "15(turning 16)-19" "21 (2012 Flashforward) 16 (Last Appearence) 12-13 (First Appearance)" or just "18" their last appearence age.

I think just their age _before_ the flashback should be listed, perhaps with a "(last appearence)". As we don't know how far into the future it goes, we see Ryan at uni in 2012 then he's running a building site which I presume would be a few more years in the future. Cherries Jubilee 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one replied, I was bold and edited all their ages to say "__ (last appearence)" and if they appear in the flashforward before that it says "__ (flashforward)". If we just have the flash forward as their last appearence people could get very confused as to why Ryan is 24 and Trey is 21, and weren't they all just in high school? Cherries Jubilee 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The OC is over and the Summer's age (to set an example) is 15 at her first appearance and it is 19 at her last appearance, so her age at the show is 15-19 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.117.31.7 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2007

I talked to Sillygostly through talk pages and agreed to just a standard listing on their last appearence age as the rest can be figure out from their date of birth. Anyone else going to give their opinion as to which age is better? Cherries Jubilee 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

Could we please stop editing the Summer Roberts character name to Cohen? There's no information to support a name change.

Indeed. Not everyone changes their name after marriage; at least, not every woman changes it to their husband's name. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Page name?

Fox calls it "The OC" (without full stops) throughout their website, as does the opening sequence.

Should this page be moved the "The OC" or is this just pedantic.

Java13690 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Official websites" are never much to go on as they're generally done by separate and very unrelated teams, all official press releases use "The O.C." (its proper name), e.g. [2]. Matthew

It's just pedantic. The redirect is fine. --64.149.42.161 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Some of this section is "Character x once said..." Any chance of citing the specific episodes? The cite episode tag would be appropriate if you didn't want to spoil the flow of the prose. The JPS^{talk to me}

I started the section and I have now added some, but not all, of the citations. Are any more needed? what I have done covers the main examples used. Joelstagg 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Canelation

"Several people attributed the cancellation due to the untimely death of Marissa Cooper when several fans "boycotted" the show. A large number of fans signed petitions[10]"...

This quote from the "Cancelation" section of the article could probably be left off for a couple of reasons: It starts with weasle words (several people) and then it's reference about a "large number of fans" directs to a website which seems to be available to create petitions on and had a grand totaly of 4480 signatures. In the world of tv viewing numbers, that is quite low... I really don't think that it is a significant point to include.

Crocadillion 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabotage

Someone added a line "even though season 4 was the best season" to the entry (after it says fox only ordered 16 eps in season 4). this cannot be removed by normal 'edit this page' process. 58.152.148.117 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OC 3.png

Image:OC 3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OC 2.png

Image:OC 2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TV assessment

I rated this article B-Class. My comments:

• A copyedit would really help with punctuation, minor syntax issues, etc.
• Some of the Storyline and character information is written in an in-universe style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) to correct this.
• The article needs more references.
• Most of the current references are improperly formatted. See Wikipedia:Citation templates to correct this.
• The In popular culture subsection seems like trivia, so unless that can be properly referenced and integrated somewhere else in the article it may need to be removed.
• The Mixes/Soundtracks subsection is full of links to mixes, links that are in the {{OCnavigation}} box at the bottom of the page.
• The Milestone episodes section is full of spoilers, and whether or not the events in any episode are "milestones" for a series is a matter of opinion.
• The image from "The Graduates" is a bit of a spoiler as well.
• Images of the cast in each season probably belong at the character list as opposed to here.
• Any images used here should have a proper fair use rationale.

Cliff smith 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

What song is playing in the O.C. scene where Marissa shoots Trey? Oh, and can we archive the talk page? --In Defense of the Artist 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The individual episode articles

The plot summaries in them are horrible. Absolutely horrible. They look like they're a cross-between the outline a screenwriter would get and the actual script itself. "Ew" features in the summaries several times (not as a quote). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Josh and Star Trek? ==

Just wondering if anyone can confirm Josh Schwartz's love for star trek. There is a reference to it in season four when Taylor is talking to Summer about wedding planning and mentions how they should have a model of the Enterprise.

Also, with the appearances of Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo as guest stars, I would only assume he enjoy's Voyager.

Robert Duncan Macneil also directs an episode in season 3.

I'm going to assume this isn't just a huge coincidence.

Btw, this is my first discussion on wikipedia, so fyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.65.107 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Did The O.C. create Chrismukkah?

I think this show actually created Chrismukkah, as all references to Chrismukkah in the mainstream media happened after and almost immediately after the first mention of it in the show. If anyone knows for sure, please include a discussion of this in the article.--Beezer137 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed ASAP for this article

I just realized that a huge chunk of this article disappeared during a period of sustained vandalism from multiple IP addresses on December 25, 2007 and NO ONE CAUGHT IT. I am fixing the damage, but this article needs semi-protection NOW. Any admins listening? --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, very urgent to request semi-protection for an article on an inane teen soap opera. Imagine if people didn't get the correct information on "The OC"-- what an intellectual defeat for mankind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.206.201 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Societal Impact?

In no way does this section provide any information on societal impact. Popular ratings do not confer an "impact" on society. As for the pop culture section on every show that has mentioned the OC, it is to be expected that any popular show will have many references. This section should be entitled "popularity" unless explanations are added as to how it changed society. As far as a genre-defining series, the show hasn't done anything drastically different than Beverly Hills 90210 or Dawson's Creek. If it has it appears nowhere in this poorly named section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.183.10 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of whether it does have societal impact, this section doesn't discuss it. I went ahead and channged it to "popularity" since that is what it is about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.183.106 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Only ratings? No critical reception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.206.201 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. And why does this article have two popular culture sections? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No.

Has no one seen the waiter in the bar with the red dot on his leg? Call yourself fans. You disgrace the name of Fan. --Yeahyeaye (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Elements

Anyone object to a section being added about recurring elements. Some other series have like recurring jokes and etc. Just would be a good place to mention (and link to article) for christmukkah, among other recurring elements for the show. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what exactly these recurring elements are. Each element should be individually notable and we should avoid a trivia section. On a related note, Chrismukkah already has it's own article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot tag

Boldly removed plot tag. Please comment on what you see as a problem. It seems reasonable to me. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregory House and O.C.

The following TV characters have revealed themselves to be fans of The O.C.:

• Dr. Gregory House (House)

Where did G. House said, that he is a fan of O.C.?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.47 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's The SEason 2 Descrip?

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonIsALoon (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Revamp

Okay I'm going to try and revamp this. It will take some time and sections will need to be remove completely redone. Here is my outline of what sections I think should eventually exist:

Production

Concept  Done (largely) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Filming locations  Done (largely) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Music  Done (largely) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Series overview

Cast and characters

Distribution (i.e. First-run TV, syndication, DVDs)  Question:

Worked into the following sections

• First run broadcast
• Cancellation
• Media releases

Might need a syndication section? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Impact

Ratings  Done (largely) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards  Done (largely) 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

Fandom and popular culture

Complementary media

Feel free to help. My initial concerns are the popular culture section is far to large, and the characters section needs a lot of work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing section

I am removing the following section as I feel it is WP:UNDUE:

"Save the O.C." webpage

Towards the end of 2006, Fox inserted a webpage on their website entitled Save The O.C., asking people to sign an O.C. loyalty oath. It was stated on the webpage that "not enough people out there have come back to Newport this season". On the webpage, fans were able to send the oath to a friend, sign up for the O.C. newsletter, and they were also asked to send an email to lovetheoc@gmail.com explaining why they loved the show. According to the webpage, "a very important and powerful person" would be reading the emails. The oath reads as follows:

I PROMISE to cancel dinner dates, skip night school classes, trade shifts with a co-worker, walk the dog after dinner and do whatever else is necessary to ensure that I am on my couch each and every Thursday night at 9pm. And when I am on that couch at that time, I will do nothing but watch The O.C. I vow to do this every week to show my support for Ryan, Seth, Summer, Sandy, Kirsten, Julie and all of those new people that I love. With my humble effort each week, I will help build a groundswell of support for one of the best shows on television, The O.C. With this virtual signature, I THEE WATCH.

FOX's "Save The O.C. webpage"

Although the oath had a humorous tone to it, few of the fans were laughing after the show was actually canceled. At the time of the cancellation, the webpage had received tens of thousands of signatures on a daily basis. Soon after the cancellation though, the number of daily signatures steadily began to decline, eventually leveling off at between roughly 1,500 and 5,500 per day. Slight increases in daily signatures were noticeable around the airing of each week's episode. This trend was broken on the air date of the final episode, when more than 18,000 signatures were brought in. Fox closed the SaveTheOC webpage on July 11, 2007; it had a total of 740,000 signatures just before closure.

The .../savetheoc website is long dead and archive.org exists but without visible content. The quote can be referenced by this but I still think it is unnecessary. As such I am removing this section and will just tweak the sentence in "Cancellation" to refer to the petition and signatures as mentioned below. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Series Overview section?

I am questioning the necessity of the newly added Series Overview section in the article. I initially tried to clean up the submission as there was a lot of commentary and other issues with it, but after doing so I question if it should even really be there. While certainly concise enough per wp:plot, it is still rather scattered in reading due to being incomplete with highlights. It also seems rather repetitive with regards to the relationships - and while they are indeed that way in the show itself - it reads rather circular. I am thinking maybe a rewrite without the seasonal blow-by-blow to just illustrate the larger overall plotlines and the issues that the characters dealt with from more of a birds-eye view. Thoughts? Srobak (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Prominent guest stars

I am questioning the necessity of featuring "prominent guest stars" under the cast section. I was going to remove it but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here on the talk page. In my reasoning for wanting to remove the prominent guest stars section, I'm questioning what exactly makes a guest star prominent? Is it that they are a recurring guest star? And even so, recurring characters/guest stars should not be included on the main page and should just be on the "Characters of The O.C." page. Also, seeing as how there are no exact guidelines as to how a guest star is "prominent", certain guest stars may be excluded from that list when that are in fact prominent enough to make that list, or a guest star may be added to that list when they are not prominent enough to make that list. The 90210 page had a similar section with prominent recurring characters but was also found unnecessary and undue, so it was removed. Ryanlively (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would actually go so far as to say a page dedicated simply to the list of guest stars - prominent or not - is over-cooking it a bit. Can't say that even prominent guest stars are significant enough to warrant their own page, and as such - recurring characters which do serve an impact in the overall storyline should be left on the main article page so as not to clutter up WP with articles lacking significance on their own. Srobak (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention it?

Why isn´t the American Dream mentioned in the article? Doesn´t Ryan live it to the fullest through the help of his family. Maybe we have to add this. What do you think? -amkx3- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.64.149 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters in-universe problems

The "Cast and Characters" section of the articles is very in-universe, describing the characters as if they were real people living real lives. I am honestly not sure how to improve it so I am just creating this section if anyone wants to contribute suggestions for how we can make that section less in-universe. I think one way we can do that is include the actors' commentary on their characters. Cadiomals (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of trivial content

I removed Penny Lane's contributions because they do not abide by what Wikipedia is not. Much of the info was irrelevant trivia which is against WP:TRIVIA. I also temporarily removed the "Fandom and popular culture" section until a more encyclopedic one can be produced because most of it was trivial commentary. It has to abide by WP:POPCULTURE. In general, this article has a number of problems which I am trying to improve, in order that this article may one day qualify for GA status. Sorry, Penny, but although your contributions were in good faith, they were not encyclopedic and don't help to improve the article's quality. Cadiomals (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the content was actually already in the article, I was just trying to clean it up. I actually based it off the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_Development_%28TV_series%29#Themes_and_other_characteristics section. We could probably lose the section on "Cultural References" (because that isn't very unique to the series, though I might keep some mention of the literature habits of the characters, as I cited that some critics have called it a unique aspect of the series). I feel like "The Valley" and "Chrismukkah" -- even though I know it has it's own page -- (and Music should, of course, stay) should be identified in the article because they function as unique aspects and recurring themes to solely this series. Penny Lane's America (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the 'Dear Sister' paragraph needs to be added back in as it's the biggest spotlight the series has had in popular culture since the series went off the air. Penny Lane's America (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think a pop culture section should be added, but we have to be careful not to add too much trivia and make sure its relevant and well sourced and abides by WP:POPCULTURE. You can make a "Fandom and popular culture" section again but make sure not to dwell too much on unimportant topics. I'll improve it where I see fit. Thanks, Cadiomals (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Characters

I think it would be interesting to also add more about the character relationships especially about the constant struggle that Ryan, Marissa, Seth, and Summer always find themselves in so that they can all be together. Also another really interesting aspect about the show is the amount of repetition that takes place. Maybe that would fit somewhere. Cwalkerr21 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really belong in the Cast and Characters subject because then it would be too "in-universe." In this section we actually try to provide more information about casting and how the actors portrayed the characters rather than what went on the fictional lives of the characters themselves. Cadiomals (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Most of the prose is pretty good, but unfortunately the article is so large that a lot needs additional work before it meets GA criteria. The prose is generally clear and usually concise with some notable exceptions. Clarity is sometimes an issue when editors are trying to write too concisely. There are a few instances of this problem in the article. An early one is found in the "Plot" section. In season 3, are Seth and Summer vying for the same spot at Brown, or two different spots? In "Cast and Characters", Marissa does not leave "the series at the end of season three when her character was subsequently written off by being killed in a car accident". This sentence is impossible. It implies that Marissa leaves the series before her character was killed. Being written off is an extraneous detail, and is implied because the events happen in the show's diegetic world. It should read something like "Barton left the show at the end of season three when her character was killed in a car accident". Some editors seem to be using words because they like the way they sound without knowing quite what they mean. In the second season synopsis, Marissa's relationships are described as "tumultuous", but are they? The literal meaning of this word is close to excited, confused, or disorderly. The writer seems to mean something closer to "dysfunctional". Under "Cast and Characters" Ryan forms "fast bonds" with other characters. Is this supposed to mean he forms bonds quickly (implied) or that he forms strong bonds (as written)? Watch out for this stuff. Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it's right, or clear, or improves the article. The article is unnecessarily wordy at times. In the synopsis of season three, Sandy's "moral compass becomes imperilled" and Ryan "attempts to resolve his individual relationships". The first sentence means that Sandy's (metaphorical) moral compass is in danger, while the second throws an "individual" in there for the hell of it. In plain english, Sandy's morals are challenged, while Ryan sorts out his personal life (demons?). Seth is described as "the awkward adolescent son of Sandy and Kirsten". The adjective "adolescent" is redundant. Seth is the same age as Ryan, Summer, or Marissa. Seth should be "Sandy's and Kirsten's awkward son". There seems to be a lot of confusion in the article about how possessives work. Possessives help us escape the "the / of" construction. Instead of "the husband of Kirsten" or "the wife of Sandy", concision demands "Kirsten's husband" and "Sandy's wife". Four words become two. Again, just because it sounds more formal doesn't mean it's better writing. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list every problem. Be assured there are quite a few, and most take the general forms listed above. Don't assume I've found everything. After my fourth reading, I was still finding new issues.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The lead is well written and concise, but incomplete. All it needs is mention of the show's role as musical tastemaker. Layout is a problem. "Themes and other characteristics" is a generic section and acts as a dumping ground whenever an editor thinks something merits inclusion but doesn't know where else to put it. It needs to be split into "Themes", and probably a second section like "Cultural impact" which should include thinks like Chrismukkah, Music, discussion of fandom, spinoffs, books, and maybe even critical reception (as a sub section). Even the title of this section sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, how is the character list organized? Either list by first appearance or alphabetically by actor, or character name. Trying to rate minor characters is too finicky and prone to bias. Get past it by splitting the list into core cast and recurring minor characters, or by following a rigid organizational scheme. Most of the content of "Complementary media" is so minor in importance I question whether it merits inclusion on the encyclopedia, and should maybe be reduced to a list at the bottom of the article. Due to many, many missing citations, the article has a major problem with words to watch. Any time a word like (but not limited to) "frequently", "often", "many" or "widely" is used, be prepared to back it up with citation. On their own, these are weasel words and under no circumstances should they be used they way they are in this article. For instance, if a sentence starts "She is often characterized" (Julie Cooper, "Cast and Characters"), that claim needs to be backed by three or more citations, or removed immediately. This happens a lot in the article; again, there are too many instances to list, and I kept noticing more.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	While many, many claims are supported by surprisingly detailed citation, many more go uncited. Specifically, if a claim is made about the plot of the show, the episode in which that event takes place must be cited. In short: prove it or lose it. The most egregious offenders here are the entire "Plot" and "Cast and characters" sections.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Admirably, the many citations rely primarily on well-respected, free, and electronically available sources. Bravo. However, there are many glaring omissions. As a rule, any time you use quotation marks, cite your source. Until everything is cited, I can't pass the article in this section.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Until I see citations for everything, I can't be sure. What is cited is backed up very well.	Fail

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article is remarkably thorough in what it chooses to cover, but does not adequately cover everything included in the article. Chief offender here is the "Themes and other characteristics" section. Far too much space is devoted to "other characteristics", while little effort is given to explicate the various themes mentioned. If a theme is important to the show, where is it important? I agree that the major themes should be covered in the article, but coverage should be cited and expanded somewhat. Removal of the section entirely would mean the article would fail to cover all of the major aspects. I would be satisfied with a more thorough explication of three of four of the more important themes, say, Social class, Hope, Emotional insecurity, and Drug addiction.	Fail
(b) (focused)	I am concerned by the number of characters the article mentions but fails to describe. At various points, the article mentions Anna, Oliver, D.J., Lindsay Gardner, Zach, Alex Kelly, Trey, Theresa Diaz, Dawn Atwood. These characters are either important enough to mention, or not important enough to be listed in the Cast and characters section, but not both.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Unless there's a secret cache of negative opinion somewhere on the internet, the article does a good job of representing critical opinion of the show during its run. The show was a pop cultural phenomenon with a large fan base. The article reflects this reality.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
There have been several edits, some major, since the article was nominated for GA status. None of these seem to be the result of an edit war, and most of them appear to improve the article.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Everything is fine save the picture of the DVD set in "Media releases", which does not have an adequate fair use rationale. The image needs to be updated with a fair use rationale before it can pass GA criteria.	Fail
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Captions and images are appropriate.	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Fail

Too much needs to happen before this article can be passed to warrant holding it. Characters that are necessary to mention in the plot sections must also appear in the characters section. Episode citations are almost entirely absent, and a major copyedit needs to be done. Several dead links need fixing. Weasel words are rampant. The article needs to be reorganized, and every section needs to have a reason for being where it is in the article. Consider splitting the character section into major and minor character sections, and creating a new cultural impact section for things like music, merchandise, fandom, and critical reception. A lot of work has gone into this version, but a lot more needs to happen before it meets GA criteria. Good luck. Please re-nominate the article when the problems have been addressed. Thank you.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 22:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernism, really?

"The series includes elements of postmodernism" - I can't tell if this is somebody having a joke. Khendon (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The O.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070320065055/http://digitalcontentproducer.com:80/digitalfilm/video_production_meets_post/ to http://digitalcontentproducer.com/digitalfilm/video_production_meets_post/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090907162516/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100129154626/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The O.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309034530/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/arts/television/21POSN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=158d7ee8845cb98e&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/arts/television/21POSN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=158d7ee8845cb98e&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328232032/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/services/motion-pictures/4889998-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4889998-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821010301/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)