Jump to content

Talk:90210 (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International Airings

[edit]

In an attempt to clean up this article, someone added that it is 'rumoured' to first air in Australia on Cable network FOX8 on December 2, 2008. There is no source to accompany this. Network Ten announced it has the output deal with CBS Paramount and will air 90210 exclusivley in the 2009 season according to this reliable source] [6], a network press release. Sorry, but it's misleading to list it as airing on two different networks especially when there's no source to back it up.

This section has no sources. This is an American series not the international channels broadcasting the spin-off. ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why has the UK airdates been remove???????Blazemon (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Where did this "The Next Generation" bit come from? Star Trek did it, and so did Degrassi; I didn't see it mentioned in the sources I quickly perused for this show, however. Also, any comment in the text about rumors should be expunged. We're not a crystal ball, after all. Howa0082 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cast Photo

[edit]

There is a cast photo out but I have no clue how to upload it and all the other stuff that goes into the process. Maybe someone else can.

http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/9492/?__source=rss%7Cah_Latest Rosario lopez (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be able to use that photo as it would violate image copyright guidelines at Wikipedia. Unless someone happens onto the set and takes a photo (unlikely), there's not much that can be done for now regarding a pic, I suspect. Lots of articles on shows end up with a title card grab, but that's some way off (and I'm not sure how well it meets the requirements either). Gusworld (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Returning Characters

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

The easiest way to comply with this policy is to arrange the returning characters/actors according to the dates that their returns were announced.

That is the way the article was until certain anonymous editors—possibly fans of Shannen Doherty/Brenda Walsh—began attempting to place Doherty at the top of the "Returning characters" list, even though her return was announced well after the others. As we do not know the cast billing for the returning characters in the new show, there is no justification for doing this. The editors who've participated in this activity are invited to provide their reasoning here, and explain how these edits are neutral in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --James26 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with regards to possible strike?

[edit]

"...that The CW has begun casting even before a script has been completed. The show is set to start production on June 25, 2008. It could stop due to a possibility of a Screen Actors strike."

and later down that same introductory section it says, "The show will be unaffected by any Screen Actors strike, as the show is covered under the AFTRA Primetime contract."

Is this a contradiction? Or are they talking about the show itself is unaffected, but the CW's airing of it may be affected?

~thanks - and please clarify in the writing so it is not confusing in this way. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed the earlier sentence when I updated the status of the show. The producers announced that the show was 'strike-proof' yesterday at the Press Tour as it is now under the AFTRA. I will alter the earlier paragraph to reflect this. (Richardm9 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Great success. Thanks. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Adam Gregory

[edit]

which one is it the white adam or the black adam?74.196.134.34 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Spelling (Donna Martin)Not Appearing

[edit]

Tori will not be in 90210 after this source confirmed it http://tv.yahoo.com/90210/show/43006/news/urn:newsml:eonlinekristen.com:20080811:TV-23b0c1a896a08f2bce5bd8fe9a8a22d7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.198.20 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to go into the uncertain category for the time being, as some outlets are reporting that she is just trying to get a better deal. Lets not jump the gun on this.

The link about is invalid . <http://www.eonline.com/news/23176/sources-confirm-tori-pulls-out-of-90210-spinoff>

Jason Priesetly

[edit]

That AP report is probably a mistake, however instead of putting him as a returning character, lets say its uncertain until other media outlets jump on-board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Characters who will not be returning"

[edit]

Simply saying "will not" is the same as saying "will never" (because it doesn't specify a time frame).

Since we can't see the future, I've simply changed this to "not expected." Even if an actor was to say "never," it's best for us to merely quote them, rather than predicting what will or won't happen down the road. 207.69.137.22 (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Brent Bozell's article, Toxic Beverly Hills, may be worthy of interest… Asteriks (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped reading it after the insults started, but thanks. At any rate, I believe "not expected" is still the best encyclopedic term. --207.69.140.24 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode articles

[edit]

Before we have to go through this later, when it will be more of a hassle, we should cover this now. Per WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, all episode articles must meet the notability requirements for a page to be created. A page with nothing but a plot summary does not meet such requirements. That means, a part from the pilot page, the rest don't need articles. Yes, I looked at the second episode page and it's full of information that has nothing to do with the second episode. Just because it occurred during that time does not mean that it was directly related to that episode. You cannot pack general 90210 information into every page to give the appearance of notability. Brief plot descriptions can be added to the table on the "List of episodes" page, as well as (sourced) the Nielsen ratings. Lastly, when the time comes that a page can be separated on its own, proper naming conventions are in order. In this case, you do not add "episode" to "Lucky Strike (90210)". You only list the name of the show, unless there are multiple 90210 pages with that same title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created by versus Developed by

[edit]

Not sure why people keep putting Rob Thomas as the 'creator' of 90210 when the opening credits that have aired on every episode say that it is "Based on the series Beverly Hills 90210 created by Darren Starr" and then goes onto say 90210 is Developed by Rob Thomas... and the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "Developed by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The credits state that Darren Star created the original series, Beverly Hills, 90210. According to TV Guide and Darren Star's Yahoo! bio, he is not the "creator" of this spin-off (nor was he the creator of Models Inc.). I'm altering the article and included a source. "Developed by" is possibly just another term for "Created by" in this case, likely due to the production changes before it aired. -- James26 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too skinny controversy

[edit]

I'm wondering if it would appropriate to mention in the article about the controversy surrounding the stars of the show Shenae Grimes and Jessica Stroup and the fact rumors that they have eating disorders, among other things. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/90210-costars-plan-too-th_n_127232.html. Merely a suggestion I'm making. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should really be mentioned unless it comes to affect the show in some way. -- James26 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcripts?

[edit]

Are transcripts of the episodes available somewhere?--92.230.34.190 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are.63.168.68.102 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lauren Conrad as Kayla Andress

[edit]

Is there any truth to this?63.168.68.102 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite tag

[edit]

I fail to see the notability of the entire "Production and casting history" section. I think that anything of encyclopedic value that may be in this section has already been accomplished in the "Characters" section. This looks a lot like information that is "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" per WP:FAN. Please do not remove the fansite tag unless you plan on deleting the entire section or the issue has been resolved with a consensus. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casting informations have been put in many series's articles (such as Desperate Housewives). I've reworked the writing to make it less trivia-like. But if you have such big issues with the article, instead of tagging it why don't you actually help solving the problem?--Whadaheck (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get some other opinions first before totally removing the text and then . And I was a little peeved that someone removed the maintenance tag I placed without any other change or any explanation. I still fail to see how this information is important but at least the presentation is a lot better now. Thank you. KuyaBriBriTalk 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:90210splogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VALERIE BURNS

[edit]

Who is she and how do you knwo what episodes she'll be in?68.225.74.103 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screech

[edit]

Is that Justin whatshisname guy who did the comedy porn video going to reprise his role as Screech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.132 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

[edit]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

introduction

[edit]

I felt that the top of the page was quite long, and very hard to get into / read adequately. I've put a {Very long} tag on to this effect.~CortalUXTalk? 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The links points to Nascar driver Ryan Matthews. I'm not sure how to create a new article for the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmmyThePiep (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off? Merge same show articles?

[edit]

Couple of things. Are the new Melrose and new 90210 really spin-offs? I don't think that is accurate. They are a "rebirth", "extention" or "continuations" of the original shows. I wouldn't consider them "spin offs". Maybe that is the "generic" term for it but doesn't seem right. Just curious is all. Also, why not merge both 90210's together and both Melrose's together in one article for each, separating the original and new series within the same article? Don't think it is necessary for separate articles for the same show. Just an idea/thought. Smile... Thank you! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same damn thing.72.150.18.122 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) <-- one contribution; this one![reply]

They're totally different shows along the same premise. This article is already a mile long; what would be the point of merging it? Rebecca (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC) <--- claim you retired from this; have you?[reply]

Wow, such attitude. I was going to add a disclaimer not to reply with anger but thought those who would reply would be mature enough not to. But "same damn thing" and "what would be the point" shows me I should have added it after all. Well, not being juvenile, here is my response to that: it is not a totally different show. It is a continuation of it and it includes the same story line as the original, with same characters from the original and following the lives of some of the originals. It is a revival of it, that is not a spin-off. A spin-off was Models Inc. A spin-off is Mork & Mindy from Happy Days. Use of a character with a different plot and story line and title. So excuse me, but it was just an inquiry. I don't need anyone's approval, that is what the talk sheet is for. But you make it hard not to criticize the editor when you reply with such ignorance. At any rate, have a good day and no need to bother with a reply. Personally, I'm all grown up and have manners myself, even when tested. P.S. Length of the article has nothing to do with it. The more info, the better. But whatever, it's petty to me, yet I just thought I'd school you. 69.129.170.102 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Jon the editor (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what was said on the other talk page -- The new shows are entirely different productions with different crews, which makes them spin-offs of the previously concluded productions. A similarity in naming does not change that.
"It is a revival of it, that is not a spin-off."
No, it is a revival of the story, not a revival of the same production/show. Therefore, these are spin-offs, and do not belong in the same article. -- 4.249.84.221 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring?

[edit]

Why were the recurring characters removed instead of just putting all starring and recurring on a seperate page? All shows have a long list of both starring and recurring people, which take up a lot of room.

It's nice to know who was or will be on the show in a recurring role. TH43 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

10/23-Someone just messed up the page. Can someone fix it?!67.78.233.99 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Order in Infobox

[edit]

An IP just changed the starring cast in the infobox. Putting aside that there's a formatting issue, which is easy to fix but I'm leaving it alone for the moment, it's not clear to me what order the cast is supposed to be in. The comment in the edit box says: "Orginal [sic] credit order followed by order in which they joined the show." What does that mean? First, what does the word "original" mean? The credit order of the cast when the show first aired? Does that mean the infobox would list cast members who have since left the show? Seems odd to me if so. Then, we're supposed to add cast as they join the show? Wouldn't that become unwieldy?

Also, the Casting section describes when actors joined the show, but the infobox doesn't seem to match that, even before the change by the IP. Anyway, I haven't touched the IP's change because I simply can't understand what order it should be in to know whether the IP is right or wrong. Can someone explain the way it's intended to work (regardless of whether that's a good way of doing it or not, which is a separate issue)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it's however the page started and if there's a problem with the order it should be discussed. All main characters should be listed in the infobox as they've all starred in 90210 the TV show, the page isn't 90210 season 3 (which some had left), get what I mean? The only issue is how it should be laid out, alphabetical or credit order followed by order in which they joined the show. To me, credit order makes more sense than alphabetical as alphabetical doesn't actually hold any purpose. I hope I've made it clear, I'm going to go ahead and revert the edit but I'll leave this discussion open to see if anyone would like it alphabetical. Jayy008 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about alphabetical order (the only rationale for it is it's easier). But wouldn't it make more sense to list the current stars (in order on credits) and then list previous stars with parentheticals showing seasons? Not sure who told you, so I'm unsure how reliable it is. Have you looked at any other current TV series to see how they do it? I see you posted on the Talk page of the television project. That was a good idea. I'm going to add my 2 cents to your discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, it's the tv show page, so all characters have to be included, as have all other TV shows and edits get reverted when they don't. But we'll see how it all comes out. FINALLY we have a rationale! Jayy008 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD ranking

[edit]

As most users know, the lead is to summarise the article. I think since this is probably the only time this has happened (DVR average more than broadcast), it's notable to say it in the lead too. It's been reverted twice, though, by IP's. Thought? Jayy008 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 11 In Australia Hasn't Pulled 90210 From It's Schedule!

[edit]

Hey I noticed in the broadcast section someone wrote that Channel 11 in Australia had pulled 90210 off it's program schedule due to poor ratings. Channel 11 has NOT taken it off air. Network 10 in Australia did take it off air after just 6 episodes yes you're right and on January 11th 2011 Australia had the launch of a new free to air digital channel called Channel 11. Channel 11 is a branch off of Network Ten and is partly owned by CBS so Channel 11 recently picked 90210 up again a few weeks ago and they're playing the series right from the beginning.

It's on every Friday night from 7:30 P.M.- 8:30 P.M. I watched it on Friday night (January 28th 2011). It is on Channel 11 next week as well. I know this because I went on the Channel 11 website and checked the TV guide. So not sure who thought that Channel 11 had pulled it off the air. I'm gonna delete that bit of information because it's not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.202.48 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pulled. TV Tonight is 100% accurate in their postings. If you view 11's online TV guide, it will state that it's been removed. Please do not remove this information, again; 90210 has been removed from channel 11's tv schedule. Thanks, Keycoke (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The screening of 90210 on January 28th 2011 was the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendwick (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recurring characters

[edit]

I'm proposing that the recurring characters section be removed. It doesn't seem to hold any bearing to me on this page as all recurring characters can be found on the list of 90210 characters page, most television show pages do not have a section for recurring characters on the show's main page, and the section as of now is not even updated with the current recurring characters added. Ryanlively (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they're not supposed to be there anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlasia Gamboa's residence used in production of 90210 at the time of her being most famous

[edit]

Bbb23 deleted the location information as being "inappropriate information". I have never seen the television show, and I am only going by what is in RS. I can understand a "90210 fan club" website might not wanting any negative information about a location chosen, but this is a NPOV encyclopedia. Pearlasia Gamboa chose her residence for the same reasons as the production crew of the television series, who likely ealt with her, as she was co-owner of the residence. I find the information to be notable, useful, and of interest. The residence was already made famous by her on CBS 60 Minutes and in the Wall Street Journal, at the time of the televsion production, so it is almost impossible for the producers not to have contacted her, dealt with her, and known her history. She pretended to be a Catholic saint, and robbed the impoverished of Bangladesh using microfinance schemes, sort of an anti-Mother Teresa, and reversal of what the other micro-banker did in Bangladesh regarding microfinance to win the Nobel prize. I am not sure what you mean by "inappropriate information". Could you please explain what is meant by "inappropriate information", and reword and reinsert the notable content? PPdd (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing of any interest to the show article is that a particular home was used as a location. I don't see any other information in the article about filming locations, so I would say it is of marginal interest, if any. All the rest about the home itself has nothing to do with the show. I don't see any support for PPdd's assertion that the production crew chose that location because of Pearlasia Gamboa. And I didn't just say "inappropriate information"; I said "still way too much inappropriate information". Even if we were to include just the information about that one location for that one episode (incorrectly linked, by the way), it wouldn't deserve its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 90210 producer was Aaron Spelling, who owned The Manor (Los Angeles, California), the largest home near Beverly Hills, and the only Los Angles home bigger than the 1156 Shadow Hill location he chose for production of 90210. He could not possibly have been unfamiliar with the 1156 Shadow Hill history regarding Pearlasia Gamboa, since she would be the one he dealt with to rent it for production, since she lived there, and it was being covered in the international media at the time, and described as the largest residence in Beverly Hills at the time of production.
  • I did not assert the producers chose it because of Pearlasia Gamboa. I asserted that Gamboa chose it because of giving the appearance of luxury ("a trap of luxury" as the newpaper said), and the 90210 producer clearly chose it to give the appearance of luxury.
  • How can a "Location" section with locations used, and brief context information at the time of production, not be relevant to a "Procuction" section of an article on a television production? PPdd (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is WP:SYNTHESIS. The second point is unnecessary as any mansion in BH will be luxurious and doesn't have to involve all the allegations about Gamboa. Your last point is circular.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SYNTH applies to articles, not talk pages. What the producer knew is irrelevant to including the location in a production subsection, and brief context of the location history. This particular mansion, at the time of 90210 production the largest in BH, was used in 90210, so is relevant, as is context information. This is not a fan page website; its an encyclopedia with NPOV information. It is NPOV notable information about the production location of the home of a major character in 90210.
  • The "allegations" against Gamboa were just proved in federal court, but that is irrelevant.
  • How can saying "Your last point is circular" justify deleting a location subsection from a production section? PPdd (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were using synthesis to justify not sourcing the article. I don't care whether the Gamboa stuff was proved. As for the rest, you're repeating yourself. Let's let others comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, I should not have used synth and struck the above. (It is an interesting question for which there may be RS, however.) I have not seen the television show, but it seems that the whole point of the show is to be about the location, 90210. If you can provide some additional location info for other settings, I will try to find RS for it. I tried to tone it down, but if you look at the Pearlasia Gamboa article sources, and what words supposedly neutral news sources use to describe her operations, this is no easy task. Can you suggest some alternative wording for the Gamboa house? PPdd (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't think inclusion of anything about Gamboa or the history of the house belongs in the article. I honestly don't think that even the use of the house as a location for one episode belongs in the article, but that might be a matter of disagreement among editors. For example, in the original show, it was interesting to note that the location of the high school was a particular high school in Los Angeles, but that's partly because it wasn't Beverly Hills High School itself and partly because so many shoots were done at that location. Here, by contrast, you have one house being used for one episode's shoot. I don't see why that's noteworthy. Indeed, the only thing that would make it interesting is all the material that doesn't belong in the article because it has no relevance to the show. Even assuming you could find a source that says that the producers knew of the history of the house, so what? What you'd have to show is that they picked the house because of its history rather than its aesthetic, which seems highly unlikely to be true and even less likely that you could find an independent source in support of such an assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location subsection for production section

[edit]

Here is proposed wording for one of the locations -

Navid Shirazi's house where Adriana visits for dinner in season one episode 10, "Games People Play", is 1156 Shadow Hill, Beverly Hills, CA, 90210, described by John Bruce Nelson Real Estate of Beverly Hills as the largest private residence in Beverly Hills in 1995. In 2002, it was listed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the address of Pearlasia Gamboa, president of the micronation known as Melchizedek. Gamboa used the appearance of luxury to entrap victims in banking and securities fraud.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

PPdd (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Location is a major factor in production, especially in a series titeled by location, 90210.
    Alternative -

    ==Locations==Wilson's mother lives with Harry at 979 Bel Air Rd, Los Angeles in season 1, then the Wilsons new home in Season 2 is 325 Homewood Rd, Los Angeles. Adrianna's house is 101 N. Irving Blvd, Los Angeles. Navid, whose father is film producer, lived in 1156 Shadow Hill Way Beverly Hills , 90210, a luxurious house owned by Pearlasia Gamboa, who owned her own country, the micronation of Melchizedek. This was the largest residence in Beverly Hills, and the only home the cast lived in that was actually in the zip code 90210. In Season 1, Kelly Taylor lived at 2229 Glyndon Ave, Venice, and with her sister in season 2, 339 Wisconsin Ave, Long Beach. Naomi’s pool in season 1 was 918 Palisades Beach Rd, Santa Monica, her patio, 738 Longwood Ave S, Los Angeles, her hotel, The W Hotel at 930 Hilgard Ave, and her sister Jen at 145 N. Rossmore Ave. In season 2, Naomi and Jen lived in a Malibu home, which was the same as that of the cheerleader who sympathizes with Dixon in Season 1. Ryan Matthews’ apartment is 337-341 Calle Miramar, Redondo Beach. Ty’s was 4252 Country Club Drive, Long Beach. The Cooper house was at 5121 Franklin Avenue, Los Angeles, and that of Adrianna in Season 3, 3431 Waverly Place, Los Angeles.

I got this from a French website. There are also 89 locations here[7]. 71.121.31.183 One can verify with images from the CW website and google maps pics, so google maps is RS in this case. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading some of the discussion here and it all seems ridiculous to me, so I'm really not going to get real deep into this conversation. None of that information has nearly anything to do with the show. It should not be included at all. I highly doubt that anyone reading this page would have any care or concern about any of that information. Ryanlively (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to ignore the fact that my comment was rudely deleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with 90210, the show. It should not be on this page. Jayy008 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ”This is Navid Shirazi's house, which can be seen in the season one episode "The Games People Play", when Adrianna goes over to his house for dinner”, Locations Info, 90210 Locations, [1]
  2. ^ “A trap of luxury for the victims of one of the most diabolical international scams ever devised in recent years”, “Dominion of Melchizedek” Ghost State, (”una trappola di lusso per le vittime di una delle piu diaboliche truffe internazionali mai escogitate negli ultimo anni”, 'Dominio di Melchizedek' Stato Fantasma Sull), La Repubblica, Massimo Lugli, March 15, 2002 (15 maggio 2002), page 5 (pagina 5), Section:Rome, (sezione: ROMA), [2]
  3. ^ First Canadian American Holding Corp • 8-K • For 1/7/02
  4. ^ THE RUSE THAT ROARED, Washington Post, November 5, 1995, Richard Leiby, James Lileks
  5. ^ ”1156 Shadow Hill Way (“at that time the largest private residence in Beverly Hills)”, Beverly Hills, John Bruce Nelson Real Estate, [3]
  6. ^ “an astonishing series of worldwide swindles”, Cyber Nations with Real Repercussions, Asia Times, Feb 17, 2000, James Knight, [4]
  7. ^ “ Elvira Gamboa, hunted by the police all the world”, LA REPUBBLICA DAL, PAUL VIOTTI, Treasure Island? No… Scams, May 15, 2002, page 6, [5]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Wilson Character Page

[edit]

I tried to create a page for Annie but it got deleted. Also someone told me a previous version got redirected to the Character list page. I think it's about time we stop re directing her pages and let her have an article. The character has been through a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, "the character has been through a lot" and that justifies having a page? It's never about time. Unless somebody is willing to actually put the work in to make the article good, then it will remain redirected. Jayy008 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTE, all articles required significant coverage from third party sources to warrant an article to themselves. If the article on Annie Wilson is nothing more than plot information then it does not meet that criteria. "Significant coverage" is defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail" and "more than a trivial mention". So, the actress winning an award for her portrayal of the character would be considered a "trivial mentioning" because it actually doesn't discuss the character at all. If more sources can be found that discuss the actual character from more than simply recounting plot points, then she would warrant a page to herself. But her impact on the show itself doesn't mean she automatically should have an article to herself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run times?

[edit]

36-42 minutes according to the article. 24 minutes of commercials in 1-hour block? No criticisms on that? I mean, no one has noticed that? Because its fucking horrible. --RThompson82 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 90210 (TV series). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 90210 (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 90210 (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:90210_(TV_series)&oldid=1240235057"