Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Warning regarding episode articles

Hello... I've been reading the Scrubs articles for months now, and I find them really useful. It is great to have a resource like this, unencumbered by the speculation etc. prevalent at fan forums. However, there is a problem - in case you're not yet aware of this, TTN has embarked on a unilateral quest to eliminate single-episode articles. TTN's claim is that most fail the "episode" guideline. However, there is considerable disagreement over TTN's methodology, which involves deleting every single episode for a series, and redirecting the empty pages to the "List of episodes" for that series. There is no attempt whatsoever to incorporate any of the deleted material into the episode list, nor is there any attempt to actually assess the article. This is of immediate concerns to the Scrubs articles because TTN has served notice of intent to blank those pages here.

How to approach this? Well, in a nutshell, get sources. Lots of them. This is a highly acclaimed series, with loads of respect among viewers and critics alike. Track down any and all information (verifiable, of course) about the episodes. If you've got DVDs, listen to the commentaries and glean every useful, relevant bit of data you can from them. Look through other series articles, like the The Simpsons, and get ideas on how to flesh out Scrubs articles. (BTW, yelling at TTN won't work, and abuse won't do anything but get *you* blocked. The only solution is to pour your energy into the articles.)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is what is going on. I want to help save these articles. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If he's doing it without getting consensus on the talk page, then revert his edits. If he persists report him as per WP:3RR (being careful not to violate the rule yourself, of course). Adam McMaster 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Crew member names

Apparently Jac16888 (talk · contribs) felt it was not appropriate to wikify the names of the crew members listed in the article unless an article for that crew member already exists. I disagree: their work on Scrubs all but guarantees they now or soon will meet WP:BIO criteria, and by wikifying now, it encourages the articles to be created sooner rather than later (see Wikipedia:Most wanted articles for more). For example, look at all the references to Ken Whittingham that are already out there. I'm going to revert Jac16888's reversion since we haven't violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule yet.... 67.101.7.136 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

the reason i reverted dewikified the names was because a large list of dead links makes the article look like a mess, and as for the names meeting the criteria, i very much doubt that they are going to get articles any time soon, unless you decide to write them yourself.--Jac16888 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelso Coat

i was confused about why Bob Kelso was wearing Perry Cox's white coat in the last couple episodes in season four. 68.180.58.117 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)stephanie

what exactly do you mean. does the coat bob wears say dr cox on it?--Jac16888 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[scrubs]?

Is "[scrubs]" actually the correct title of the show? I know it's written like that in the title sequence, but is it actually the official title? Adam McMaster 08:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

that's just nitpicking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.6.84 (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is, NBC doesn't use it - their material says "Scrubs". I've removed the edit. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What he hell else would the name of the show be?The opening credits call it scrubs,so does the tv guide,so does NBC,the actors,the commercial breaks..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.98.251 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He means that the title could be "[Scrubs]", with [] around it, since thats what it is in the title credits--Jac16888 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I said it's sometimes typecast with square brackets, in lowercase. Will ^(talk) 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[Schedule]

I'd like to know what channels and times I can find scrubs on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.46.34 (talk • contribs) 20:30, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but this is an encylopedia, not a tv guide. the tv channels scrubs is on are listed in the "around the world section", but for times, i suggest you buy a tv guide, or look on the relevant tv channels website--Jac16888 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia

It really should be put in with the rest of the article. Most of it seems to have been already, which is good. It could become a good article at some point, but it won't if it has trivia and long lists. --$UIT 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

its not a "long List" it has three items in it, which is extremely short for a tv program article--Jac16888 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long it is. Trivia is trivia. Even if it has sources. Putting the trivia into the appropriate areas of the articles would only benefit it--$UIT 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that the remaining triva is what is left after as much of it as possible is integrated. i'd like you to try and find an appropriate place to put the remaining three points.--Jac16888 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the guideline? If you can't find a place to put it, you remove it.--$UIT 05:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you're the one who didn't read the guideline, because it does not say that. the three remaining trivia points are all valid, and informative, but short of giving each one its own seperate section, there is no where to put it.--Jac16888 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the trivia tag itself. It says if you can not find any other section to put it, you remove it. And, you don't give them their own sections. You put them into other ones. Also, how many A-class, GA-class and FA-class articles have you seen that contain trivia?--$UIT 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag has been revised to correct what was a misleading "either-or" declaration. The aim is to integrate, but text that is not integrated - but still relevant - does *not* automatically have to be removed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Colin Farrell

since when was colin farrell in scrubs? who does/did he play? Kiran90 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Season four, "My Lucky Charm". He plays "Billy", a man involved in a bar fight. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy is colin farrell! wow, i didnt pick that one :P cheers Kiran90 11:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal....

So with the full awareness that this is a rather insane idea, I have a thought. What if we worked on getting specific Scrubs episode articles up to Good article, or even Featured article status? I know, all the episode articles need a lot of work, but if we devoted our attention to specific articles, we could do it. Specifically, I was thinking about those episodes often cosidered to be the best, like "My Screw Up", "My Way Home", "My Musical", "My Lunch"... Not only are these episodes particularly notable, it seems likely that they would be the easiest to find supplemental information for (My Musical is already well on its way). Also, this isn't without precedent. There are currently four TV episode article pages that are FAs, and a full forty-five GA episode articles. Who's interested? --Gpollock 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"My Way Home" strikes me as the best candidate; if I recall correctly, the Season 5 DVDs have a special about it, which could be a good source for some real-world information. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything that shows progress would be good. Here are a few URLs I've found with reviews of the seasons and episodes:

IGN - review of Scrubs S6 "My Musical" (There are links for Season six and other episodes as well.)

IGN review of Scrubs S6 + S1-5 summaries

The IGN material will help in providing real-world commentary on the episodes, since it is a third-party source with both positive and negative remarks. (Count me in, by the way - I'll help out where I can.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I kind of went ahead and did it. Check out the new and (maybe) improved "My Musical" article. --Gpollock 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"My Musical" is officially up for peer review. Check it out!--Gpollock 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And now it's a Good article candidate. --Gpollock 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of International Broadcasters section

User: Edgarde is insisting that this section be removed, purely on the basis of a talk page discussion here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters, even though it is informative, and details both the channels it airs on if different countries, and what name it is broadcast under, with what it translates into inlcuded as a note. The project discussion shows no consensus whatsoever, Edgarde is the only user who seems to have decided to remove it from various articles. Also, it is quite clearly not an Electonic program guide since there is no mention of dates and times when it is on. Edgarde is doing this without dicussion or consensus. What are other peoples opinions on this?--Jac16888 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the information being removed has any particular value beyond helping people locate a particular program on television, much like a program guide. However, I am concerned that this is all rather unilateral; the talk page discussion doesn't seem to have generated much in the way of response and there was certainly no discussion on the pages edited. Docta247 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is happening in a lot of articles. Since the precedent is outside each article, I'm trying to link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters instead of having multiple redundant talk page discussions on the exact same thing. Looks like that's not going to catch on tho. No biggie. :) / edg ☺ ★ 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the Talk page.

Here are some recent discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters

The stated reason for deleting 24 broadcasters was solely Wikipedia is not a directory (AKA Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). This is significant because this suggests the lists themselves are unencyclopedic, whether or not they are subject to becoming outdated (per WP:DATED, mentioned in the nomination but not in the deletion decision).

Whoever disagrees with this decision can take it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but a really solid argument should be presented for any attempt to overturn precedent. And there seem to be a lot of precedents.

For the record, here are some deletions that predates my involvement. One of them mentions a couple others:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcasting of Desperate Housewives

So my point is:

• It's really not just me.
• Lists of this sort are considered something WP:NOT#DIR forbids.
• Since these change constantly, they also go against Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly.

And yes other editors are removing these lists from other articles, tho I don't have a list of that activity handy. / edg ☺ ★ 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Talk page of the project is not where the rules are, you can't quote that as your basis for removing this. Anyway this is a totally different thing to the deletion of articles dedicated to broadcasters, it is simply about having it as a section within an article, for which there is no consensus for removal, only one user who believes they should be kept and made into tables, like this one is, and you, who is going round doing it without consensus. I would agree that it doesn't deserve its own article, but there is no problem with it having a section within this article--Jac16888 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the actual rules I would be quoting as a basis for removing this section would be WP:NOT#DIR and WP:DATED. However, since this invariably leads to a discussion, I figured linking the AfD discussions might show some of the thinking on this, besides my own.

If you insist on me quoting a specific "rule" page that explicitly forbids International Broadcasters tables as part of an article, well you would win I guess. Are you really asking me to do more searches for more precedents?

I really don't see any reason these sections would be more permissible in sections than stand-alone articles. Please note the deletion decision for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) did not say delete this as a separate article and shoehorn it back into the original article, which is the only way this sort of thing is acceptable. / edg ☺ ★ 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are purely a list of broadcasters is a completely different thing from a section within an article, i very much doubt that the editors involved in those afd's would agree with your decision to remove this section, indeed in one of them, a user suggests merging to the main article. The list of broadcasters is not an epg, as it does not say dates and times, which is the point of an epg, and it is interesting both for its content, and for the notes to it about translations of foriegn names for scrubs. You say there are precedents for removing this, but the only precedents are where you have done it yourself, without consensus--Jac16888 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed from other articles. After all, it is really pointless info. To have an RFC or poll on this seems to be premature though. Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, but it was all edgarde who removed them, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters, and as for pointless info, what about the amusing things scrubs is translated into in different countries, and the literal meanings--Jac16888 10:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he is not the only one, I have been removing them too. :) Also other editors for that matter. You also won't find pointless lists like this in featured articles. Look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The West Wing & Lost (TV series) to name a few I picked from the list. Garion96 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

you know, you didn't leave this rfc open for very long, thats seems unfair, closing it before enough people have a chance to contribute, but fine, its done know. would you have a problem with me including a table containing the various names scrubs is translated into, that was one of the key bits i wanted to keep--Jac16888 10:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a table would probably fit under Around the world. I have no opinion about how encyclopedic it might be.

Two weeks seemed like enough — the last comment received was 7 days ago (not counting comments outside the RfC, which also all supported removing the broadcasters list).

The comments received, including one from an editor you canvassed who admitted a bias against contradicting you, were unequivocal.

Are you really convinced I am still wrong? Is it still entirely me doing this? Is this still not based on Wikipedia policy? Do you wish to persume further dispute resolution? What is it you want? Are you saying I'm cheating? / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

you didn't read all of what i said, i submitted to its removal, and wondered about the inclusion of just the translations. and for the record, i didn't "canvas" sigma, i posted a short, entirely neutral, message on the talk pages of the most frequent scrubs article editors so as to get a better discussion.--Jac16888 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

RfC

Dispute

Are comprehensive lists of broadcasters encyclopedic in Wikipedia articles about television shows? Should they be allowed?

Such a list was deleted from this article. [1] It was restored twice for reasons elaborated in the parent section on this talk page. [2] [3] The current list is here.

Instructions

Anyone unfamiliar with the RfC process should first read Responding to RfC's. The RfC process is for new comments from uninvolved editors. Please do not repeat the above debate in the RfC.

If you are already involved, you may add a concise statement on the dispute topic (only). It is recommended to link sections that state your case instead of repeating previous discussion at length.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Statement by edgarde (talk · contribs)

• Lists of this type can never be encyclopedic. They go against WP:NOT#DIR — it can be argued the statement Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide speaks directly to this matter. When kept current, such lists also go against Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, since international broadcasters change frequently. Precedents: articles of this type of list for Closer and 24 closed with decisions to Delete, based entirely on WP:NOT — in neither case was it decided to delete only the timely information, nor to merge all or part of these lists back to the main article. Other, similar precedents can be provided.

Statement by Jac16888 (talk · contribs)

• Not only does this section include interesting information, e.g. foreign names for scrubs, and the amusing literal translations of them, it doesn't go against WP:NOT#DIR, as it is quite clearly not an electronic program guide, it contains no dates, not times, which are, in effect what an epg is, not a list of where it is broadcast in different countries. Neither does it fail Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, since it doesn't, as, if you see the article history, this section changes very rarely, its not like Tv programs such as Scrubs change channel every week, far from it, an change of broadcaster is usually a big thing, especially for the more well known programs. Finally, Edgarde is stating the deletion of articles devoted entirely to these lists as precedents, but an entire article all on its own, is a very different thing to one section within an article, not to mention that all these precedents are generated entirely by edgarde him/herself, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters, where edgarde is trying gain support for these edits, of which there is so far none, was originally started by a user in full favour of of these articles, and believed they should be standardised, not removed.--Jac16888 21:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved parties

• Very big flunk of WP:NOT#DIR. Not a close question. THF 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• A while back, Jac asked for help in this dispute. I was hesitant to get involved, but now that this is at RFC and is affecting other TV shows, I think I need to speak up. The only reason for a list of (international) broadcasters is to tell someone in whatever country what channel carries their favorite show. As stated above, it is not Wikipedia's job to do so. Any channel or network involved in production should be mentioned, as that is an intrinsic part of the show. The channel that a particular show airs on is not particularly notable, and any list of channels should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SigmaEpsilon (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. / edg ☺ ★ 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sitcom/Comedy/Dramedy, Which?

In the Scrubs article infobox, the genre changes regularly, sometimes its a comedy, sometimes a sitcom, and sometimes a dramedy. We need to decide definitively, and leave a hidden comment asking people not to change it. I personally believe that its a dramedy, due to the fact it can be outrageously funny and downright deep and emotional, all in one episode. What do other people think?--Jac16888 09:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think dramedy is a made up word and contradction. I hate the term (no offence intended). IMO, it's a comedy. You're right that the show does the voth the comedic and dramatic elements in one show, but there is no rule Comedies can't have serious moments, and likewise that Dramas can't have funny ones. People were putting the 'dramedy' tags on The O.C (and even House!). Iorek85 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just reverted an anon's change of that field (same IP that vandalized the article some months back), I agree with the idea of finding a stable solution. What does NBC call it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the term dramady is not needed. Comedies can be "downright deep and emotional". I'd say Scrubs has more in common with Friends than Law & Order (semi-random, toppa the head examples). / edg ☺ ★ 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought that Ckatz's solution (figure out what NBC calls it) was a good one - No original reasearch, and whatnot. NBC's Scrubs site doesn't call it anything, nor does Touchstone's official Scrubs site, but I found this on Amazon.com [4]. I know Amazon's not an official site, but it's generally pretty authoritative, and in their review, they call Scrubs a sitcom. A bit further down the page, in the 'Product description' section - which I believe comes straight from the people who make the DVD - it says "Make an appointment with SCRUBS. Nominated for two Emmy(R) Awards in its second year, the hilarious sitcom is..." bla bla bla. Well there it is. --Gpollock 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, not sure how good a source amazon is, but am checking out any other scrubs places i can find, to get a good idea.

• Imdb, no use at all, says its a comedy/drama
• not sure how reliable it is, but this site, Scrubs Mopnt, which seems quite well known, although a fan site, says its a comedy

can't think of any other places at the minute, but it seems that comedy would probably be the best option, since scrubs doesn't really fit under "sitcom", it even spoofed it remember—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 21:44, August 14, 2007

According to the official Emmy website it was nominated for were "Outstanding Comedy Series" in 2006. Therefore, it's a comedy. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Emmys don't have an "Outstanding Dramedy" or "Outstanding Sitcom" category... Sitcoms are filed under "Outstanding Comedy," and most so-called dramedies wind up in "Oustanding Drama" category. --Gpollock 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding out what it is officially called is a good idea. Of the four season DVDs I have, only one makes mention of the genre, and it calls it a sitcom. Who would have thought it would be this hard? Iorek85 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this show a sitcom at all. It is easily a dramedy in my opinion. Lach Graham 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have dried up, without consensus being gained. --Jac16888 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lawrence mentions several times during various commentary tracks for Scrubs that it's a single camera situational comedy. He also uses the term "sitcom" seperate, so I would go with comedy. Dracoster (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about medical comedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.184.215 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Before reading, understand that notability on this site is determined by the amount of non-trivial information verified by reliable sources. With fiction, the information required is out of universe information, so being major in the series is not a factor.

The Scrubs characters don't seem to have the possibility to stay standalone articles. They lack more than a few sentences each of real world information. That can easily go in the character list entries (Minor characters will just be reconfigured into a general one). The information on the articles currently is bloated original research. While the episodes are cited, most of the information draws a lot of original conclusions ("Kelso's humanity"). Other than that, most of the information is just unneeded anyways. We don't need to give every minor detail of the characters, only a good overview, which can fit on the list.

I imagine that maybe J.D. and Cox could end up good, but the rest cannot possibly have enough information. If someone wants to assert that these can become good, please provide sources that give real world information. If you have any comments, please read over WP:WAF and WP:FICT beforehand. They should be able to clear up most of them. TTN 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - This lot is totally without any reason. Many of these articles are quite large and unsuitable to be merged into this one. Even the short ones were separated from List of Scrubs characters after discussion. To merge would be a massive step backwards and create an exceedingly large and ungainly article. mattbuck 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They'll be going into a new character list, not here. This is just the only place to have the discussion. They can easily be cut down to a few paragraphs each (see above), so length is not an issue. Then, it should be formatted to fit Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which is a featured character list. TTN 00:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support merging the smaller characters; Ted, Keith, Janitor, Kelso, Doug, Laverne and The Todd into a character list, but not Eliot, JD, Turk, Carla and Cox. They are major enough characters to warrant their own pages, exactly like House. Iorek85 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note at the top that explains why that reasoning isn't correct. Also, probably only House needs an article. The rest probably don't have enough information. TTN 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your note doesn't explain that. I read the MOS, and there isn't anything about notable and non notable characters in there. Major characters appear more often (have more screen time and lines), have more character development, are the focus of the show, and tend to stay on, rather than leave. They are also written about more in the real world, because they are the focus of the show (which is what I think you're getting at with your note). In fact, the Soap Opera Wikiproject writes of whether to create character articles; "An article should be created about a soap opera character, only if the character is a major part of the storyline, and the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be listed at a "List of characters" for that particular program.". While Scrubs isn't a Soap opera, the same reasoning should apply. (Rant) On a slightly off topic note, this obsession with real world notability is annoying. I agree character articles shouldn't list every single thing that has happened to them, but I've not a problem with writing things 'in universe'. Explaining the history of the characters helps understand the show. If we can have episode summaries (and according to the rules, we shouldn't) we can have character summaries. Wikipedia would suck if we just had why a show is notable in the real world. There would only be ratings, character traits mentioned in popular culture, and how portraying the character affected the actor. It would, in fact, have nothing about the actual show in it. I'm tired of the slash and burning of articles because they aren't 'notable enough' and because of anal wiki"policy". It's the breadth and depth of information here that makes Wikipedia so awesome.(/rant) Iorek85 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you apparently didn't bother to look at those articles. The amount of information about the characters is massive. Just because someone can be summed up in one sentence doesn't mean they should be. "John JD Dorian is the geeky protagonist in Scrubs" does not make an article. mattbuck 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The information will be cut down if these do stay, so again, that is not a factor. And it will probably be a good three paragraphs for him, not a sentence. Also, please read the bold text, as it is all that matters. TTN 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If those are the rules, then frankly I have not seen a single character bio for any tv show that fits that. It's stupid. How can an episode of the show NOT be a reliable source on the character? How can something that's a major plotline for that character not be relevant on the character bio? mattbuck 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a very large problem with fiction on this site. Jabba the Hutt is what most characters should be able to end up like in order to require an article (though, it doesn't have to be as "thick"). Episodes can be used to cite things, but they cannot be used to put together sections, as it leads to OR (all of the relationship sections are the worst), and they assert nothing in regards to real world notability. Major plot points should be covered within the list entry, the main article, and the episode list if the merger is done. If it isn't done, a quick paragraph is all that is need to sum up the important events. TTN 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - that merging suggestion would create a huge article. And the suggestion about deleting material that is "just unneeded" that would be according to who? I don't think merging should be used to bypass the standard deleting procedure or normal editorial discussions. --MarsRover 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The information is a bunch of original research that is mainly redundant and pointless. We don't describe every little movement, habit, quirk, personality trait, or other trivial bits of fictional characters, especially one time gags like in this show. A general description of these characters should be three paragraphs at most. What are you talking about with that last part? Merging isn't deleting; it is a normal editorial thing that happens all of the time. TTN 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - It may be Wikipedia policy that character articles need out-of-universe context, but it sure ain't general practice. For examples, see the categories Category:The Simpsons characters (for example, Lenny Leonard, Otto Mann, or Snowball (The Simpsons)... the cat has an article... a good one!), Category:Lost (TV series) characters (for example Sayid Jarrah or Charlie Pace), or Category:Arrested Development (TV series) characters (for example Tobias Fünke or Byron "Buster" Bluth). These are all good, long articles, but they all lack real-world context. Yes, I agree, it definitely would dramatically improve these articles if they had some out-of-universe information, and the Scrubs character articles aren't Wikipedia's finest articles, but they sure aren't worth getting rid of. Also, despite TTN's comments above, merging is deleting. Making the articles fit into a blanket 'Characters' article requires deleting information. We aren't deleting topics, but we are taking information out of Wikipedia. --Gpollock 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WAX. Other articles will be dealt with in time. You can't seriously expect all articles besides these to be all set. Just as a general message to everyone: please stop saying that these are good. No matter what, they will be cut down. For an example of what will happen, see this. Other than that, real world information is required. If it cannot be found, the articles need to be merged, no matter if they were full of good information or not. That is the main problem. TTN 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - per the above, and also, you are looking at this the wrong way ttn, who do you think these articles are for? they're not just for us, there main purpose is for the readers, the millions of people who come on here everyday, not to edit, but to read up on things, Scrubs is one of the most popular articles, in July it was the 40th most viewed article on wikipedia, out of nearly 2 million articles. What do you think that the many many many people who come on here to read about scrubs want more? an article all the characters all lumped together, with only basic information, or good, detailed, informative articles about each. You need to stop thinking as an editor, and try thinking as a reader.--Jac16888 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The main article is long as it is, and the ones for the major characters are pretty long, too. Michiganotaku 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per the above, particularly Jac16888. Just curious, but TTN, when you say "no matter what, they will be cut down" and "there will probably be three paragraphs for [J.D.]", is there a clear consensus to do so anywhere? Also, would I be sticking my neck out if I mentioned WP:SNOW here? ;) Chrisd87 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Characters are best covered in a List of characters article. You are not likely to find real world information about the characters; you'll find stuff about the show or about the actors. Write and expand the articles on those. --Jack Merridew 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am not clear that the "voting" above has any relevance here. Wikipedia has clear and unambiguous policies about this. While individual editors may like individual character articles, there is little doubt that this runs counter to the guidelines and policies that are the larger consensus view. Unless clear out-of-universe notability can be established, whereby such articles will conform as a matter of course to the notability guideline, TTN's point is unassailable and the merge unequivocal, regardless of how many individual fans of the series express a desire to keep these. If users oppose a merge, then they should make an effort to change the TV and notability guidelines and policies. As it stands, we have such guidelines and policies for a reason and, per the terms they contain, TTN's proposed course of action is effectively mandatory. Eusebeus 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have tried changing the guideline. And larger consensus view? That Fictional notability guideline is being edited and supported by a smaller number of editors than have posted here. Effectively mandatory? From the page itself "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". And even if it were, merging into a list is hardly the only option; they could be expanded with 'real world' information, or referenced, thus negating the need to merge. Iorek85 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• First off, let me state that I agree that an article that has an effective, well-sourced assertion of out-of-universe notability should not be merged. That, however, is not the case here. I find your quote from the guideline judicious: it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Why should Scrubs be exceptional? There is no particular grounds, except, as best I can tell, fan enthusiasm. Finally, the claim that the WP:WAF is maintained by a small group may be correct. However, if you propose removing the out-of-universe criterion as the standard measure for assessing character notability I suspect you will find much larger participation racked up against that view. Bottom line: guidelines and policy, not talk page commentary, reflect Wikipedia consensus and should be followed. Thus, no matter that fans of the series here wish to keep individual articles, the guideline is clear: clean them up, remove the unencyclopedic guff (eg trivia), and assert out-of-universe notability, or else merge and redirect them. Eusebeus 09:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I would like to point out this.Why should we have an episode guide if you can't find out information other than the title of the episode? Wikipedia is useless if you can't find the information you need. If these things keep happening, there will be no Wikipedia. Saint777 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be supine. First following notability guidelines is not instruction creep, it is good practice and although you may only have three edits, if you are well-informed enough to cite AIC, you should be knowledgeable about WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and the 5 pillars; as for your specific complaint, plot summaries can be added to the LOE articles. Eusebeus 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a full plot summary to the episode list would make it hideously large. The information is relevant and notable. It should stay. mattbuck 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• You should note your concerns at the ongoing discussion on fiction notability, since at the moment detailed plot summaries are specifically discouraged for inclusion. Moreover, consensus has determined that notability is only established with reference to out-of-universe content. Therefore, your comment is an inaccurate reflection of the current state of consensus as it generally exists at WP:N (also: WP:FICT & WP:EPISODE). Eusebeus 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If out of universe information is needed, then articles on the elephant, for instance, should not be written by anyone on Earth. They should be written by beings outside of our universe, and then we could cite them as sources. I know that is using hyperbole, but its basically what TTN and Eusebeus are doing. The policies should change, not the articles. Saint777 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise - How about we move List of minor characters of Scrubs to List of Scrubs characters, adding in a paragraph or two about the main characters but linking to their articles, as is done on List of House characters. mattbuck 18:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per the discussion above, I see that nothing has been added to any of the character articles that bothers to assert any kind of notability as recommended by the guidelines that have been cited above. As a result, I think it is time to go ahead and push redirects for these articles to the list of characters page. Matt's "compromise" does not seem promising, since it fails to address the inherent need to provide encyclopedic value to these articles: out-of-universe assertion of notability backed up by 3rd party, reliable independent sources. Instead, they remain repositories for fancruft enthusiasm, ridiculously in-universe, and brimming with trivialities. The House articles, btw, also need to be merged and redirected. Eusebeus 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'guideline' is currently in flux, and is being discussed for a rewrite, and to delete articles based on it would be irresponsible. Despite this, I have no objection to merging the minor characters, as long as the length of the combined page is not excessive, in line with Mattbuck's proposal. And don't delete all the in-universe information; some of it is perfectly acceptable. While wikipedia is not a democracy, it isn't a dictatorship, either. Iorek 10:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The only possible change to the guideline is the inclusion of stylistic article splits. Those will only apply to character lists and other lists like that. That cannot be applied to single characters. In-universe information isn't bad, but 90% of the info in these is junk. TTN 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose – First, it's nice to see that TTN finally suggesting the merges instead of executing them without any notice. Second, these articles are very informative, especially to people who start watching the show from a later season. You have to take the Wikipedia readers, not just the editors, into consideration. It's one thing to cleanup the articles and edit for accuracy, but to cut out 90% of the information and stuff them all into one list (which will get too bloated to read after a while) makes no sense. —TigerK 69 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Tigerk, that much of the information is very informative to the series and should not just be removed. While many of those articles/character pages do contain useless and trivial information, there is enough useful information which is relevant to both the series and some of the creative reasons behind the show. Keeping a single character page informative and useful to readers hoping to learn more about the series will become very very large. - Vaal 9:10, 15 Novermber 2007 (UTC)

Oppesed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark-Ace (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

I've noticed that Scrubs redirects to Scrub, which is a disambigus page, listing Scrubs (TV series) as one option. I can't for the life of me imagine that anyone searching for "Scrubs" would ever want anything other than Scrubs (clothing) or Scrubs (TV series). And given the popularity of the show, I suspect few will want the clothing. Given that the Scrubs (TV series) page has a disambigus link at the top, I propose changing the Scrubs redirect to Scrubs (TV series). Can anyone give me a reason why not to do this? --Zaf^(t) 09:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs should go direct to the page on clothing, since that what scrubs are. Scrubs the TV show should stay where it is, though there should be a link to the show on the scrubs page. mattbuck 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I have rated this article as B class because it is fairly comprehensive and includes important sections like awards, production, cast, crew etc. and as mid importance because the shows longevity and awards recognition distinguish it from other articles about television series. However, the article contains a few sections in list format that need to be converted in to prose - for example the cast and crew sections. It is lacking a wider critical response section and you should try to find some reviews and summarise them. Typically industry publications will have reviews of each new series on TV and/or DVD so there should be plenty of sources around. Well done for finding the ratings information. I'm not sure if its essential for a comedy but a summary of the broad strokes of the plot of the show would be useful - the synopsis may be sufficient however. It's a strong start and may be ready for peer review and moving up to FA status with a bit more work. If you are aiming for FA status the use of blogs as sources may be a point of contention.

These categories are arbritrary and are subject to review by any editor who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

Just found this [5] which has a lot of links to interviews/reviews etc, should be helpful for improving the article (posting it here so i remember it)--Jac16888 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Carla Head Nurse?

This article describes Carla as the head nurse at sacred Heart. That's not mentioned in her own article, and I don't remember it from the show. Can anyone give a reference? Rojomoke 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Kelso take over as head nurse for a while after Carla gives birth? mattbuck 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

thats right, in His Story IV, i cited the episode a few days ago--Jac16888 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Laverne asks Kelso for a replacement head nurse so Kelso fills in while Carla's away. Jamie jca (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 6 DVD

Hi I was just wondering if anyone knew when Season 6 of Scrubs will be coming out on DVD. I live in Australia so if you can put it down to when it comes out in this country then that would be great. Cheers Guys. --MattyC3350 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What region is australia in? Because thats how the table(and dvd releases) work, they are sorted by region, i.e. 1,2 or 3, rather than by country.--Jac16888 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia is Region 4. --Ninevah 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters - Kelso

The Main Characters section talks way too much about Kelso. Kelso is the least important of all the major characters of the show, yet the Main Characters section talks more about Kelso than it does about any of the other characters, even more than JD. Kelso's wife and son are not important to the show in any way and should be removed from this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.208.179 (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then edit it. mattbuck 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

While I would not consider him a main character I didn't feel it was important enough to make a new section about this. If you notice in the background of almost every single episode you will see in atleast one frame, Snoop Dogg Intern/Resident/Doctor. I searched the article and found no mention of him at all. Perhaps this is something that a census will find should just be added to a Trivia section and/or made mention of in the minor character section. Asatruar (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A trivia section is not a good idea. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. (see Wikipedia:Trivia sections) If he is mentioned in the article it should be in the Supporting cast section. That said, He's realy too minor a character to be included in the main article. List of minor characters of Scrubs would be a more appropriate article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Character merge

Before commenting: The characters are NOT going to be merged to this article. I want to make that clear. They will be given their own list if they are merged; this is just a place for discussion.

OK, let's try this again. Though, this time we will not be playing the consensus game. Consensus is global, not local, so the fact that five of you will want to keep them means little. Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF, characters need non-trivial real world information in order to need an article. Also, per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR, these articles need to be cut way down if the information is provided. If the information is not provided, these will be merged to a list; there is no getting around it. TTN 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The following pages have real-world sources:

• Perry Cox
• J.D. (Scrubs)
• Janitor (Scrubs)

In addition, Turk's phone number is real out-of universe, and Sam Lloyd (Ted) is a member of The Blanks, who have appeared on Scrubs as characters. I'm going to go for the weakest of weak keeps for these. Merge a significant portion of the articles for Elliot, Carla, Kelso, The Todd. Just redirect or very little merge Kim, Keith, Nurse Roberts, Jordan. Will ^(talk) 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the Janitor is the only one with more than a sentence or two. I would say that all of the Janitor's could easily be covered on a list entry if he is the only one with that much. TTN 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cox and J.D. are main characters, and warrant articles. They should be cleaned up and tagged for improvement, not just "soft-deleted". Plus, this discussion will go a lot better if you don't use threats, to be quite honest. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articles do need to be cut down majorly, though I feel that they do deserve to stay as their own articles. Real world information can and should be found. It's a popular show, there ought to be fuckloads of it out there. mattbuck 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If a lot information is out there, you should be able to go find a little bit out it very easily, so it can be applied to the articles. Otherwise, these need to go. I am not going to sit around for any false promises or consensus wikilawyering. TTN 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what? All the Scrubs main character articles should stay as they are. And are you threatening to go deleting if you don't get enough yes votes? That's so not cool. These are -not- your articles. Lots42 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason to merge. These are all large articles and they are all prominent characters on a prominent show. Kuralyov 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Real world information is all that matters; "importance" to the series has no baring here. Each character needs a decent amount in order to stay. Please remember that your opinion has no value unless you argue from the standpoint that it is possible to add the information. TTN 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I know it's rather a shock, but TTN does raise some good points. Mostly, the articles currently are extended plot outlines, with very little to say why they are important in a real-world perspective. The plot is better kept for some Scrubs wiki, or the episode pages. The House pages were edited a while ago to conform to wikipolicy. Compare the current state of Allison Cameron to this older version of the same article. We don't need to list every joke ever made about JD, every time Elliot's kissed someone, every time the Janitor's been nasty or Kelso has said who has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit. We can summarise the characters fairly well in a couple of paragraphs of plot, and then add all the information culled from interviews, dvd extras and the like to say WHY the characters are played the way they are. It would make for a much better article - currently anyone who has seen the show knows the plot or can't look at them because they don't want to know the plot of episodes they haven't seen. If we edit them the way the House articles have gone, then they will have real, useful information which will be informative without giving away every plot detail. mattbuck 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no question the articles need cleanup, and not effective deletion via an "un-merged merge". The real problem, however, lies in the way this has been presented. Terms like "your opinion has no value" and "I am not going to sit around for any false promises or consensus wikilawyering" do nothing to encourage constructive discussion, and have no place here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to kid anyone. Besides Mattbuck, nobody has any intention of contributing to a discussion. They could care less if the articles were one sentence stubs; they would still vehemently defend them. That is the kind of person that you respect and discuss with, not anyone else here. Any that do not receive real world information will actually be merged by the way (though it will only be a few paragraphs). TTN 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I absolutely agree with Ckatz is saying. And I have no idea what TTN is saying in the paragraph above this one. But saying 'You must do this or -I- will delete' is wrong. Lots42 03:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought... Besides Mattbuck, nobody has any intention of contributing to a discussion. So basically, you're already made up your mind and you're going to vandalize the pages no matter what? Is that what you're saying? Great. Lots42 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To have a discussion, you people will need to leave the realm of fans and enter the realm of encyclopedia editors. If you want to do that, you will need to research information and cut information as Mattbuck describes up above (pay close attention to the two different versions of the article he shows). Do you want to do that? TTN 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are having a productive discussion now as you are already believing in oddly preconceived notions about me. If I am failing as a Wikipedia editor, I welcome constructive, nuetral comments on my talk page. In fact, if you care to look, there are plenty of criticisms of past mistakes I have made on my talk page. In conclusion, I feel the articles for the main Scrubs characters should be cleaned up and -not- merged. Lots42 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to you comment, you either do not care about adding real world information or you did not actually read my initial comment, as I said that these would not be merged if it is acquired. If you do not care about adding real world information (the clean up), then you are only a fan. If you want to improve the articles by adding that information and cutting them way down, please just state that. If you have no interest in doing that, your opinion on keeping them has no basis outside of WP:ILIKEIT, so your opinion has no "power" behind it. Summed up: if you want to discuss improving and cleaning up, great; if you want to ramble on about how important they are, too bad. TTN 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And here come the insults. Good-bye. Lots42 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, it's not really hard to get interviews and such for real-world information. A google search for 'Janitor "Bill Lawrence" Scrubs' brings up 23,000 results. There are DVD commentaries. Use them. Will ^(talk) 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment that none of these articles are based largely on Original Research, since it is all right there in the episode. However, a number of articles should be cleaned up (J.Ds, Janitor's, Cox), many of the minor characters can be merged into that List of Minor Characters (The Todd, Keith). Some of the minor characters should keep their own pages, such as Ted, who's band is an actual, real band and Laverne/Shirley, since Bill Lawrence has done a number of interviews about the two characters since Laverne's death. But specific cleanup discussions should happen on individual talk pages, not this one. TLDR version: I support a large merge of the minor characters, but the major ones (Cox, JD, Janitor, maybe Carla, Elliot, and Kelso) should keep their own and get trimmed down. Notthegoatseguy 17:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the content in these articles is completely original. A quality citation from an episode would be something like "The Janitor hates J.D. *ref* *Episode*: Janitor: I hate you. *ref*". In reality, their quality is more like "The Janitor hates J.D. *ref* *Episode* - (implied action or quote) - The Janitor screws with J.D.'s head *ref*". While the episode is being used to cite the original research, it does not mean that it is actually backing the original claim.

Anyways, if they deserve to stay, please actually work on them by finding the real world information. While it may seem that the information will easily be available at any time, that may not be the case. It should be provided rather than speculated about. TTN 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's Be Bold page. You've found time to suggest a merge twice and have suggested several times that people should work on the articles. You could do the same. The example you cite does happen a lot on character pages, but it's just bad writing, and is clearly a reason to clean up, and not merge. You can do it too, since you clearly have some knowledge of the series and have the time. Notthegoatseguy 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my job to fix these up; it is the job of those defending them. They should not have been created without asserting notability in the first place, so unless the information is provided or it becomes obvious that all of the articles will obtain it, they need to be merged. TTN 21:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be your 'job'. It could be an enjoyable task you willingly undertake to improve the articles you are so concerned about. Lots42 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So it isn't your job to edit or improve articles, but it is your job to merge them? I'm not quite following that. Notthegoatseguy 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that the burden of proof of notability is on those wishing to include. Will ^(talk) 11:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will has a point, but I still think TTN could help fix them up instead of coming on here stating that he is going to merge them anyway because our opinions don't matter. He says its not his job to fix them, but neither is merging the articles. Instead of bitching to everybody about how everyone else excpet him need to fix the articles, he should pitch in and help. --Crazy4metallica 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the articles, in their current state, are fancrufty and full of trivial information and that the minor ones (eg Doug Murphy, Laverne Roberts, Keith Dudemeister etc.) can easily be merged. Yet it is equally clear to me that the major characters have the potential to be improved, and that many of the people here are more than willing to assist that improvement. Therefore, a cleanup is surely the most obvious and logical solution. But I also have to say that TTN's assertion that they will be forcibly merged if this does not happen quickly and to his satisfaction is nothing short of community blackmail, especially considering he has made it clear that he has no interest whatsoever in helping improve them. Frankly I find this deletionist attitude very unconstructive and unhelpful to what the rest of the contributors to this debate are suggesting (and yes, TTN, everyone is contributing, including those who may disagree with your opinion). Tx17777 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, more references and cites are needed, but that doesn't mean big merges should be undertaken. Keep and improve. Mdiamante 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Improve from this user as well. And, as to TTN's threatening "Though, this time we will not be playing the consensus game. Consensus is global, not local, so the fact that five of you will want to keep them means little.", one should probably not announce up front that if the discussion doesn't go as you like, you will simply ignore consensus. Consensus IS "local" in this case. If there's no consensus to merge, then you don't merge. Period. K. Scott Bailey 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I know that we all like to throw around wikipedia pagelinks all the time to show off and all that shit, but have you actually read wikipedia's consensus policy? It is very, very clear: consensus explicitly means community-wide consensus. Consider: if 10 editors on this page agree on X, where X violates WP:BLP, or WP:V, or WP:N or whatever, that "local" consensus, even if it is unanimous, is completely irrelevant. Read WP:CONSENSUS and you will see, right at the beginning in boldface, how consensus is defined. Since the articles in question do not contain content that meets our notability standards, TTN's point is well made & indisputable. Eusebeus 04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're wrong here. Could there be pages that should be merged? Certainly. Should he have approached it in the way he did, stomping on the views of those who might dare disagree with him a priori? Certainly not. This is not collegial at all, and clearly violates the very policy you cite above. There is clear disagreement among the editors of this page and TTN (and now yourself), as to whether these characters satisfy WP:N. A quote:

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

Is TTN's view "eccentric"? Perhaps not, but he certainly falls under the "refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith" per his initial statement. Each article should be individually considered for a merge, not simply blanketed together into one huge merge. K. Scott Bailey 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• No his position is not eccentric, and that is the crux of the matter. Consensus refers to policy and one of the reasons that the language has evolved as it has is due to attempts to game the system by committed groups of editors who scoff or otherwise ignore our policies and guidelines. Please review and tell me which you disagree with:

1. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is global (community-wide), not local
2. Per WP:FICT, Wikipedia requires out-of-universe assertsions of notability, with real-world content backed up by independent, reliable, third party sources
3. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository for plot synopses and per WP:TRIVIA, trivia is considered unencyclopedic.

As for your point that the behaviour itself is amiss, even if the intent is accurate, in TTN's defense he pointed to the guidelines and indicated why these fail to adhere to our standards of notability and content. Could he have been nicer about it? Yes, probably, but ultimately this is not about the person, but about the larger question of policy and practice. When we post links to policy it is reasonable to expect that editors will actually familiarise themselves with it, as Devon.underwood has done so below before remonstrating. It is very frustrating (for me, for TTN, and surely for you as well) that so many of the opinions expressed above are simply uninterested (apparently) in reading through policies and making specific response in relation to them. Surely you agree. Eusebeus 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• • To Eusebeus: It is very frustrating to (again, TTN then you) be accused of being purposely ignorant. Please stop. The world is not going to end just because Perry Cox continues to have his own article. Lots42 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I read this and I couldn't believe it. It seemed like such a bad idea, so counter-productive. And then I read the discussion. And then I read the character bios. And then I read the rules that wikipedia uses-- the rules with which, as has been stated, about five of you agree. And now I wonder how this article got a B. My personal recommendation, if this is going to get done any time soon, is to leave the main characters' pages up until at least after the show ends, since it is going to be so soon, and to merge all the others into a minor characters' page with lots of citations (ex. - the entire sections of trivia on the main characters' childhood, many of which I recall as having been 15 second jokes, belong as citations, not definitive character information). Devon.underwood 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this show is not like Family Guy or American Dad. Info is info, except in the case of the Janitor, who has confessed to lying. If J.D. says that when he was 4, he was frightened by half a dozen nuns, then that is what actually happened to the character. Now, whether being scared by nuns is relevant to the article is another thing entirely...but it's not 'fake' just because it was funny. Lots42 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Yes, you're right. Relevant is the word I should have used. Basically, they're TV personalities; their characters stay the same and though their jokes are not lies, they also do not have a great deal of influence on the characters. Profoundly important plot hooks that occur in the episodes? Needed. Every instance of Elliot's mother neglecting her or sleeping with the pool boy, or the absurdly long list of Consuela notes? Unimportant. Need all of this stuff after the series is over (remember, my vote is for leaving the golden calf alone until the show ends)? That's exactly why shows have their own Wikis. Hell, I frequent four of them; I know how useful they can be. But this is supposed to at least mimic an encyclopedia, remember? Devon.underwood (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is idiotic - these are popular characters on a popular show - though not insanely popular in the US it is incredibly popular in the UK and many people use these articles as a reference - theres no need to merge them and by doing so you will either create an over long article or lose great deals of significant information that people have taken time and effort to put in, it is useful information for millions of fans.

• You'll be wanting TV.com, third door to the right down the hall. This is an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely merge the minor ones. I'm neutral on merging J.D., Turk, and Cox (and maybe Elliot and Carla) because the show is popular and has run for quite some time. But I'd like point out that "clean-up" also means getting rid of excessive material. If someone attempted to cleanup the articles, only about three to five in-universe paragraphs would/should remain to give an overview over the character (compare eg. Ned Flanders), and this makes editorial merging a good option until secondary sources have been found to spin-off the articles again. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, here I see lots of familiar faces! Scrubs (TV series) article is the 87th most visited article to wikipedia this month: [6]. Well, thats all I have to say. -- Cat ^chi? 06:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my idea: Keep all seven main character articles. For many shows, main charatcers have their own page. Main characters in Heroes (TV series) had pages when they only had a paragraph of information on them. The main characters here have a wealth of information on them, character history, personality, and relationships. All other characters should be merged except for Ted and Jordan. They are major characters that have appeared in nearly all episodes after their initial appearence and both have a good amount of information on them. The other minor characters don't have lots of infomation, and would fit in the characters page. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, while there is a LOT of information, much of it is synthesis, original research and lacking in real world notability. There is almost nothing about how the actor got the part, etc. Check out the Allison Cameron page for an idea of how it should be done. mattbuck (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now see the problem I have with that is that that Allison Cameron page is very short, and that should be merged. I know there is some orginal research on these pages but that can be removed and still have a substantial article. I think we can agree that at least Keith, Doug, Kim, and Laverne should be merged. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Open question to anyone advocating that the articles of the main characters of a TV show should be merged with the article for the show itself: please state your reasons for wanting them merged, without linking to a Wikipedia Policy Page as justification. Scumbag (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it cuts down speculation, trivia and other cruft, overall brings these articles much closer to following guidelines than they are now, and encourages to keep them that way. If I may be blunt: Those arguing against merging, why do you want to keep the articles in the mess they are in, or (if you also think they should be cleaned up and heavily trimmed for guidelines) why do you think five stubby articles are better off as individual articles? Remember that wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite that keeps track of plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing against merging per se, I'll answer your question: Because the articles aren't messes. If the articles violate Wikipedia's policies, then the policies show a clear disconnect between what Wikipedia "strives" to be and what it really is. Do you have an encyclopedia that describes a fictional blue monster with a plant on its black in great detail? Scumbag (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Or the policy-/-current-article discrepancy just shows that there are more people in favor of violating policies and guidelines than helping with the cleanup. This merge discussion is no exception. When I tried to cleanup the Elliot article two days ago, I stopped after one third because I couldn't take it anymore (I'm not exaggerating). The Profile and Peculiarities sections are full of Original research and Trivia. There's not a single third-party source, just (mostly poorly sourced) plot. When you compare her article to Boone Carlyle, Darth Vader and Pauline Fowler (three randomly-picked Good Articles "only"), it becomes really hard to not label her article as "a mess" a loooong way from Good Article status. I apologize if I unjustly applied my impression of this article onto the other character articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

After looking at those articles, I have no problem saying that Elliot's article (or Cox, or JD's, or Turk's) are not messes. They read well, and give the reader a solid take on the character(s) that even goes so far as to tell which episodes the core bits of information came from. I do have to give you credit for attempting to edit the article yourself, though. In my experience, the kind of people on Wikipedia get all uppity about policy violations usually don't know Thing One about the article in question, and get all uppity when those that do know about the subject don't immediately kow-tow to their "BUT TEH POLICY SI BLAH BLAH BLAH" nonsense. Then it becomes an argument on both sides until the zealots wander away and the fans revert their changes. Scumbag (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Merge Part 2

First, this is a new section for the argument, to make it easy for us editors to add our two cents.

Secondly; to Sgeureka|t; I believe it is possible to make nice, clear, easy-to-read NON-stubby articles for the Scrubs main characters and that this should, in fact, be done, because they deserve it for being noteable and stuff. Lots42 (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Each character that has an article should have the following: a short, concise opening, two paragraphs to describe their background and achievements throughout the series, two or three to describe their personality and relationships (backed with actual sources, not just referencing the episode), as many paragraphs possible telling about the character's creation and development, and as many as many paragraphs possible telling about the character's reception and real world impact. More in universe information can possibly be added with the inclusion of more real world information, but that will be a good starting point. TTN (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that each article needs to assert notability. However, the notability guidelines clearly state that once a subject is notable there are no constraints on the content of the article in terms of notability. I don't think it is for TTN to decide how much plot summary is appropriate; this should be a community effort. However, other guidelines do apply and it is important that plot summary in character articles is restricted in length. For episode summaries guidelines for television state 10 words per minute of screen time. There are not currently guidelines for character articles. I'd urge interested parties to consider discussing this at the television wikiproject. However, the main issue in this discussion is that these articles do not currently assert notability. I believe they have the potential to meet the notability guidelines and the editors involved need to work at finding sources that focus on the real world significance and then collaborate on adding them to the articles.--Opark 77 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The ones that limit content would be WP:WAF/WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Both require a balance between real and fictional information. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said this is a digression from the topic of specific merges relating to Scrubs articles so I've responded at WP:TV, specifically here.--Opark 77 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply at WP:TV in a minute because I was thinking about this in the past few days also, but I'll reply here first. Lots42, I agree that some of these article can become Good or even Featured Articles, but I don't think they will any time soon if no-one steps in. Think of it this way: I came across Pregnancy in Science Fiction a couple of weeks ago. The article had existed for 4 years and was a mess, so I AfD'ed it with the reasoning "With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written [...] but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - Dogs in science fiction, Food in science fiction, Music in science fiction,..." The AfD ended in no consensus, but look what has happened now. I doubt that this would have happened without the AfD. Character articles are pretty much the same - no-one cares to include secondary information (unless he is really devoted). If editors can forever rest on the assumption that something is notable, why should they actually work on it? If these characters are so notable, why is it so hard for the please-do-not-mergers to demonstrate it? Unless we're talking about James Bond, Harry Potter or Darth Vader, having articles for main characters is not so much about "they deserve it because of popularity" or "... because the plot summary is too long", but "they deserve it because their current encyclopedic coverage is just to much for the main article to handle WP:SIZE-wise. That's the weakest point of all Scrubs character articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you under the belief nobody is working on the character's articles to improve them? A character can be noteable and have a crappy article.Lots42 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked. J.D.'s article was started in March 2006, Dr. Cox's in June 2006. Are you saying that anybody was really working on their encyclopedic coverage in the past 1.5 years? I see no (in the best case a handful of) reliable secondary sources. Granted, some articles have a short list of production details tagged on at the end, but all in all, I see no character creation sections, no casting section, no makeup & constumes section, nor a reception section. If you are still saying that anybody put any work into the Scrubs articles, compare them to this character article, which I produced within 3.5 months (the show ran for just 24 episodes). Per WP:FICT, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. and If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. I see no proof of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources nor any kind of encyclopedic treatment. As I've said before, I give J.D. and two or three other characters the benefit of doubt, but I'll reject any assertion that the other characters are independently notable and should be allowed to have a crappy article. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

??? Please refer to what I said in the past. I'm bowing out of this avalance of a discussion. Lots42 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked whether I believed that somebody was working on these articles. I said, obviously not and proved my assertion. You said notable characters are allowed to have crappy articles. I said most of these articles don't even prove notability and should therefore not have individual article at all. The "crappy" question is therefore irrelevant. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Sullivan

i would say she is now a major character, appearing at least as often as the Janitor. i would suggest moving her to the major character section instead of minor. Skitzo 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

She is not credited as "starring" in the show, and basically, thats what we go by. And the Janitor appears much more often than her--Jac16888 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True. She didn't even appear until a few episodes into the first season, and her appearances up until the third were more in a guest star roll than reoccurring supporting cast. Her character should stay on the List of Minor Characters. Notthegoatseguy 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it as "Other characters" is the best course of action. The Todd, Jordan, Laverne and Ted aren't starring cast, but they certainly aren't "Minor" either. --Kevin W. 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin W. (talk • contribs)

I too agree that she should be viewed as a major character. She appears in almost every episode since half-way through season one and she deserves a spot with all the others. Pikalenko 20:37, 21 November (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.193.230 (talk)

Comment While there's certainly no harm done in asking, the reality is that a decision as to whether she - or any character - should be on the "main characters" list isn't our call. The only sources that can be used are the producers and the network, as it is a matter of which actors are considered to be regulars. If the network or production company doesn't consider the actors to have "main" status, then the characters they play aren't "major" or "main" either. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

As you know, there are a couple Easter Eggs on the DVDs. I haven't found the Season 5 one yet but one the Season 6 DVD Easter Egg, put in Disc 3 and go to "Bonus Features". Do you see there cherry right next to where it says "More"? Click on it and that will be the special feature. However, this Easter Egg only works if you play this DVD in a DVD Player on your computer. I've found that it doesn't really work any where you put it.

Sacret Heart Location not very ambigious

In season 4 episode 9. Turk gets a new cellphone number 916-CALL-TURK the K being optional. It is reasonable to deduce that Turk would not go to another area code to get his new number. I think this is a hint that Sacred heart is in Sacramento. I've written this up, but I am not so happy with the wording. Feel free to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. That is speculation, unverified OR, and as such i have reverted your addition. The producers themselves have said that there is no specific location for the hospital--Jac16888 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

actually my browser crashed before my revert was saved, and i had a lecture to go to, so i didn't remove it. However another user has done so--Jac16888 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To add onto this, it is not unusual to have a cell phone area code that isn't the area code you actually live in. Notthegoatseguy 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's easy to verify. There is a transcript of the episode here: http://scrubs.mopnt.com/scripts/409.php . I think it makes sense to mention the 916 area code, even if Turk might have only picked it because it was the only area code with CALL-TUR free. 85.183.133.34 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi gang. thanks for having me. Just wanted to say that there is no evidence that the location is Sacramento, however, it is not hard to believe that the location could be somewhere in California. JD and gang have made trips to Las Vegas when the gay guys from his porch tried to marry him, and when trying to go see Kim, his baby's mama, in....i think it was Seatle? Those trips and other trips that the gang has made, if chronology on the show is correct, took less than a day to make it from start to finish. So it could very well be SAcramento. Anybody to add something? Thanks!(75.65.59.141 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but no, all of the above is speculation. The producers themselves have made it very clear, in interviews/episode commentaries etc, that there is no specified location for sacred heart, hence "San DiFrangeles".--Jac16888 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not purely speculation. What the producers have stated and what actually occurs in the world of the show are two different things. It's analogous having a band declare themselves to one genre; just because they say it doesn't make it true. Cell phone oftentimes have an area code that does not fall directly in the landline area code you live in; however, it's going to be close. For example, you're not going to get a Philadelphia area code for your cell phone if you live in Washington, D.C.. Yes, it is conceivably possible for him to have gone to another location, but it is unlikely; especially for another state entirely. And then you have the Las Vegas evidence.

All of it stacking up may not point to Sacramento specifically, but it does point to California at the least. It's worth mentioning briefly, with a little disclaiming statement; something along the lines of "Although the producers have stated that there is no specific location, evidence over the course of the series points to somewhere in California." ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even with "San DiFrangeles," we could at least say that it's on the west coast (as JD swims in the Pacific in the triathlon in "My_Day_at_the_Races" (Season 5)). And a lot of the cars do have CA license plates.Jeffreynye (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs Wikiproject?

Does anyone think it's a good idea to start a Scrubs Wikiproject since i've noticed alot of the episode pages are quite bare and the character pages could be quite alot better, certainly since they have been flagged as not meeting notability guidelines. Jamie jca (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate - as I understand it, anyone can put up a noteabillity warning, doesn't mean it actually applies. I imagine that (at least at one point) it was possible to do so for Canada. I know, Scrubs isn't as important as Canada (Scrubs can't give us maple syrup). Lots42 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a Scrubs task force of WP:TV?--Opark 77 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Merge & Redirect

FIRST: Consensus is clear that real-world information is required, backed up by reliable, third party sources to assert notability. As a result of that consensus and the fact that no real-world information has been added to the individual character pages establishing notability, the character pages - ALL of them, without exception - should be merged and turned into redirects forthwith. For the continuation of further dissenting views, the best place to note it is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) where one will see there is an active discussion underway. Let me again reminds editors that consensus always refers to the practices, principles & policies of the site as a whole and NOT to the accumulation of opinion one one article's talk page, so further remonstration here is without purpose.

NEXT: almost all the episode articles do not meet our criteria for independent articles, and these should also be turned into redirects, with a brief plot summary merged into the episode list page. Please see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA for the relevant policies.

Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Awesome opinion. You might want to do this discussion over at List of Scrubs episodes. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not continue the discussion here, with the people most likely to simply remove the redirects and cite your posted comment directly stating you will ignore the consensus? Or perhaps [here], where the issue of what you and TNN are trying to do? Scumbag (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort, and Eusebeus post was about episode redirects. It should take place on the episodes talk page, not here. 134.68.177.192 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scrubscard.png

Image:Scrubscard.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 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 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Forthcoming Merge and Redirect

Per the earlier discussion, I am going to merge the principal characters of Scrubs to a new article entitled List of major characters of Scrubs. As a reminder, fictional topics need to conform to our policies and guidelines outlined at WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:WAF. I suggest that at the top of the list article, the following phrase be included:

More extensive information on individual characters, including full biographies, character development and trivia can be found here.

That way interested readers can be directed to the Scrubs wikia directly if they wish to satisfy their full craving for in-universe fictional details. I remind concerned editors that the principal focus of our articles on fiction needs to be the real-world significance of the topic. As they stand now, these provide extensive in-universe details suitable for a fan-page, but lack the necessary assertions of notability suitable for an encyclopedia. Longstanding consensus, repeatedly confirmed by the larger community of editors, has determined that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eusebeus (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if each individual character conformed to the policies and guidelines like you want them to (rules which are not set in stone), the article is going to be WAAAAY too long. A brief mention of each character would be silly, as the main ones are noteable and we really aren't supposed to rely on fandom wikis as the source of anything. In short, merging will cause more problems then it fixes. Lots42 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus says that Wikipedia is not a fan site but his actions seem to be fanatical. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this move. The major characters of a lot of TV shows have their own articles. As was mentioned earlier, any combination of these would either create an incredible large article or will force the deletion of a lot of content. I am firmly against this move.↔NMajdan•talk 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive

The recent archive of all conversations has been reverted. While the page is getting long, and a large portion of older meterial should be archived, there was no reason to remove the merge discussions - especially since a new one was promptly started. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Images on page

Why are there no cast pictures or any form of images on the page anymore, it looks dull and boring, there should really be at least 5 pictures on this page for a page of its size just to make it more interesting and illustrate the characters and the series in general. (86.159.141.185 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Because they didn't have proper fairuse rationales and therefore did constitute copyright infringement. As no-one was willing to update the old rationales, there was no other option than to delete the images. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really sad. What a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowabc (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polyphonic Spree

There is an episode where The Spree play "Light and Day" in a patient's room. This should be added to the musical contributions... no? Boydannie (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so since there are no objections I'm gonna go ahead and throw that on up there. Feel free to revert if necessary. Boydannie (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna change it so it says the episode name, My Choosiest Choice of All. Ladder4321 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

okie dokie! I had forgotten the name and was too lazy to look it up. Queerbubbles (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Region 2 DVDs and commentaries

Just a note, the region 2 dvd set does not come with audiocommentaries. I'm currently watching it, and I'm highly dissappointed that there's no commentaries. Dracoster (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put in a side note under that section in the article about the descriptors only being regarded for region 1, I dont see a problem with that. Anyone else? Queerbubbles (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I misstyped, season 1 and 2 does have audio commentaries, while season 3 does not, and season 4 only has two tracks of commentary. Which I believe shouldn't warrant advertising about it on the cover. Dracoster (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandals and Molly Clock

Recently the article has suffered quite a few IP edits changing Clock's name to Clark. Not sure what can be done except to continue to revert the edits. I'll ask for semi-protection if it continues. Enigma ^msg! 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it is vandalism, could just be mistaken, anyway have left a politer note on the latest IP's talk page, no offence, but remember to assume good faith. Anyway, its too minor for the article to be protected form the real problem lately is the IP(s) who keeps adding "homey i can see your doodle" to various scrubs articles, Perry Cox is already protected because of it.--Jac16888 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I already left a note about it on the page. Look at the message directly before yours. ;) I'm not assuming good faith anymore on that specific edit because of the sheer number of times it has happened. Enigma ^msg! 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note, but sometimes it helps matters to leave a friendly note rather than blunt, to point notes and generic warnings. Remember, there is every possibilty that the Ip is just mistaken, its happened a million times on wikipedia, some ignore or don't understand messages, but it always stops, if it a vandal they usually get bored soon enough--Jac16888 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I could've been more polite about it. I would've been had I not reverted that exact edit so many times before! By the way, I don't have Cox's article on my watchlist, but I'm going to add it because of what you mentioned. Enigma ^msg! 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You never warned that last doodle vandal. I'm going to warn it now. Enigma ^msg! 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i'm mostly focusing on reverting now, warning seems to do little, and they change ip to often for a block to be any use--Jac16888 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

i'll join your two man crew of defending aginst the weird doodle thing does anyone know where or how this started or even what the hell it means? 209.159.197.82 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a quote from some simpsons episode where Ned sees Homer naked--Jac16888 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

protection

I noticed Perry Cox had semi-protection that expired. Why don't we request longer semi-protection for the pages in question? I'll go ask for Perry Cox now. Enigma ^msg! 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I had my request declined. Terrific. So I should simply continually revert the vandalism that's become pervasive? Enigma ^msg! 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There was little chance of it being re-protected since the vandalism has slowed down considerably, and it wouldn't help much either since other scrubs pages have started to get the same treatment, to a lesser degree. The fact the changes are slowing down suggest the vandal is getting bored, continue to revert and sooner or later they'll stop. Don't let it get to you, remember, it takes more effort to vandalise than it does to revert vandalism, and by reverting, you're helping the community(bit cliched, sorry). Keep up the good work--Jac16888 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I spend a large portion of my day reverting vandalism! The frustrating thing here is that it's the same person with the same vandalism to the same pages, and we can't get the user blocked or protect the pages. Enigma ^msg! 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just take a deep breath and remember that you are infinitely better than the vandals. You will hopefully continue editing here long after they get bored and give up, for example there is a vandal who started off vandalisng about a year ago from lots of different IP's, regularly at first, but now they pop up occasionally to blank a page or attack me or something. Don't give them the satisfaction of getting frustrated, instead, just revert, warn and ignore, which will frustrate them immensely, most repeated vandals are attention seekers. If vandalism is getting to you this much, consider taking a wikibreak, or limiting the amount of time you spend on here--Jac16888 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm ok. I like helping the community by reverting vandalism. This specific case is just a little frustrating. Worse comes to worse, I'll take the affected pages off my watchlist and focus on the other 400 pages I watch. Thanks for the concern. :) Enigma ^msg! 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Callahan

"Bill Callahan was an executive producer (2007-2008). He started on the show in season 4 as co-executive producer and has since written six episodes. He was fired during the WGA strike." Shouldn't this statement have some kind of references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.144.212 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a source? Queerbubbles (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what the text says, and it should be sourced. Since i can't find one, i'm going to remove it--Jac16888 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

References

There an issue with [19]. I tried fixing it, but references are not my forté. Please assist. Enigma ^msg! 06:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, basically the last edit before your attempt to fix it was a probably a test edit, which removed part of the ref, just reverted that edit, problem solved.--Jac16888 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ABC Studios

I'm not sure if it would help, but I'm wondering if it would be worth having a comment in the article at some point or various points saying that ABC Studios is not a mistake, seeing how every so often somebody comes along and changes it to NBC...? --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Something along the lines of, "Despite being aired on NBC channels, Scrubs is produced (or whatever) by... " Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "Scrubs is produced by ABC, through its production division, even though it is aired by rival broadcaster NBC". Thats what the article already says--Jac16888 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I know the information is already in the article itself, but I'm talking about putting something like that that's commented out of the article, so it only shows up when editing, right near where the changes keep occurring (for example, the recent ones in "Season 7 and the Writer's strike" (or whatever the section heading is)). That way, when someone goes to make that change to that section, it's right there in front of them and hopefully read. Anyway, just a thought. --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, i've just done that. Remember though, there was nothing stopping you being bold and doing it yourself--Jac16888 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to ABC

John C. seems to think it is a done deal. Might not be an official source, but it is the best we have so far on the future of the series.↔NMajdan•talk 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse... but its not my call. I say yes, but wait a tad for others to input. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me--Jac16888 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

It says that there were 12 episodes filmed for the 7th season but there are only 11 being shown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitchin13 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a question? --Soetermans (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to ABC

As of May 13th 2008, Scrubs has officially moved to ABC is official.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23398822/
http://a.abc.com/media/fallpreview/images/primetime_schedule_small.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24594959/
Marshie71 (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dramedy

"Dramedy" is a term that is used almost exclusively within the Unites States and even then, its use appears fairly limited. It doesn't appear to be in any dictionary of note. Wikipedia articles should present a neutral world-view and made up words should be avoided. To anyone (including Americans) the meaning of comedy-drama is clear. On the other hand, dramedy is puzzling to most readers and requires following the link to find out what dramedy means. Comedy-drama is what we should be using here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Dramedy is hardly classable as a real word, and since it means exactly the same thing as comedy-drama, which doesn't sound so childish, and made-up, the answer is clear--Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that dramedy is a redirect to comedy-drama anyway... why shouldn't we just cut out the middleman (or -link)? --umrguy42 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly the point of my last edit.[8] --AussieLegend (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

916-CALL-TUR(K)

Should the 916 CALL TURK stuff be added to the article? If you actually do call the number you usually, it has been reported that someone will answer it sometimes, get the voicemail with a character saying something and the ability to leave a message if the box is not full. I can add it if it's decided that we should, I obviously do, or someone can get to it before me. Asatruar (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

I think that every character's article should be refered as J.D.'s or Turk's are. Elliot's, Carla's, Cox's, etc, should be moved to Elliot (Scrubs), Carla (Scrubs), Dr. Cox, etc. Just my opinion based on the previously refered articles (J.D. & Turk). --MakE || Talk 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, J.D. (Scrubs) should probably be John Dorian and Turk (Scrubs) should be Christopher Turk as they originally were since those are their names. "(Scrubs)" is only added to the name when there is more than one. For example, J.D. redirects to Juris Doctor so, in order to get the right article, "(Scrubs)" is added. Mind you, I can't really imagine somebody searching for "J.D. {Scrubs)" --AussieLegend (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that article names like "John Dorian" or "Christopher Turk" would be more accurate while referring to that particular character, but we should consider that "J.D." and "Turk" are nicknames used throughout the series and on some level are more identifiable than their full names (much like The Todd instead of Todd Quinlan. Perhaps also a reason we wouldn't move the article Janitor (Scrubs) even if his actual name is announced later in the series.

But the same can't be said about characters like Elliot and Carla and I doubt adding "Scrubs" as suffix (much like "film" or "novel" or "TV series) can be uniformly accepted. Like AussieLegend said, it's unlikely that anybody would search for "Elliot (Scrubs)" rather than "Elliot Reid". Article names like Dr. Cox and Dr. Kelso would be equally random and unspecific. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Scrubs comedic mediocrity is often the subject of ridicule in telivision series such as American Dad!, The Simpson's, and Family Guy. Should we include this? 68.219.27.35 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if we can find reliable sources for it - our observations aren't enough and would be interpreted as original research. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My Charlie brown Christmas

Sorry, but I took out the section about My Charlie Brown Christmas. It didn't look right for the article. And I don't know why it was even there. It belongs on the List of Scrubs episodes page. Why write a synopsis of just one episode on the main Scrubs page? --67.32.195.191 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should have been purged. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,Im new at this. Im sorry I revised the edit I did but I thought it kept coming back in the article because I did something wrong. I now know thats not the case. Ive done some reading on rules and it looks like I was causing a edit war. I was not trying to do that. I apologize. Like I said I changed it,read it and there it was again,so like I said,I thought I wasn't saving it correctly or something. No hard feelings I hope for what Ive done. --67.32.195.191 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay,I just made a account so It doesn't use the Ip address that keeps showing up since I'm in a public place with Wi-Fi and there is no telling how many people use that IP. I'm not even really sure how IPs work. Guess I will read that next. But I don't understand why people can even edit articles if they just get changed as soon as you edit something. So what is the point of editing something then? --Meezer4641 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the history of the edits of this article. So my edit was changed because of this- "Vandalism, don't delete parts unless giving an accurate reason." Well On this talk page (top paragraph) I wrote my reason of why I took it out. How is that not accurate reason?--Meezer4641 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what I was doing wrong. Someone was nice enough to tell me that I didn't give a reason in the edit summary. I thought you had to give the reason on the discussion page. Sorry about that. Hopefully I did it right this time.--Meezer4641 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually what you did was fairly in line with practice, bar maybe the non-use of the edit summary. You brought your change to the talk page after you made it. That's the first step. Content disputes are not vandalism. I warned you about deleting without specifying a reason, but then removed it when I saw that you brough it here. Bravo. Anybody who warned you about vandalism was in error. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Slated

Yes, it is a term, and yes, the show is slated to return. Thats how its said. See [9]. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where exacly is Sacred Heart?

I haven't seen this anywhere in the article, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the discussion at this point, but has the location of Sacred Heart ever been disclosed? I've always assumed that it was somewhere in California, and there's a few suggestions about this in various episodes, but I've not seen anything definite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.115 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See Sacred Heart Hospital. There is also a quick blurb on the hospital at the end of this article, the main Scrubs one. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ATENTION!!!

Zach Braff is leaving the show, as confirmed by Bill Lawrence. Please someone find a source for that, i have one but it's in spanish.... PD: I'm crying out loud :'( --MakE ^shout! 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction, here's the source... :S Zach Braff leaves Scrubs --MakE ^shout! 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Braff's departure at the end eighth season was predicted when the show moved to ABC and there were indications that it might go beyond eighth season. This is just an official confirmation. LeaveSleaves (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing of the sort. The article says that Braff may leave the show, and it may go on after that. People say a lot of things that turn out to be false when it comes to leaving shows--Jac16888 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's far more than a speculation, see [10], [11]. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

recomission? Is/was?

There's no details on how it almost ended (last season was supposed to be a short 7), and how it came back from that.

I think the first paragraph reflects this confusion, with is and was used in the same sentance a few times. 86.139.103.176 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Is Messed Up

Alot of the article for the show seems really messed up. The first part has info from the List of Minor Characters or something like that, the Summary of the show seems gone. I dont know, its way more screwed up then two weeks ago when I look. It just really needs fixed. Thanks. Zombified22 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comedy Central and TV Land

Should this article include other channels that the show is currently airing on? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen an answer to this kind of question elsewhere, but I wouldn't know where right now. So, to sum up: personal opinion would be that unless it's significantly notable that it's being shown on that network (for example, NBC/ABC during the initial run), probably not - otherwise the article runs the risk of gaining that dreaded "indiscriminate collection" of networks around the world that it's currently on. If people do think there's some reason to list some of the networks, I would recommend a compromise with such wording as "Scrubs has been shown in syndication on such networks as Comedy Central, WGN, <MAJOR national/international networks>". But that would be my second choice, first choice is not to worry about trying to list them all. umrguy42 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationales for non-free images

Editors should make themselves aware that every non-free image needs a separate fair use rationale for each article in which it is used. Simply claiming thst "that one is fine. It has been for some time" does not magically make the image compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. --Baba's camel (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should realize that you are being a major dick about this, instead of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. See WP:AGF. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)fair enough. i can't get my head round all this non-free image stuff never have, i simply restored the image because it's been there a while and figured it was ok.--Jac16888 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporting cast.

I took a look at the peer review of this article, and one of the main arguments against a WP:GA was the supporting cast section. I read that it should be done in prose tone, not the long list it's now. I go and make the list, and it keeps getting reverted. I ask, isn't much better to help and improve that section than to simply rv it?. It isn't that hard, the references are in each character's page, i'll do it myself but i don't have time, this is a shared pc and other people want to use it. So please, lets take our beloved (at list mine) Scrubs article a step forward and not backwards, i really think this show deserves at least a Good Article. Thanks in advance. --MakE ^shout! 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, your efforts are certainly appreciated. However, in assessing the text, I was of the conclusion that it would need an extensive rewrite to meet GA standards, and as such it was better to restore the older version. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)