Talk:List of Scrubs episodes

My Accident(?)

Have just removed the section referencing S6E16 "My Accident" - I can't find reference to this anywhere on the internet, and there is already an episode (My Words of Wisdom) referenced to 616. Having Ang Lee directing also seems far fetched. I could be wrong, but the text removed follows for discussion:

JD accidentally gives Isabella an overdose of paracetamol causing her to enter a coma. A dramatic end to the sixth series where JD contemplates suicide. (Director Ang Lee)

Oh, and the author has one other questionable edit, changing the whole Osama Bin Laden page to "? I cant edit this page?" (Forgot to sign in) JebJoya 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Scrubs episodes revamp

I just completed a total revamp of the article. It borrows from similar listings. It needs a huge number of screenshots now, buts its really late here so I wont be completing them tonight. It also needs production codes for season 5.

Please, where possible, make edits to complete.

CraigF 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, great job. I'll make edits where I can, but I'm (sadly) behind on my Scrubs watching. EVula 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your summaries are pretty short. I'd be glad to write up long ones if you need the help.

Flea Man 10:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually haven't written any new summaries, those there are from the earlier article revisions. CraigF 10:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

so that means they're uneditable or what? --Flea Man 10:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's wikipedia, anything is editable! :) CraigF 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to help. Could you explain how to upload screenshots? Sarahjane10784 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You use the 'Upload file' link in the toolbox to the right, then edit the page to include the same markup as the ones i placed in, obviously changing the filename to that which you called the file (I chose the name of the episode). Also, to ensure that pictures are attributed to the appropriate copyright I chose screenshot from tv show and made my screenshots half resolution, and finally, put them into [[Category:Screenshots of Scrubs]]. CraigF 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we set up a Project: Scrubs? We could create articles for the episodes that don't have them yet. I'd even bother to register on here (so far I've just edited without an account). 86.139.151.239 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some screenshots, but is it okay that they have the NBC logo in the bottom right corner? Sarahjane10784 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a normal thing for a TV screenshot... and the logo is almost invisble on most of the uploaded ones. -- Imladros 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please do a re-check and edit of the tag numbers? season 3 does from 312 to 316, then back to 315, 314 then 317 or something random like that.--58.162.103.251 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

In some of the article pages, plot descriptions are directly taken from TV.com. For example, the page My Fifteen Seconds (Scrubs episode) appears to come from here. On the Terms of Use page on TV.com, they expressly state that all materials are copyrighted and may not be used on other sites with permission [1]. Am I missing something? --MZMcBride 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Blame Thricecube, he seems to be the one behind it, and all of his other episode page creations seem to follow the same pattern. I'm judging that by the fact he always leaves a link to the tv.com recap, he didn't know of any infringement going on. -- Viewdrix 00:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this was brought up back in May? I just found out that these articles were copyvio two days ago... see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_chain_of_at_most_114_copyvio_articles for the discussion. I am leaving a note here to announce that I am removing the plot summaries from the pages that are copyright violations. Hopefully summaries can be eventually rewritten in a unique way. Cowman109^Talk 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the copyvio from the first season that I could find, the only two that I couldn't find to be copyvio were My_First_Day_(Scrubs_episode) and My_Last_Day_(Scrubs_episode). Could someone please confirm that these are not copyvio in any way? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have hopefully cleared all the copyright violations I could find from tv.com and scrubs-tv.com. So, there should be nothing to worry about not - just the first three seasons could use episode summaries if anyone's up to the task, hehe. Cowman109^Talk 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Season 6

Apparently season 6 is out before 2007...or am i wrong? --Lewis the Ger 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

my transition

i realise spoilers are indicated but i think that the revealing of the episodes revelations (ie Kim and Jordan being pregnant) is abit much. Perhaps the episode should have its own page and the synopsis should be linked from there. I myself use the episode list as a guide to find specific episodes, but what if i hadn't have seen that episode first?

thanks for spoiling it to me now. how ironic, or should I say stupid? signed MJ

Season 6 episodes

I have added another episode to the Season 6 section, confirmed by multiple sources as a musical episode in which a patient with aneurism sees the characters singing as a musical. This episode has been confirmed as the 6th in the season.

According to a video explaining the musical episode of the 6th season, "My Musical" is the 6th episode of the 6th season. (video here: http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/?p=2311 - if you look at the script it says 606 above the title). obbie1kenoby

Also, there may be a mistake with the details of My Mirror Image. In Season 5, Carla got pregnant 8 episodes before Jordan did. This has lead some people to the conclusion that there may be a typo error with the pregnancy lengths given, as the timings on the pregnancies would be illogical. Jordan is listed '14-weeks' the hyphen being used incorrectly, compared to Carla at 9 1/2 weeks. The writer from the source for this (Spoilerfix.com) may have meant 1-4 weeks. EJB341

^Agreed - I believe that Jordan is supposed to be having twins, which is why she is so much bigger so much earlier in her pregnancy. --86.134.239.159 00:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 Production Order

There is a detail that has been overlooked about the production codes and episode numbers in season 3. Origionally, My Dirty Secret (9th in airing order) was intended to the third episode. When aired on TV, it is sometimes edited to deal with continuity isses arising from that, but not all versions have that edit. Maybe the production codes should be changed, to make My Dirty Secret listed as 303. Bear in mind that this has been done with My Bright Idea and My Chopped Liver in season 5. EJB341

airdate for S06E04

acording to TV squad there will be a episode before Jan 4. "There is actually another new episode next week. So, see you then." citatations could be used with effect on this page --Ehouk1 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

According to NBC My Lunch is on 12/21 and I don't know about 12/28. I think we should just leave it alone until we have something concrete. Or get rid of the date completely and say "TBD".--NMajdan•talk 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• According to Yahoo! it is also on Thursday.[2] I think it is safe to change it seeing as there is no citation for the original --Ehouk1 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I did not relise that 'My Lunch' was an old episode. I think it is fairly safe to leave it seeing as i can see no other place that says there is a new show next week.--Ehouk1 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Further copyvio

Summaries for the upcoming Series 6 episodes have been lifted directly from SpoilerFix.com [3]. I'll attempt to change this now.Heycos 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming episode summaries should be on the episode pages themselves, not the main page.

According to what guideline, or what similar articles? I'm reverting your edit. -- Viewdrix 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

see articles for House, and pretty much every other TV Show - it's spoiler control - if people want to find the summaries they can go to that specific episodes page. the spoiler warnings aren't exactly prominint you know. Blythy 03:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler warnings appear at the top of the page and thus should be assumed to cover the entire page unless a spiler ending is seen; it is not the fault of the article and worth arguably handicapping it if a reader fails to understand this layout. Furthermore, out of the Featured lists that include television episodes, the only List in which future episode plots have been disclosed, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, include those future plots. No Featured lists include the "Summaries to be written after episode airs" tags, nor do many articles other than House that I can find. In fact, looking at articles in Category:Lists of upcoming television episodes, only List of Gilmore Girls episodes includes the same tag in future episodes. -- Viewdrix 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Somone is still lifting upcoming episode snippets directly from Spoilerfix.com [4]... Heycos 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode screenshots

On January 3, User:Mark83 removed all screenshots from this page, saying "Wikipedia policy is that copyrighted screenshots should only be used for commentary. These weren't commentary, just aesthetic. Will list for deletion shortly" (this edit: [5]). I have restored the screenshots, but not before looking into the issue a bit. This is a debate that's going on right now, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists (and a couple other places). Now, if the consensus reached is that lists do not constitute fair use, then we should get rid of the images as fast as we can. But, until then, I think the screenshots should stay, mostly because it is quite common for lists of television episodes to include these images. Among these lists are List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Planetes episodes, List of The Sopranos episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes - all of which have been identified by the wikipedia community as Featured Lists. In fact, six of the 8 WikiProject List of Television Episodes Featured lists include screenshots for each episode. So, it is by no means a violation of common practice to include this information. Plus, I think it does provide useful information, and it's information we do have availible, so why not use it? (PS: To join the discussion on Wikipedia policy about this issue, go to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists). --Gpollock 08:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fair use tag that each of these images is licensed under says "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents [is permitted]". Now there may be a debate going on which may lead to a change in policy, however as it stands the screenshots are neither of a limited number or used for critical commentary. They are used for purely aesthetic purposes (i.e. to make the list look more interesting). The fact that it is common practice is not a sound basis for argument - a lot of editors leave abrasive edit summaries, that doesn't make it OK for me to do so. However I'm happy to leave the images pending debate. Thanks for your comments and drawing my attention to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Mark83 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add any of the images back they must contain a Fair Use rationale. This must detail how the image adds significantly to the article (not just it identifies the episode, lots of things, including the title, identify the episode). Remember, Fair Use is for critical commentary, and should be used as sparingly as possible. I imagine for a lot of these images it won't be possible to justify them. ed g2s • talk 17:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, your definition of "significantly" and "critical commentary" were insufficiently popular to garner enough support for their use and yield a consensus that fair use images don't belong in episode lists. That said, you really shouldn't speak as though consensus were formed and that your definitions and beliefs are law, let alone wikipedia policy or guideline.

Then again, if I've missed a 4000th thread on the subject and things have changed then I owe you an apology and I humbly request for a link where such consensus was formed and ask why you haven't striped every article of its images. Cburnett 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to fight this, you can. For starters, every screenshot will need fair use rationale. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of RahXephon media. It is up for Featured List and has screenshots.--NMajdan•talk 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly the start. In hindsight I'm suprised people had the nerve to object when they hadn't bothered to add a detailed fair use rationale to the images. Mark83 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK could we hurry up and decide whether the pictures should go or not (hopefully not) because theres an episode i could find easily before but now i cant. Which should show that they are very useful for people who cant remember the names of episodes like myself. Don.-.J 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others who have objected, however I for one would lift my objection if a solid fair use rationale is added to each image. However your comment about "an episode i could find easily before but now i cant"??. If you're going to use that as a basis for fair use I may have to object! What is the episode? Give me a rough description and I'll give you the title. Mark83 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At the Beggining JD, in his words, does it "wheel barrol style" with a widow.Don.-.J 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be "My Interpretation" :) Hope this helps. Mark83 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How does that image help you identify the episode with your description?↔NMajdan•talk 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen the show once through early/mid season 3 but that must be the same episode where JD tries to communicate with the german who can't speak english (right dude in the screenshot) by imagining them dancing to 99 Luftballons. The widow was called the TCW: tasty coma wife. I've only seen that episode once so I can't connect sub plotlines. I'm sure the anti-fair use people here will scream by me saying this but a second image on My Interpretation of the widow would connect them for me just fine. Cburnett 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this the only article that the administrator in question has seen fit to make a stand on? Every other "List of...Episodes" article I have seen continues to have screenshots attached. What has this article done differently that has meant that screenshots should be stripped? CraigF 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He tried on List of Heroes episodes (check the history) but no one agreed with his interpretation of policy. In fact, his buddy-in-arms deleted all of the screenshots recently based on the informal declaration by the wikimedia board. (Against policy mind you.) You will also note that List of Lost episodes still doesn't have screenshots. Keeping screenshots on LOE articles is basically a war of attrition. Cburnett 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I thought "the administrator in question" might be me, but then Cburnett said "He tried on List of Heroes episodes" which rules me out. In any case admin status doesn't give anyone special privilege in disputes/discussions. Perhaps less effort should go into this discussion and more into providing fair use rationales. These are a fundamental requirement for all fair use images and the screenshots in question to not have any fair use rationales. Thanks. Mark83 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was on a tangent, but I figured he was referring to Ed since the comment's indention indicates reply to Ed's post. Anyway, I agree that images need to have rationales. Cburnett 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I hope everyone realizes that the next 5 weeks or so of descriptions are up on the list of episodes, shouldn't we put some sort of spoiler warning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.167.18 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There is, at the top of the page. Spoiler warnings do not end with each section, it ends when you see an "end of spoilers" template. -- Viewdrix 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay i didn't see it when i first viewed the upcoming episodes and it ruined it for me ;( oh well thanks to whoever put it up there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.54.173 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

dates

tv.com and these dates to not match up, anyone else agree?

Vandalism

Someone deleted the 6th season and replaced it with jibberish.

Someone please fix this.

Someone fixed it. It's ok now.

Fix?

Someone's buggered the dividers between "My Cold Shower" and "My Conventional Wisdom". Can someone fix this? 82.45.55.120 16:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! 82.45.55.120 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of cast members' names

I noticed that S6 E19 had the name of the cast member after each of their character's name, and commented (several times) on the fact that Elizabeth Banks guest stars. Completely unneccesary, as any guest stars should probably be listed in the episode's individual page and Elizabeth Banks plays Kim, which is more of a permanent role than something that warrants special mention, let alon "guest star"

Methinks someone's just cut'n'pasted the episode summary from a tv guide or spoiler site, which often includes guest stars names. They've just been lazy and neglected to remove these names, in order to keep the ep summaries consistent. --Ninevah 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

what?--Jac16888 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Writer(s) column not consistent

Can someone with wiki formatting proficiency edit the Writer(s) column? They are inconsistent. Seasons 1-4 have the column occupy the height of the entire episode entry. Seasons 5-6 have the column occupy only the top of each episode entry, like the other columns (Title, Original airdate, Production code, and Director). I would recommend that the Writer(s) column have the seasons 5-6 format, unless someone can explain otherwise. Thank you! Vchao 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i just figured out how to do it, and changed them all to s5-6 format as suggested--Jac16888 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The writers/director columns should be remove. It's excessive and over-duplicative to episode pages. Not to mention it double lines on more then one name... Matthew 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

no they shouldn't, they're part of the episode details --Jac16888 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 7

This section has been deleted under the "not a Crystal ball" rule. We have had confirmation from multiple sources that there will be a S7 on NBC, that it will have 18 episodes and that it will start on September 27th 2007, so I think we can have a S7 section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.42.247 (talk • contribs)

Okay, if the information exists, include it, but there is certainly no benefit to it being a big table which contains no information - a sentence stating the number of episodes (with a source) will suffice. QmunkE 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree with QmunkE, we have no information on it other than it being 18 episodes long. having a grid for it is pointless--Jac16888 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 6 FINALE?

Many people have been saying that JD and Kim's baby dies and JD stops Elliot from performing fellatio on him. (Unconfirmed, but what are your opinions on this?) I mean, is this plausible or is it just internet trolling? 71.134.234.209 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

the season six finale has already aired. and this didn't happen. and even if it hadn't aired, that plot is utter garbage, i can assure you, thats just trolling--Jac16888 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Single episodes

I plan on redirecting these per WP:EPISODE soon. Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. I suggest Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. TTN 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah...you need to discuss before you do that move as it is not the consensus. Also, you are just posting that generic message all over every board, and not even looking at the articles....as otherwise you'd be able to tell that most if not all scrubs episodes include more than just trivia and plot, as there are production details, music info, info that went into behind the scenes detail and more in most articles most that has come from outside sources... 68.72.141.190

The information is not enough to actually qualify. Unsourced notes and trivia are the same thing. TTN 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thats your opinion without you even researching anything to see if outside sources are used. Most notes have sources if you checked. you need to have a large discussion before doing something like this for consensus

i agree with the ip's, you can't just decide to do it without gaining consensus, thats not how it works. plus most of the episodes have episode overviews, making them relevant. rather than simply re-directing people to another website, why don't you improve the articles, which is what wikipedia is for, a comprehensive collection of information--Jac16888 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the point of this. This is the discussion to reach a consensus. Though, note that consensus isn't built by numbers, but by discussion. The overviews are the plot summaries, which aren't good enough. There needs to be information similar to Cape Feare. TTN 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you think the article Cape Feare poped up out of nowhere? It didn't. It started as a much shorter, incomplete article and was expanded with time by several users. That is how Wikipedia works, redirecting to other websites isn't. And by the way, if you want a discussion, "I plan on doing this and that..." is not a good way to start it! -- Imladros 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually had people to work on it and sources to back it. If an episode article comes back and shows promise to gain sources, I'm fine with it. These will just keep staying plot summaries for the rest of their existence. Nobody will bother, but on the offchance somebody will, they can just bring it back and start from there. TTN 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you be the one who improves these articles, thats the idea behind wikpedia isn't it. and also, you will notice, that the episode articles are being improved, i have already expanded most of the season 1 episodes, the ones that needed doing, and intend to work on other seasons as well. it seems to me that you intend to do this without listening to anyone elses views on the subject. also judging from your talk page, and other tv episode lists, it seems that the majority of people are against your re-directs, with valid reasons why. perhaps you should listen to them.--Jac16888 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to work on. As shown by you just moving trivia (see WP:TRIV), and doing nothing else, nothing is going to happen. You need real sources to bother. When people have views that are more than "I like it", "They're important/My articles!", or "They can be improved" (with no basis other than severe optimism), I'll listen to them. TTN 12:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about, "just moving trivia", i have added extensive episode syopsises for several episodes. and a lot more views than just I like it", "They're important/My articles!", or "They can be improved" have been given. you put this comment apparently to gain consensus, and you have not got it. if you actually read WP:EPISODE, it doesn't say to redirect all episodes, and it does says that a BRIEF summary will suffice. so why not give brief summarys for the episodes instead.--Jac16888 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any examples of that. Even then, the quality of the plot summaries don't matter if they have nothing to surround them. You need out of universe information (a brief summary is only one part, not the whole thing). Do you have any sources yet? TTN 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a big debate here about the whole concept of episode pages. This is going on with a number of other TV programmes. Have a look at Wikiproject television discussion and Village pump. There are some constructive suggestions by a number of people (with sandbox examples) amidst the emotive mud-slinging. Perhaps we can all contribute and reach a suitable consensus/policy.Gwinva 14:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EPISODE, "It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself: Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? "

if you were to redirect all the stub episode articles, you would reduce the quality of the scrubs section of articles, as it would lose things such as who directed it, wrote it, guest starred in it, etc--Jac16888 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Those don't matter that much. They exist if the article exists; they don't if it doesn't exist. That is in now way enough to qualify for an article. TTN 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it seems to me that you intend to do this regardless of the many users who are against you doing it, both on this set of eps, and several others, and without any solid policy backing, in some ways actually going against wikipedia policy (i.e. consensus editing). isn't that known as vandalism?--Jac16888 17:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am fine if people provide sources. I intend to do this if all people can do is dance around it saying "give it time" or "it can be improved" without backing it. Single episodes are unencyclopedic unless they have real world info. Letting them sit around only leads to more. I want to get them do to a decent amount so they can be better regulated. We are an encyclopedia, not tv.com. People are going to get grumpy, but they have no real backing. WP:EPISODE is good enough. TTN 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

are you even reading my responses, because you just keep repeating the same garbage about sources, time, and WP:EPISODE, even though WP:EPISODE supports my argument much more than it does your's, it quite clearly states that stubs are preferred over no-article at all. --Jac16888 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Stubs are allowed if they can be improved. It doesn't mean we keep anything that comes on here. Plus, it states right in the opening that these should have sources ready before they are created. TTN 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you need to back off and rethink your approach to this matter. Your attitude is extremely confrontational, and is only going to create massive divisions within the Wiki community. You have no right to single-handedly march in and destroy work like this. Please reconsider your actions before this goes too far. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The above can be considered as my formal objection to TTN's planned unilateral action for the Scrubs articles. I would expect that TTN will show respect for established Wikipedia customs and honour the wishes of the editors here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't formed by numbers. Simply objecting isn't going to make me go away. Sources need to be provided. I will continue to do what I believe is correct. There is simply no reason to just sit back because some people are upset. If we did that, we should just leave all unverifiable and non-notable stubs. TTN 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just continue doing what you think is right. In that case, we will simply do the same. -- Imladros 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Producers and writers

is it really necessary to have the same list of writers and producers on every single episode page, especially since the writers and director are in the epinfo box. it seems very pointless, not to mention repetitive--Jac16888 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think they should be listed here. They only cause spacing issues and clutter the page. Matthew 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

S6 Production Codes

The production codes in the Season 6 part of the page are wrong. They don't match the production codes on the actual pages, but they do match the episode order. (Not the same thing, given TV companies love of shuffling shows around to kill continuity.) Can someone fix this? 80.176.4.125 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode Chronology Revamp

I really think we should revamp the Scrubs Episode chronology so that every episode of a season is shown, instead of the previous episode and the next episode. It can be frustrating when wanting to go to another episode of that season, you have to go to List of Scrubs episodes and select that episode. An example of episode listing is the on the Treehouse of Horror VII page. Minker 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

i have to disagree on that, i feel that it just clutters up the episode articles. all that is really necessary is a link to the season--Jac16888 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I disagree with you on that, even though it would clutter up the episode articles, it would allow faster browsing threw current season (whatever season you are viewing) episodes. Minker 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

not necessarily, it would only allow faster browsing if you knew the name of the episode you want to go to next. how about, although i don't know how its done, using those dropdown boxes, where the info is only displayed if the viewer wants to see.--Jac16888 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

if you see my talk page, User Talk:Jac16888#Testing, i have come up with, using other boxes as starting points, a couple of examples, although they are both buggy, due to my inexperience in this sort of thing--Jac16888 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 7 date is wrong

the first ep of s07 starts september 25th i think, or at least another day in september —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.54.232 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid not, check out this link [6](down at the bottom), it starts on the 25th October.--Jac16888 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Final season could be cut short

Due to the Writers' strike. Here is a source: http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Strike-Causes-Trouble-For-Scrubs-Farewell-7103.html ↔NMajdan•talk 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 7 info

Couple of things - the episodes beyond no. 5 have beeen deleted, for no apparent reason. These episodes, which have not aired, but have an episode summary, should be included, as they have sources. Any thoughts? - MGD11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGD11 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

They weren't deleted, but taken off of the List. However, regardless of one's feelings on an individual episode's notability, it certainly is NOT notable if it hasn't even been aired. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but spoilerfix and tv.com aren't reliable sources. Try NBC or TV Guide. Will ^(talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or futoncritic, for that matter. (one of the deleted listings was sourced from that site, which is considered to be reliable.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rewritten Season Summaries

You have reverted by edits on this article without sufficient explanation. I have rewritten the season summaries for seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. As they were, the season summaries were messes. I fixed them up so now they are correct, grammar- and spelling-wise, not to mention a lot less repetitive and a lot more informative. I fail to understand why you have reverted these edits. Please post your explanation here; I prefer to discuss this so this doesn't degenerate into an edit war. 71.255.94.129 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They're just too excessive, try to trim them down abit, and remove the bits which spoil season endings--Jac16888 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Okay, I did remove the spoilers from the summaries. I'll work on making them less wordy later; feel free to edit them down in the meantime, just don't revert back to the way it was before I started editing (those versions, as I said above, were a mess). Thanks for the advice! 71.255.94.129 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now I have tried to siphon off most of the excess information from the season summaries in question to the point where the rewritten version still sounds better and summarizes everything better, but is not excessively long or trivial. They are now down to a pretty nice size, in my opinion. If anyone else wants to edit them down a bit more, feel free to do so, but I don't think I personally would change anything else about them. (And of course, you could always just post it here.) And once again, the seasons in question are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I realize that these efforts have probably fallen by the wayside of your interest because of this new issue of whether or not most of the episodes have any real-world relevance, but thank you for the advice. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode Article Redirects

Ok, let's get this rolling, since the upcoming arbcom case on episodes & characters is focusing on actions, not the viability of the policy. I have reviewed the Scrubs episodes and they feature: no real-world context establishing notability, the usual discouraged goulash of plot sumnmaries (see WP:NOT#PLOT and trivia, of course, which we love here per WP:TRIVIA, mais oui c'est si bon! Etc.. Etc... See WP:EPISODES and WP:FICT and WP:N, for further details and the place for comments about how unfair all this is. Are there specific episodes (episode specific award-winning, or significant ratings achievement, etc...) which warrant individual articles per our policies and I have missed? Please so indicate and we'll redirect the rest. Btw, for editors who feel strongly about this kind of stuff, I draw particular attention to: (1) WP:CON - consensus is global not local, so to establish consensus for keeping scrubs episodes, please comment about changing our notability and fiction guidelines, don't post comments here about how the episodes are notable. And (2) at WP:FICT, there's a discussion on how to transwiki information that is discouraged at Wikipedia. The Scrubs Wikia is probably the best repository for the trivia, in-universe continuity stuff and other fan-driven details. Eusebeus (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the ones in the navbox as sufficiently notable (award winning, etc). Redirect the less for lack of real world context. Will ^(talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There may be a few more out there with that match up to them, so I'll give them a look over sometime soon. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just off the top of my head, but My Five Stages is based around the Five Stages of Grief. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is your point? Do you think that that makes it worthy of having its own article? Also, it is the conclusion of a two-parter, so "My Cabbage" would also require its own article...etc. etc. etc. This is going to be a big project, and deciding what is notable enough to merit its own article is extremely subjective. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. "My Lunch" is part one of three episodes yet the other two don't have any real world information in it, like My Cabbage. The episode I mentioned has an entire story dedicated to a real world theory. It should stay.Notthegoatseguy (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And "My Screw Up" is followed by "My Tormented Mentor", but that doesn't make MTM notable. Will ^(talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• The exercise in determining what merits an individual article is not really that complex. As I note above, awards, unusual ratings or achievements that accrue to a specific episode are certainly grounds for establishing notability. Writing gimmicks may count if they have had enough demonstrable real-world impact; otherwise they should redirect as well. An advantage of redirection is that if any article is later deemed to be notable, it can always be restored. It looks like we have fair agreement on this so I suggest we proceed. Also, please consider weighing in on the upcoming character redirects if you haven't already. The same notability criteria apply. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My Lunch and My Musical seem to be fine, but none of the other "notable" episodes seem to establish notability. I'm fine for leaving My First Day because pilots are usually well off, but the others need much more to need to stay. Two or three have awards, but they can easily be footnotes or just be placed in the main article. TTN (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true - they are fine. There's actually another one that has a major award - "My Life in Four Cameras". --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If they do not establish notability with a variety of sources, then they are not fine. Awards by themselves are not enough. TTN 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If we could source it to the awards site, that'd be a reliable source for popular reception. Will ^(talk) 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is while they obviously can be used as notability establishing sources, being the only source is not going to work out. If all we have available is the award, it is better placed as a footnote on the episode list or in a section in the main article. TTN 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I actually said something to the effect of "one Nielsen rating an episode article does not make" on the episode and character AC (although of course a Hugo or an Emmy is more important than a Nielsen rating from a Wiki point of view). Still, I think that, for the mean time, the ones in the navbox should be given a stay of execution longer than the normal episodes as they are notable, and we can discuss the notability in depth a bit more. Will ^(talk) 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I won't make a fuss. So are we about ready to go at this point? TTN 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I say give other people about twelve to twenty-four hours to throw in their opinions, and then go ahead. Will ^(talk) 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore TTN, and I for one, will be reverting his vandalism. I do believe the articles need to be improved, however, there is not the urgency that TTN is self imposing. It's interesting how they've rehashed Episode into what they want, then they're trying to force a suggestion down our throats as law. Just revert him. --Maniwar (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note Many editors have pointed out that WP:EPISODES is a suggestion and not a rule. Moderators have also commented on it.

So are the summaries being expanded or left as they are? Because some of these summaries are only one sentence long. BioYu-Gi! 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured music

Should we include the featured music in the LOE with the episode merges? For some episodes, such as "My Choosiest Choice of All" or "My Way Home", it's actually rather important to the episode. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think so. I have brought that info into the LOE for at least one episode. Eusebeus 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

• • I checked the scrubs wikia (http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) to see if a transwiki would be in order and they have already ported or amplified on the individual episode & character information here. I suggest, then, that since the information already exists in tremendous detail over there, we not worry to much about which tidbits to port over to the LOE. The same pertains to the character pages. Eusebeus 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What if insted of having each episod its own page, make pages for each eason with summeries and trivia. and keep notible episode pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.72.187 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does each episode have an article?

Why does each episode of Scrubs have an article? The summaries are enough. If each episode of Scrubs has an article than each Pokemon and each character from Spongebob Squarepants should have their own articles. 65.101.237.106 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not enough people who are able to contribute to wikipedia apropriatly are interested in those shows i guess. Although a lot of grown-ups also watch spongebob, which made me wonder why there are no pages for each character there yet. I like reading some episode pages to understand certain references or appearences or whatnot. Other people do as well. So just leave it and turn to those things that brighten your day 217.82.11.175 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is currently in the process of being merged. 68.77.91.91 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldent all scrubs episods have an artical?I think if one wants ti look through these pages to find a favorite episode or mabe a favorite character in an episond the should be as they were december122007 creampuff3333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.72.187 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also object to the summarisation of episode pages on any show, or at least those with two seasons or more. This turns the helpful resources into petty shadows of what they used to be, and the summaries are completely useless. Can we please stop this madness once and for all? --Riche (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Try here - http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact you had to give me that link (and that there were no obvious links on Wikipedia itself) proves that the Wikia system doesn't work, added to which is the fact that the Wikias are unlikely to be as updated or have such a large userbase (or quality of articles), that Wikias (in general) lack any support by Firefox search bars or similar useful apps, that the page formats are awful, and collapse completely when the page is beyond about three printer pages in length (in both Firefox and IE, the former of which is practically unusable), and the unlikelyhood of them appearing in a decent position in search engine rankings. I find it amusing that pages such as episode pages are considered poor quality when they are far more readable than many other pages, in particular those on scientific subjects that seem to assume that (apart from the summary, in most cases, which is normally easier to read but more limited than the article) the reader has a full knowledge of every subject mentioned, which simply defies belief in terms of research. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, but deletionism seems to be taking away its primary benefit over other encyclopedias, that being that you can type in a topic you are looking for and in 99.9% of cases there will be an article for it that at least acts as a reasonably up-to-date NPOV (which is particularly useful on subjects otherwise plagued with bias if they were to be searched for on Google) starting point for further learning. Due to the amount of effort required (and the impossibility for those who aren't admin) to return a page from deletion, and the ease with which pages are deleted without consideration, Wikipedia is losing that usefulness. --Riche (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well listen, I think you are making a number of very good points and I think you make them well, even if I persist in disagreement with you. I would strongly urge you then to weigh in on the centralised debate. Remember, consensus is defined globally not locally so the best place to note this is at the WP:FICT talk page where there is an ongoing discussion. Consensus changes, but it does not change here at the Scrubs page, while remaining intact elsewhere. I would recommend you (1) read through (or at least glance through) the archived debates at the Fict talk page before weighing in since many topics have already been extensively discussed. And (2) I suggest you avoid slurs like deletionism. I know what you mean, and I suspect that you are not trying to be insulting, but when you have a good point, which you do about wikia, it is best not to distract from it through infelicitous phraseology. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)