Talk:Scrubs (TV series)

Picture Problem

I'm not sure if anyone realized, but a lot of pictures on the epidsode articles are messed up! I will do all I can to get them back but i can't do it all on my own! I'm no superman.

i almost laughed. --LastmanSAC 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cameo

Not sure if I've done it right, but I've added the fact that Colin Hay appeared in 2-1 while playing Overkill. I love that song... Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

its not necessary to include that here, as he is already listed in the minor characters page, and on the my overkill page--Jac16888 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast

I disagree with specifying only the most recent status of the characters in the Cast list. Certainly J.D., Todd, & Turk were not attendings when the show started. Ventifax 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But that could confuse people who have only seen the recent series. Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 7

Is it true that Scrubs will end after the seventh season? I don't believe this claim is true. (MNB)

they were the claims made by zach braff initially, but he recently stated that he would continue if "all the pieces fell into the right place"...that is, if he was given his pay-rise ;) Kiran90 06:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

what did i tell you. $350,000 per episode for Zach Braff in season 7..... thats insane. I've referenced the comment. Kiran90 08:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

well "insane"? I dont know... didnt everybody in Friends get like $1,000,000 per episode the last season(s)? --chandler 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Its unclear weather TVland will be airing new episodes (Season 7) or reruns as it states in the rest of the USA networks row of the worldwide airing table. I couldn't find any extra info in the cited source (13) 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd hospital

should information regarding the hospital elliot worked in during her endocrinology fellowship be included? Kiran90 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No not really unless it was filmed inside Sacred Heart (like J.D Appartment) I mean it was only a few epiodes.--Timmy 5000 X 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

help please

in season 2 episode 13 - My Philosophy Elliot says something about co-ed locker rooms and how she doesent want it

I remember a previous episode where that happen line by line with the same 3 people

anyone know what I am talking aboutLeftkidney 08:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

i think that the "contains original research of unattributed claims" warning for the trivia section can now be removed, anyone agree? --Jac16888 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

also, disagree, with the integrate tag, as all remaining trivia is relevant to the whole show, not one episode or character--Jac16888 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I highly disagree with removing the Original Research tag. Of 13 total items, all of 4 are cited. That leaves 9 of them without any proof whatsoever. Additionally, the trivia section here is a bit long. I put the "integrate" tag there not because I feel the trivia is irrelevant, but instead because it takes up quite a bit of space. Oh, and for the record, I'm an avid fan of the show. I know that most of the uncited stuff in the Trivia section is, in fact, true... I'm just going by the rules. ColbeagleTheEagle 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough with the Original Research tag, but i don't agree with the intergrate tag, because i feel none of the remaining trivia is integrateable to any specific episodes or characters, besides, there was almost twice as much trivia about a week ago --Jac16888 10:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do remember the article having massive amounts of trivia. I'm going to remove the "Trauma Center" one (as it's not really relevant to the show and can be seen as an ad for the game in some respects) as well as the tag. Thank you for discussing this with me; it was much appreciated. ColbeagleTheEagle 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to remove the integrate tag. (now i just got to work on the orginal research one) --Jac16888 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: You don't cite Wikipedia as a reference on articles, especially trivia sections. Whoever did that should see WP:CITE--$UIT 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

oops, didn't know that. have added proper links now --Jac16888 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

have sourced all the trivia now, so i have removed the original research tag --Jac16888 12:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the points in the trivia section, i think that some can be put under 2 new headings: guest appearances and cameo's. The first heading would be the text about Spin City and Clone High with a link to the list of List_of_minor_characters_of_Scrubs#Major_guest_cast. The cameo heading would include the points about Bill Lawrence's best friend, crew members, that the Muppets thingy and My Charlie Brown Christmas. -- azior 09:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Transfer of narration in "His/Her/Their Story" episodes

The trivia item about the narration being transferred to other characters contains an error. It states that only "Their Story" did not transfer narration from JD to the other characters by physical contact. Actually, the very first "His Story" also did not use this segue. Instead, JD's internal monologue states that he simply has nothing to talk about today, and the narration is instantly converted to that of Dr. Cox. This item should be fixed in the trivia section, but I can't at the moment think of a decent way of rephrasing it. 204.97.183.31 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Think i've sorted this, seems to read ok, but can someone double check it? --Jac16888 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

81.155.195.104 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Turk/Turkleton

Turks last name is Turkleton, why does it say Turk as his last name on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.38.10.200 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

no, turks full name is chris turk, but dr kelso mistakenly believes that he's call turk turkleton--Jac16888 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelso was drunk at the time and had been calling him Turkleton for quite a while

In series 6, Bob Kelso decides to change his "nickname" for Turk from Turkleton to Turkleberry

International Original Broadcast Information

Someone should put where the show airs on first around the world. I clearly states where it airs first in the United States (NBC). But not in other countries where it airs on multiple networks. ––Minker 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

while it would be appropriate, it would be extremely difficult to find out which channel aired it first in each country. its easier to simply have NBC marked as the channel it was first broadcast on--Jac16888 10:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

make sense?

does anyone with media knowledge know if this sentence actually makes sense, because the article for "vignettes" doesn't seem to fit.

It uses first-person narration, verbose characters, segues between subplots, fast pace, and surreal vignettes (presented as the thoughts and reveries of the main characters)--Jac16888 10:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Organisation

This article seems pretty disorganised. Specifically, I think the sections "Location", "Name" and "Cameo appearances" should be merged into the synopsis somehow. The "Cast" and "Crew" sections would probably benefit from being streamlined – those large lists are difficult to read, and aren't very useful. Adam McMaster 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)e

i agree that the crew section needs to be streamlined, however, the article works better with seperate sections for each one, merging them all into the synopsis would actually confuse the article--Jac16888 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Copyedit

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators

RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters

Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Top

Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Left panel

Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Right panel

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)

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)

Jordan Sulivan

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)

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.