Talk:List of Scrubs characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

When did Leonard lose his hand?[edit]

I believe he is shown at the end of 1.22 with both hands as JD and Ben are sitting outside.

I can confirm this --74.214.39.2 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam, J.D.'s unborn baby[edit]

Named after John Ritter's character. Should that factiod be added to Ritter's paragraph?

Justin[edit]

I find no reason that Justin SHOULDN'T be on the page. Just, like Steven and Rowdy, is a stuffed animal. I want to thank 70.blablabla for fighting against the higher-ups to keep him alive! Masterwiki 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

yes but unlike steven and rowdy, it only appeared for a few seconds in one episode, and was never alive. not to mention the fact that it has never been mentioned since, and has had no bearing on any storylines whatsoever, or even been seen outside J.D.'s imagination. if you're really that bothered you should just have a sentence about him on J.D.s page, or on the specific episodes page. oh and 70.237.200.247 is a vandal, the edits he made were destructive(restoring dead links etc) and since you redid all those destructive edits, that makes you a vandal too--Jac16888 11:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that the same with Boomer? Masterwiki 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
boomer was the focus of a whole storyline, and was actually seen for more than a few seconds--Jac16888 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, that sub-plot was only for a few minutes and the cumlative time seen of Boomer was less than a minute. And Jstin had to do with soul searching, which was what the entire episode was about. Masterwiki 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
no, because the subplot spanned the whole episode, first with the patient wanting to see him, then with elliot sneaking him in, then getting caught, the giving dog to kelso. Justin was a joke--Jac16888 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jac16888. If Justin was only in one episode, and he wasn't featured prominently in that episode, then he isn't worthy of inclusion on the page. There are hundreds of characters that are only featured in a single episode, and we don't note all of them. - Shaheenjim 03:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. A one-shot joke is not sufficient for mention on this page. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jac16888, good call tURBO 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment[edit]

Over the issue of whether justin, a toy unicorn which featured briefly in a J.D. flashback is worthy of inclusion in the animals section--Jac16888 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He should be pat of the non-living items section. Masterwiki 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop edit warring, both of you. Keep the Three-revert rule in mind, since you've both broken it already. --Wafulz 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Unicorn has been shown a few times (though I believe it only spoke once). The unicorn is as important as Sanchez, and should be included. Oren0 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have to say it shouldn't be on here, on the basis that it's not a real animal or featured regularly - afaik, it was a single episode "character". I'm personally not convinced Boomer should be listed, though I have some sympathy towards Sanchez who was insanely cool. mattbuck 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
i think you're mistaken oren0, justin has only featured once--Jac16888 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Are we assuming that the unicorn on the front of his diary/journal isn't Justin? "It's not a unicorn it's a horse with a sword on its head" :P Oren0 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Justin was part of a gag for a single episode. I have wondered if Justin is the unicorn J.D. draws on his journal, but that's not been proven. "Non-living items" has too few things in it to be feasible. Stephen and especially Rowdy are a major part of Scrubs, and really the only others that could be mentioned in such a section. My call is that Justin is simply not notable enough to warrant his inclusion in an encylopaedic article. Sorry. EdenMaster 01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with EdenMaster - leave it out. Kat, Queen of Typos 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Now I confess - I don't watch scrubs - but to the outsider, the notion of a toy unicorn being listed as a "character" seems to be absurd at face value. Yeanold Viskersenn 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Section Differences[edit]

What exactly are the definitions now of "other recurring characters", "major guest cast" and "general cameo appearances"?I guess it's a matter of personal interpretation here, but the system still seems a bit inconsistent to me. Some relatively minor people are in the "major guest cast" bit and some of the more famous guest stars are spread through all three sections. Some actors who played characters in plotline roles are still in the "cameo" bit and the "other recurring" bit contains some characters who appeared only once. EJB341 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean. I think the cameo section makes sense, but, really, the only difference between the other 2 sections is whether or not the characters worked in the hospital - which doesn't make much sense. I would say those 2 sections should be merged. --Gpollock 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
in a couple of weeks(after my exams) i intend to do a total re-organisation of this article, i may split the guest cast section into patients, visitors and others, for better readability.--Jac16888 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Some people think that Boomer and Sanchez shouldn't be included on the page, what do you guys think? Masterwiki 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Boomer wasn't really a character in the same way Sanchez was. mattbuck 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
they were both the focus of an entire episode each.--Jac16888 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you guys think about Angie, do you think that she deserves a mention? 70.237.196.237 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Who? - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Angie was a hamster in My New Suit, someone added it to the list recently, can't say it seems that notable, had only very brief appearances in the ep, compared to the rest of the animals, although, it had a bearing on other events of the episode--Jac16888 19:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Janitor[edit]

1) why hasn't the Brain Trust been added to this list, and 2) why aren't his (alleged) children on the family list?

They have never been seen, and frankly you can't trust anything Janitor says. Harrison kelso is at least consistent. mattbuck 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

also you should mention taht in the cast picture, teh janitor wasnt there, cuz he was taking the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.214.45 (talk) 23:58, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

In the cast picture shown in this article, the janitor is there, because this is the second picture that was taken, he's the one wearing the suit--Jac16888 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually that isn't him. Look at the full size picture, he's got the wrong hairstyle and facial features. This image is from the first attempt at taking the staff picture, the one Janitor wasn't asked to be included in, and he therefore ruined with a mirror. My best guess is the writers threw in someone random with a suit to make it look like him and since that was his assigned spot in the picture. Later in the show when they retake the picture, it is Janitor in the suit in the same spot next to Carla, but in the picture we have here, it's clearly not Janitor. EdenMaster 04:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't him, i didn't look to closely before, i knew the Janitor wore a suit and stood next to carla, i assumed that was him. We should try and get hold of the second picture for this article--Jac16888 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

im pretty sure snoop dogg intern says "Where my Homies at?" not "where my ho's at?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.118 (talk) 22:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Janitor page should not be merged with another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.31.24 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

All single-episode appearances[edit]

Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I propose that the list be reduced to:

  • Characters who appeared in multiple episodes
  • Characters who appeared in extremely notable episodes (e.g. "My Musical")
  • Characters played by a well-known actor (e.g. Many of the Spin City cast) or performer (e.g. Clay Aiken)

We don't need to list every character that has ever been on the show. Many of the one-time appearances (e.g. "Angie the Hamster") are simply far too trivial to be mentioned. I'd do this myself, but I want to get some feedback here first. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i disagree, A, because most character lists such as this, feature single episode appearances, B, most play some notable part within each single episode, C, the list also features as a cast list, after this afd. although, there are some very minor characters that could go, i don't see a problem with losing the following for starters, dr. jim bianca, Dr. Ginny Gerson, Naked Nancy, Dr. Kim and Dr. Rotinaj from the staff list, for starters, will go through the rest tomorrow, but when it comes to patients, it seems that each one had some point, or lesson to give--Jac16888 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Recurring characters should obviously stay (and probably be given a one-sentence description in addition to the link to their pages). The following are what I believe should be removed (maybe more in addition to these, and yes I know you've mention some of these already):
  • Josh - one time, never seen again (OTNSA).
  • Dr. Jim Bianca - never seen, rarely mentioned
  • Dr. Ginny Gerson - OTNSA
  • Naked Nancy - OTNSA
  • Dr. Green - OTNSA
  • Dr. Akbar - 2TNSA
  • Dr. Kim - OTNSA
  • Dr. Johnson - OTNSA
  • Dr. Rotinaj - OTNSA
  • Dr. Stone - OTNSA
  • All animals except Rowdy and Steve
  • Ms. Bell
  • Brain
  • Ms. Moran
  • Mr. Groff
  • Ted Lange's character (doesn't even have a name!)
  • Will Forte
  • David Morrison

If you believe any of these should be kept, please provide a reason why. Remember that the burden of evidence lies with the editor adding the material. It is up to you to justify keeping these things, not to me to justify removing them. Note also the this list itself it somewhat trivial, and that is what I'm trying to fix (by pruning away the junk). - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with removing most of the one's you've listed, the only ones i disagree with are

  • Will Forte
  • David Morrison
  • Brian(you put brain, i presume you meant this guy)
  • Josh

All of these are vital to J.d. and turks character development, throughout the show, and although they only appear in one episode, they are the focus of the whole episode.--Jac16888 10:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Why there is no mention to Dr. Kevin Casey (played by Michael J. Fox). He appears in two episodes if I remember correctly.200.62.171.170 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Greasers[edit]

why aren't they mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.169.187 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The whos? --Jac16888 13:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Meta-Dating[edit]

He wrote an off-Broadway play about his father entitled Dr. Dad and briefly dated the actor playing Kelso. ---

How can a fictional character date a real person?

I could understand if the actor dated the Kelso actor but the fictional person in question doesn't even have an actor playing him. My head hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lots42 (talkcontribs) 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

right, this trivia is in-universe, Harrison Kelso wrote play about his father, and, being gay, dated the actor who played the role of Bob in the play. Got it?--Jac16888 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Troy and Harvard[edit]

When the Janitor says "Come on! You can do this! You went to Harvard, for God's sake!" he is talking to himself (even if he is in the presence of Troy), so this shouldn't be taken as a suggestion that Troy went to Harvard. 129.67.158.52 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chet[edit]

In how far is Chet an homage to the very tall cop in Police Squad (forget his name)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.139.73 (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

herbert the fat man[edit]

i dident see any notice of herbert, the super fat man who apears as a patient in an episode and has to be taken to the zoo for a scan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.215.126 (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nina[edit]

What about Nina Whoever, the bulldog personal-injury lawyer?

If I recall correctly, her initial appearance spanned several episodes, and she's been back a few times since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Her name was Neena Broderick, and she is currently included in the article under "Romantic partners". - Katzell (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Winston[edit]

Little person? Really? Come on, dudes. Lots42 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

J.D. & Rowdy[edit]

I think it should be noted that it is implied in "My Life in Four Cameras" that J.D. has had sex with Rowdy before.

Dr. Cox: "...and basically every other flu that you can only get if you are fornicating with the animal it's named after."

J.D.: "Sure hope I don't have dog flu."

ShokuMasterLord (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)ShokuMasterLord


I don't believe there's an implication of sex as his response could be referring to his tendency to practice kissing during "dry spells" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.188.17 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Margot?[edit]

Margot? I think the houskeepers name is the Asian name Margo? In the subtitles there is also Margo. --84.150.96.178 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Matthew Perry?[edit]

I'd swear on all my future children Mathew Perry (Chandler from Friends) made an apearance as a focus one time character, am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.137 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

yes he was, thats why he's listed, under hospital vistors, sincehe was there to visit his father--Jac16888 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jill Tracy[edit]

Jill Tracy appears in a number of episodes and seems like a very important character to the show, however there doesnt seem to be a section on her at all.Flashfire1111 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that, she is a key character in at least two episodes, and has at least one subsequent cameo. Ace42 (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So, fix it. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Move, remove, and merge[edit]

First of all, this article is way larger than the size limit (it should be around 80K, though some character lists go to about 90K). The article can easily be downsized by the removal of most characters on this list; keep the recurring and possibly the children, but remove the rest. Minor character lists are usually not kept, as they almost always fail notability. This article, for example, has no concept/creation/reception notes. So, my first suggestion is to move the list to "List of Scrubs characters." After that, remove nearly all characters unless they are recurring (note: some characers would be taken from the "season X" list, because they appear throughout the series during multiple seasons). And merge characters into this article, including major characters. All of them fail WP:N and have nearly no (if any) out-of-universe information. A simple merge into a main list, where each has a few condensed paragraphs explaining roles, friendships, etc, will make it more possible to get this to GA.

So, opinions? And, please, do not cite reasons that fall under WP:IWANTIT or the like. In terms of notability and quality, what reasons are there to have a minor character list and in-universe character pages? And also note that, I'll handle page merges separately. This is just my idea, starting with moving and removing. I'll ask for consensus on individual character pages later. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support all. Should be one single character list, minor one-shot/short shot characters shouldn't be in a character list, and none of the characters are notable enough to support having standalone articles. None have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The only side note I'd make is GA doesn't cover lists, so would have to aim for FL :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Character lists can be covered under GA (as well as some discography lists). Examples include Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (FA) and Characters of Kingdom Hearts (GA); though they don't actually state "List" in the article titles, they are character lists, and there are FLs that don't state 'list' in the article name. This article could also be moved to Characters of Scrubs, though I don't mind either way. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a merger. I originally had all of the one shot characters over at Characters of Smallville, but I realized during the GAN that there were taking up space and anyone really important would be mentioned in the season pages. It took out like 40kb of space (but it wasn't readable prose, so it didn't matter that much anyway). I left only main characters and recurring characters. That's all this page really needs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merges, part 1[edit]

I'm proposing merges for the "recurring character" section. All characters have no out-of-universe coverage and lack notability. All of these articles could be easily condensed and merged into this list. For now, these are the only characters I'm proposing to be merged. I'll set up sections for the rest of the characters one these are over and done with. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Sullivan[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ted Buckland[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Dudemeister[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Todd[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doug Murphy[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Laverne Roberts[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim Briggs[edit]

  • Merge Lacks out-of-universe information, proper referencing, and notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Split of all Merged by WhiteArcticWolf[edit]

The articles Jordan Sullivan, Ted Burkland, Keith Dudemeister, Dour Murphy, Laverne Roberts, and Kim Briggs have been merged here with no Consensus on the voting. Even knowing about the lack of consensus, WhiteArcticWolf just went forward and merged all pages. That so I'm opening a new voting for the splitting of these pages into their original places.

  • Split for merger without consensus. FixmanPraise me 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep merged; I didn't even have to ask for consensus, really. I could have been bold and just merged them. If you look above, at Talk:List of characters on Scrubs#Move, remove, and merge, I had two other users agree on the merge, and I later set up sections to talk about the merges. I waited over a week, and no one replyed. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to even give the notion that these articles are notable; no casting or concept/creation information, and no reception. If someone can actually wants to go ahead and prove that a character is notable, then I would support making it a separate article again. As for these characters, I very much doubt if anything will come up, considering they are side characters and it seems there isn't even much on any of the main characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Split They just shouldn't be merged. Now even by a single vote. --BrownGez (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep merged. WhiteArcticWolf is right, he didn't need to ask for permission. The bold statement is right on the money, especially when following what s/he believed to be common sense. Anyways, those characters don't deserve their own articles; really, how much is there that needs to be known about Laverne? She was a Black nurse who loved Jesus and died in a car crash. That's basically what her article said but it said it in 50 sentences. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Todd's Sexual Orientation[edit]

The article as it is currently written says that his sexuality is "never explicitly addressed." However, at the end of the episode where he declares himself to be gay (and later admits that at least part of his motivation was because "chicks dig gay dudes), The Todd walks down a hallway one by one pointing out all the people he would like to sleep with, both men and women alike. Doesn't this at least strongly imply his bisexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsfreeman (talkcontribs) 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably, though I think it may imply that he is pansexual than anything else. Either way, it would be considered OR. Perhaps the article should read it is "never explicitly stated." It's been a subplot before, but "adressed" seems to imply that it hasn't. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady[edit]

I think Lady should be included since she is currently the Janitor's wife and included in several episodes. Gooch should be added as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Jackie Jackson (talkcontribs) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Main character merges[edit]

I'm proposing a merge on all main character articles; none of them have proven notability, most lack sources, and they can be easily condensed into this list. All articles lack casting and creation notes as well, and are composed basically of in-universe information. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. Many of the articles you've proposed for merging are quite long, and would be trivially fixed. I'd rather see them gain casting and creation notes rather than lose what's already there. Rebecca (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Condensing is quite easy. There is no need for paragraphs about running gags for the Janitor's name, when it can easily be explained in two sentences. Casting and creation notes (as well as reception) could save them, but is it there? Can someone actually spend enough time to prove each of these characters is notable by standards? What is your reasoning for keeping them as is, other than article length (which isn't really a problem, considering the article size. Just look at Characters of Kingdom Hearts). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be easy, but it sure isn't useful. The information is verifiable and of interest to many readers. All of these articles are on characters in a long-running series, all of which have had loads written about them in reliable sources, and would be relatively trivially fixed if someone can be bothered. You can condense Barack Obama down to "Barack Obama is the President of the United States" if you need to, but that doesn't make it helpful. "I am too lazy to source these articles" is not a reason for deleting them. Rebecca (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Janitor is a complex enough character that he merits his own page. What exactly is gained by merging them into one article anyways? Reub2000 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fix rather than merge. All are notable major characters on a long running show with full length articles of their own, no need to merge. Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can understand merging secondary or tertiary characters but frankly merging central characters with notable backstories, appearances in other media and things of that nature seems needless. I feel like this has just become a principle thing for WhiteArcticWolf RussBurlingame (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any major character in fiction (comic books, TV)deserves as much about them as possible. I was surprised to see that the only one of the Crimebusters from Watchmen wears an ink blot mask; I had read about "Ozy" solo not much earlier and now he appears only under the "Characters from" article. Definitely keep the Janitor solo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.111.54 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I liked your minor character merges. I do not believe, however, that this is the correct move for these pages. there is too much useful information to put them all on a list page; then people will complain that that page is too long and should be split into subpages by character. Just saying.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
@Rebecca: There is a major difference between Obama and a fictional character. There are different manuals of style, as well as differences in notability. For everyone, first of all, character complexity does prove notability. There are many, many characters that are complex but don't have enough information for an entire article. Nearly everything on the pages is in-universe, with only a few sentences with creation and development. @Russ: I only support the merge of characters that lack out-of-universe information. And notable backstories? What makes a backstory notable? And when have they appeared in other media, except for the occasional reference and such? @76.196.111.54: Roschach has an article because he is both iconic and arguably the most popular character in Watchmen. I also believe that there is other information concerning creation, and I have definately seen casting. Even still, the article is still a bit messy. A main character does not always deserve a page to themselves, even if the show is popular. @CastAStone: The list will be under 80KB, which is considered the limit (though lists have gone over, like the one for Kingdom Hearts characters).
Adding to the above, most information on the pages would be removed or merged into a single page to achieve GA status, anyway. Gregory House has a section for personality, with quotes from the other sources sprinkled in, and almost the the same length is spent on creation and such. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The solution to this would be to add more information on the creation of the characters. All of these characters are well-known, from a long-running series, and have been discussed plenty of times in external media. Several of these are plainly more notable than the Watchmen character you just referenced, for one. Personally, I care more about getting a comprehensive and sourced article on each character than your theoretical featured list nomination; considering that you have repeatedly suggested deleting most of the content in this area, forgive me if I'm just a touch cynical in your interest in maintaining these articles. Rebecca (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - The articles fail WP:NOTE, plain and simple. The idea that "they are too large" is irrelevant because they are too large as a result of overly detailed plot points. Characters of Smallville shows how you can have some main characters with their own article, and some main character without their own article and still have both plot and real world info on the page at the same time. The onus is on the ones that want to keep the pages to get them to meet WP:NOTE, so if you all are claiming the sources exist then you need to find them and put them in the article. These pages have existed in this state for far too long. It's time to either shit or get off the pot, so to speak (i.e. clean them up now, or merge them and reseparate once you have a page that meets NOTE).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nyet. It is plainly obvious that the topics are notable, with a ton of reliable sources written about them. Much as you'd like otherwise, you need an actual consensus to merge these articles, and it's plain that you don't have it. If you would like to expand these to add more information on the creation of the characters, then that would be fantastic. If, on the other hand, you're not actually interested in the quality of the articles in this area, and are just here because a) you're making a point, and b) you think that you can demand other editors assign their editing time according to your whims, then you won't find much sympathy from me. Rebecca (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, consensus is found with reason, not by how many people approve. No one has provided any reason that meets with Wikipedia's guidelines. Saying a character has information out there just doesn't prove anything; if someone could actually give me proof, then I'd have no problem letting an article stay. And I'm not saying go through and totally revamp the page; I'm asking for links and the like. I haven't found anything, but apparently it's out there. Currently, these articles do not meet the notability requirements. Th And just because an editor agrees with the merge, and notes that the articles need to be improved or else they should be merged, does not mean they have to work on it. If that were the case, then no editors should be able to agree with a merge unless they helped or tried to do something. If that were the case, then third opinions and such would be useless. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Just because you, as a partisan, personally disagree with the rationales for opposing the move listed by those above does not make them invalid. Several people read your rationale, found it unconvincing, and responded accordingly. Rebecca (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see NOTE about what is notable. Blind passion because you are a fan is not equivalent to notable. Also, never make assumptions about my opinions (Quote: "Much as you'd like otherwise"). I have written far more articles on both fictional characters, films, TV series, season pages, LOEs, and episode articles than you have, so you have no idea what I would like. I do not know these characters because I don't watch the show. I assume you guys do, since you're fighting so valiantly to keep the articles as they are. I understand NOTE, and I don't let my personal bias get in the way of encyclopedic content. Per WP:V, the onus is on you guys. You cannot hide behind WP:CONSENSUS when you're argument is "it's notable because I said so". You have to prove it, since Wikipedia is not a democracy and simply saying "there are six of us, which is more than you". Now, I bet that if I created a character list page that included all of these main characters, and retained all of their relevant information (i.e. cutting the original research riddled throughout their pages) that you still wouldn't be satisfied. If you're going to try and argue that it's about having "quality pages" (as such these are not in their current state, because they also fail WP:PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS), then if "quality" sections were made you'd agree to the merge - at least one would make that assumption, so as not to assume that you weren't simply making blind arguments without any real belief in what you were saying. (P.S. If you're going by numbers, 2 of those "voices" don't really count. IPs are typically not counted, especially when making generalized arguments about all articles, because we have a hard time AGF that they aren't other users stacking opinions. For instance, RussBurlingame created a user account only to cast an opinion in this merge discussion).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a pretty bizarre response. "If I merged these articles and deleted most of the content, you still wouldn't be happy, would you?!?" That's rather the point, considering that basically of what's there could be referenced and built upon fairly easily. It's totally insane to be trying to push through merges of articles on characters that are more (and in some cases, quite substantially more) notable than ones you've personally worked on, just because the particular show isn't your cup of tea. Rebecca (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't quote me on what I didn't say, thank you. Original research must be deleted on the spot. Point in fact, straight up, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. As for the plot info, it's called summary style. It's where you take overly detailed events and summarize them in a more terse response (which is considered professional writing here on Wikipedia). More notable than ones I've worked on? Let's see, I personally wrote Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers, which are two of the most iconic horror movie characters of all time. I also assisted on Buffy Summers, Faith Lehane, and Jack Harkness; the first one is more notable, influential and popular than any character on Scrubs, probably more so than all of them combined (I know that by this simple question, How many scholarly articles have been written about Scrubs main characters?). So again, I ask you not to make assumptions about my opinions or contributions to Wikipedia. I also point out, again, that you clearly are not talking about quality, just simply don't want to give up your precious individual articles for quality sections in an LOC page. We call that blind bias, also known as a conflict of interest. You really don't care about the quality of the content, just where it sits. If you did, then your response would have been "If you can do that, then I'd consider revising my stance on merging the article". It is my opinion that you might be afraid that I could actually do what I am claiming to be able to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly well concerned with article quality, thank you. Stubbification has never been a particularly good means of improving an article, and I fail to see how that treatment would improve any of these articles in the least. If you decided to fix up the referencing on these articles, I would commend it. If you decided to add information about the creation of the characters, I would commend it. If you decided to actually add anything at all to the articles, I would commend it. But no, I'm sorry, you just don't get a cookie for deleting content. Rebecca (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OR is the unreferenced creator's comments and theories based on characters. The rest is just plot summary, which can easily be reduced to sentences. There is not need to list every episode wherein a character displays a quirk or a gag is used, when it can easily be summed down to a few sentences explaining it. The burden of proving notability isn't on our shoulders; I suggested a merge because I don't think there's much out there, and haven't found any myself. If you say that there is information, then you should be able to prove it. And, overall, the characters don't stand out and aren't very iconic, as stated above. Are they cute, memorable, funny, complex, etc? Yes (well, in my opinion), but that doesn't make them iconic as standalone characters. The popular characters are the ones that creators release lots of information on, outside of DVD commentaries and the like. It seems to be the reason that characters from shows such as House get complex information on casting and such. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, thank you for proving my point for me. If you had these articles' best interest at heart then you would accept anything that improved their quality. Sorry, an entire page of plot (referenced or not) does not meet WP:NOTE, plain and simple. Basically, your entire argument is simply, "They are fine as just plot summaries, but if you want to actually make them fit the policies and guidelines then you can do that". That's pretty sad that your entire argument is "I like it the way it is", and that you have nothing else to add. I'm sorry, but summarizing an entire episode's plot into a few sentences (down from a paragraph), or merging "Relationships" in with the plot section is not "deleting content". It's call copy editing. But clearly there is no getting through to you what Wiki's guidelines and policies state, as you appear to be set in your ways. As such, I bid all of you adou. No point in trying to move a mountain with a shovel. (P.S. Very interesting statement...a little double standard goes a long way. Cheers)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no - I'm just not going to pat you on the back for proposing to delete a whole bunch of verifiable, notable, and relevant content and thinking you've just improved the project. Rebecca (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
What information do you believe will be removed? You've brought it up multiple times, but yet I do not intend to remove it all in a merge. Because the information happens within the series, it does not need to be referenced quickly, and sometimes not at all. In books/movies/etc, plot summaries are not referenced. In lists, they usually are. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Just dropping in to say that if anything major happens within the next week, I probably won't be able to comment. I'm going on a week long camping trip, so, unless it rains relentlessly for a few days, I'll be out there. Just want everyone to know that I have not abandoned this proposal, and will still work on the character list on my subpage. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:IDHT. There is no consensus for your proposal. Please move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Colonel, you have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do in their sandboxes. Please be a bit more civil, and respect Wolf's personal efforts to actually try and be proactive in coming up with a solution he hopes will please everyone once it is finished. You may not like it, but you should still be respectful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think it is a very good idea, Main characters need there own pages. --Pedro thy master (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should these characters be merged to a larger article[edit]

Should the Scrubs characters be merged to a larger article, like a list of characters article, until they can establish notability?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, all of the individual characters should be merged into this list (which also needs to be renamed to List of Scrubs characters, per normal naming nomenclature). None have demonstrable notability as shown by significant coverage of the characters (not their actors) in reliable, third-party sources, with almost all being purely plot, which is not the purpose of a character list. Character lists should summarize the character, not give minute details about every episodic appearance. Individual character articles should also give an overview of the character, not minor details, and that plot should be supported by an equal or greater amount of real world information, including creation/conception and reception. These articles, being purely plot, fail WP:N, WP:MOSTV, and go against WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Scanning through the articles, I only see a few pieces of information regarding the creation of these characters or their reception; only one, the main actor, has information that could potentially lead to more due to the awards received for the character. The information given in all of these are either edging on OR, or are excessive retelling of the plot of the work, and can be compressed down better. Presuming that there has been a search for outside-universe information about the characters, a merge makes the most sense. But I would suggest a similar solution that was done at South Park: if it can be shown that two of these character articles can be improved to include outside-universe information, I would recommended letting the rest stay on the same presumption. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, improve them in place. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes they should be merged. If the subjects don't show evidence of notability outside being in the list of characters, then they should be merged to the article about the list of characters. That's how we manage articles on Wikipedia. This isn't a crusade against fictional characters as a topic, but rather an attempt to comply with WP:N and WP:WAF by limiting our subjects to those that have already been commented enough to build an encyclopedia article. If individual characters become notable their redirects can be removed and they can be analyzed from an out-of-universe perspective. Until notabily is shown for each character individually the articles should remain redirected. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No. I like what was done with the minor characters, but the major characters warrant an article IMO. Wikipedia is not paper and I see no reason that existing accurate coverage of the characters or a major television show should be pared down. Unfortunately, we have articles like these everywhere on Wikipedia (Zack Morris, Jack Bauer, Elliot Stabler, and Meg Griffin just to name a few) and I have never seen the compelling argument for merging them. Oren0 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • How about proof that their current state can easily exist on an LOC page without any real loss (i.e. I'm referring to including all of the OR that is in the article now), until such time that their notability can be established with reliable, third-party sources (as defined by WP:NOTE)??? WhiteArcticWolf and I have been working to put this into an LOC format, just to show they can currently exist there without loss of really anything. I cut some redundancies in the information, but I've kept just about all of it. I've also tagged all of the unsourced info and OR info, just so someone who has seen the show knows where a citation is needed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a distinction I've never understood. Why do you believe it to be preferable to have all of this info on a single 70kb wall of text rather than to have each character have their own non-intimidating aesthetically pleasing standalone article? Oren0 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For a couple of reasons. First, because we have policies and guidelines that dictate when articles should be given their own article, and playing favoritism with some isn't fair to the others. On the other hand, we cannot allow everyone to have one on principle, because everyone doesn't deserve or warrant one. Secondly, if written well enough, it doesn't matter if it's in a single section or an article of its own (Main space proof is right here). Also, the article isn't 70kb. It's actually below 60kb (readable prose), and that also includes tons of sections that have original research that should actually be removed (that I intentionally kept in there for the purposes of showing that each characters section isn't that large...only about 4kb at their largest). Most of the "Minor characters" probably don't even need to be here, because they're beyond "minor" and actually exist in "irrelevant" because they've only appeared in 1 or 2 episodes. Given that we have episode articles, and their info is already listed there, their name should just redirect to their episode (one example: Danni, played by Tara Reid is an on-again, off-again fling of J.D.'s, similar to many of the women he has dated. She is the younger sister of Dr. Cox's ex-wife, Jordan Sullivan. Like J.D., Danni maintains an internal monologue in her head. According to J.D., she has hearing "like a bat". She is also seen dating Larry Thomas of Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" fame.). I guarantee you that if you cleaned out all of the original research, removed one episode characters that seem to have been included simply because some fan wanted them included, and practiced some summary style writing with the plot information (a lot of it is overly detailed when it could be stated much more efficiently in fewer words), that this page wouldn't be that large to begin with. Finally, I never said that I was against any of them ever having their own page. What I said was that they clearly fail all of our policies and guidelines right now, and have for a long time, and it would be better if they were merged together into a parent article until they can assert their own notability to be split off on their own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that all the main characters should be merged here. First, it makes the information easier to maintain, especially against the inevitable accumulation of trivia, and in the encouragement of good summary style, which is a primary requirement of a well-written article (see Bignole's excellent point above). Second, it is easier for readers to navigate from within a single page, given the degree of X-refs. Third, the existence of individual articles encourages a level of in-universe detail that runs counter to our general practice here. On the other hand, a LOC page allows appropriate in-universe details to serve readers' needs, without having to resort to silly details in a desperate bid to demonstrate real world notability. So a merge is the best solution. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it how it is. We're doing this again? we just did this in literally the last topic in this talk page. This is forum shopping in the same forum! Bignole, you've been here about as long as I have, I think you need to remember how our guidelines have been built: they describe accepted conventions, they do not dictate them. It is crystal clear that the longer a show was on the air and the more popular it was, the more character articles the community finds acceptable. Is that written in the guidelines? No. Does it reflect consensus? Yes. Evidence of the trend is overwhelming. Scrubs is going in to its 8th season, and airs at least 6 times a day in most US markets on WGN and Comedy Central, ergo, it gets multiple character articles.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 23:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not confuse popularity of a show with notability of characters. A show is popular does not mean that each individual character is notable. Please read WP:NOTE, which dictates what notability encompasses. What you are saying is that Scrubs is notable. It's the same as, the notability of object A does not mean that object B is also notable simply by association. Object B must assert its own notability. In all of your comment you said "Scrubs"..."Scrubs". That has nothing to do with the individual characters in the show. It's the show as a whole. If you think that rules of notability do not apply, then I'd suggest you take that up on that page. Until WP:NOTE is changed, I'd say I'm rather aware of how our guidelines are built and how they are intended to be used. The simple fact that some people try and treat these discussions like like Wiki is a democracy and do not look at the guidelines in reflection of the arguments is irrelevant. Perpetuating the problem doesn't help. Also, given that it's clear that these "articles" can all exist in one location without loss of content (see the sandbox linked at the top), it would seem more feasable to present them together until such time that any one of them warrants separation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You completely failed to analyze my comment, apparently. Its consensus that determines policy and guidelines, and what to do in general, and the consensus is exactly as I laid out. Neither one of us needs to quote policy to each other, and I'm extremely offended that you told me to read the notability guidelines. I've been here for 5 years. Why do you think these pages are a problem? I read what you wrote above but to me that's not a reason to put them on one page, its a reason to expand the articles. On another thought, these characters gain notability as time passes. Characters on Journeyman never became notable, because the show lasted 13 weeks. Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons has become notable enough for an article, even though is is an irrelevant character, because, for example, he is a common pop culture reference. JD, Turk, Carla, Dr Cox, Eliot and probably Dr Kelso and the Janitor have attained a level of common notability in a way that the community has shown they approve of in hundreds of character discussions across Wikipedia. You wanted comment, you got comment. Clearly there is no consensus here either way.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're looking at it from the wrong side. Time doesn't dictate notability. Something doesn't become notable simply because of time. The truth is that with time, notability can become more evident. How do you show notability? You do that through secondary, reliable sources. Lack of said sources suggests that the characters are not that notable. The fact that a show is on for 8 seasons has nothing to do with any specific character. If a character is notable then they are notable, even if the show itself isn't that popular or long lasting. Consensus is not based on popular vote. For someone who has been here for so long, I shouldn't have to reiterate that to you. If Admins were to close discussions based on what WP:CONSENSUS says, and not simply votes, many discussions would have different outcomes, because a lot of articles on Wikipedia have entire communities of fan editors that will defend said articles regardless of what any policy or guideline may or may not say. There is an inherent COI in that. If you cannot recognize when an article fails WP:NOTE, and would normally be merged to a parent article in almost any other case and is only staying around because a large group of fans cannot live without their individual articles, then you have a conflict of interest. These articles fails NOTE, and you are aware of it. If you think they should stay individual, then they need to satisfy NOTE. It's that simple.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lists are poor style for an article and should only be used for indexing such articles. A character such as Dr Cox or the Janitor forms a natural topic whereas a List of is quite unnatural. A wall of tabular text is quite unsuitable for our readership which increasingly uses portable devices with small screens. Small, bitesize articles are best. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge The last merge discussion (see the archives) ended because claims of notability and improvability were louder than pessimism. Here we are two years later, notability has not been established, and improvement has not been been forthcoming. Now, let's be rationalists and do something to improve wikipedia: cut the WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, trim the excessive WP:PLOT, and everything will fit neatly into a list of characters. – sgeureka tc 09:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge until actual independent sources are found. That's what notability is, period. Notability is not popularity, notability is not how important the show is, notability is not how long the show's been on, notability is not how interesting and elaborate the character's backstory is, notability is not how interesting the article is. Notability is none of those things and anyone who says otherwise either hasn't read the guideline or doesn't agree with it (in which case they're disagreeing with one of the most basic guidelines of Wikipedia). Notability is whether the subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at these articles I see:

  • J.D. (Scrubs) – two interviews by non-reliable sources (amateur blogs), plot summary, and OR.
  • Christopher Turk – one non-reliable source who claims the character was named after him, plot summary, and OR.
  • Elliot Reid – two broken links to sources that would not be reliable if they existed, plot summary, and OR.
  • Janitor (Scrubs) – one broken link, two reliable sources supporting trivia about the character's name, plot summary, and OR.
  • Bob Kelso – plot summary and OR.
  • Perry Cox – one broken link, one reliable source supporting unpublished synthesis, one reliable source supporting trivia, plot summary, and OR.
  • Carla Espinosa – plot summary and OR.

No non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, not in any of them. That's the only standard of notability, so if none of them meets the criteria then there's nothing to debate. Merge them. At the moment, there's nothing to work with in these articles at all. It's really a good idea when writing about fiction to find independent sources first, write based on those, and then throw in the plot summary and primary information. Trying to retrofit sources into an existing article is difficult to the point that it never happens. Just merge these until someone actually wants to write real encyclopedic articles. –Noisalt (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One good (but not perfect) way of assessing notability is doing a Google Scholar search or Google Books search to see how much real-world information (in the form of study) is devoted to the individual characters (rather than "the characters of Scrubs" as a whole).~ZytheTalk to me! 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think it is a very good idea, Main characters need there own pages. --Pedro thy master (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Each character with his own article appears to have met the standard for notability to merit separate articles. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all, I see no reason to do this all in bulk, each character and article is fundamentally different, so there is not necessarily a cookie-cutter solution. Second of all, if there is a problem with the character pages, edit them and pare them down as needed. Uncited and OR material is no better in a list then as a stand-alone page. Third of all, even if the remaining articles are a bit shorter than ideal, I still don't see a problem with having them (or at least the most important couple) stay separate. It's not as if it saves us anything if we do merge them. In light of this, Oppose merge. Random89 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This articles about the main charachters are far longer, than the sections about other charachters. Armbrust (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • One more point against merging is that the article is already 58 kilobytes long. If the other articles would be added, then it would be too long. Armbrust (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The length of an existing article has nothing to do with notability... Noisalt (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Right, but if it is too long, then everytime you edit this page you will see something like this: "This page is 121 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size". It sound stupid for me to merge articles in this articel to split the article. Armbrust (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm butting in here as a neutral editor and saying oppose for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with notability (although, for the record, I do think that these characters meet the notability guidelines).
  1. The biggest and most important reason has been touched upon several times but never refers to the appropriate guideline or addresses WHY or WHY NOT...WP:SIZE!!
    1. This article is currently 58KB. That's already very long. A merge would increase that number significantly (see below). The article size rule of thumb says that a page ≥40KB "may need to be divided", >60KB (which it will unquestionably be with a merge) "probably should be divided", and >100KB "almost certainly should be divided". Yes, it does also say that that particular guideline applies "somewhat less to lists", but it does still apply, as does other parts of the guideline.
      1. WhiteArticWolf: You said above that 80KB is the limit for a list. Where did you get that number?
    2. As an experiment, I copied and pasted all the prose from the other articles into this one, generating a 135KB page. Yes, a lot of that information would be cut out, but that tally didn't even include images (which SHOULD be used; see WP:TPA, WP:FL?, WP:FA?) and infoboxes.
    3. The biggest problem with a huge page relates to technical issues. This page crashes computers. It is inaccessible using certain browsers, and takes a long time to load on dial-up connections. Not everyone can afford a good internet service or even enough memory to be capable of using compatible browsers. It's not just the standard computers that need to be considered, either. This page not only froze my two-year-old crummy Nokia cell phone, but it also crashed a friend's Blackberry and another friend's iPhone. As noted in the guideline, these factors need to be taken into consideration. So, while arguing over the infamous "pillars" like notability and verifiability, take into consideration an often-overlooked pillar and a founding principle of all the Wikimedia projects: the ability of anyone to view and edit. Think about it: notability CAN'T be an issue if people can't get to the article in the first place! When usability is compromised, the original aims of all the Wikimedia projects are ignored. And while mobile users do have alternatives such as Wapedia, they are absolutely unable to edit long pages, and the pillar/principle is explicitly about editability, not readability.
  2. A point never addressed: each of the separate character articles contains at least 3 interwiki links. I don't know if there's a guideline out there that says anything like this, but we're discussing an English-language show on the English Wikipedia; common sense dictates that we should have an equivalent article. — Skittleys (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Skittleys. 91.110.156.30 (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Oppose! Clearly bad idea, as he is a main character. That's like if we were to merge Barack Obama into a list of Presidents, and not have a separate article on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.61.153 (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug[edit]

The section on Doug claims that it is implied in "My mentor" that his favorite show is "Days of our lives", although it's clear that he only selects "Days of our lives" out of fear of Dr Cox. 118.208.67.4 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack[edit]

Who plays dr Cox' son Jack? Could it be a cast member's child or is it just a random kid? Axelv (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It says in the Dr. Cox article that jack is played by andrew miller and his twin brother, although in a cameo appearance in the episode "My Missed Perception" Jack is played by bill lawrence and christa miller's son william. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcbailey1995 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lonnie Redirect?[edit]

There's more than one Lonnie in the world, including an inventor and several jazz musicians. Should the search "Lonnie" really redirect here? I think it should just go to the standard search page. 205.196.143.66 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality is Lacking[edit]

While there is a tremendous quantity of information contained in the character descriptions in this article, it does not equate to quality. The page reads like a fansite (an issue suffered by many articles related to long-running televisions series).
As someone who is casually acquainted with the show, I came here to read about the various characters and was inundated with episode synopses, extensive script excerpts, and references only a fan of the show could possibly care about (details about the minor character 'Hooch' come to mind). While I appreciate the contributors' depth of knowledge about the details, I think an objective fan should go through and mercilessly excise and summarize a great deal of the info. Two (maybe three) passages of info may be acceptable to detail major characters, but it's absurd to offer every little nuance of the minor character development and recurring roles.
There's a great opportunity here for a fan of the show to develop this into an encyclopedic article and it's something I look forward to reading if it can be accomplished.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gift shop girl[edit]

Im not sure if shes in here listed under her propper name if she has one but if not then i think she should be added she appeared in 3 episodes from what i remember so she deserves to be in here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.187.73 (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

sunny day?[edit]

what about the character sunny? the intern who appearers as frequently as Denise. the one who has a really mousy voice and a ridiculously sunny attitude.Laghing rabt (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge of JD and all them[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Discussion has been left untouched for well over four months. No input to arguably side with or against the merger. —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested merge of:

J.D.
Christopher Turk
Carla Espinosa
Elliot Reid
Perry Cox
Bob Kelso
Janitor

None of them make any assertion of notability and use episodes and unreliable sources as references. Their articles are all pure plot and in-universe descriptions. The information within them can be condensed and placed here--GroovySandwich 06:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess no one's against it so I'll start on that soon--GroovySandwich 08:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Woah there! I just spent 20 minutes looking for these articles that existed only a few weeks ago. The articles were extremely helpful, and mostly well written enough that I saw no reason to view the discussion pages. I'm afraid I'm strongly against this, and glancing the above discussions, there is no consensus for this. Two year old consensus is still consensus. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saw Zfish118's reversion, I agree with him. Seems like no consensus to merge, although by BRD, I certainly hold no grudge for the attempt. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then, the discussion (the best part!). So the articles have all been sitting in a rather lame state for quite some time and no real effort has been made to clean them up or add relevant references, aside from the episode citations. They all re-state plot points and offer trivial information that really doesn't matter. Cut all that and you're left with small stubs, roughly the same size they'd be on this list--GroovySandwichYum. 06:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Even so, the series itself is notable, and each individual main character article offered an infobox containing vital information, as well as an illustrative image of the character (now lost due to being orphaned). Merging does not justify losing this information. Cut out the excessive plot information if you must, but the work within consensus-driven framework of an article for each main character. It is easier to supervise changes when the page histories for each character are intact. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The series is notable, but not necessarily the characters. My take on the matter is this: the characters should be put on the list and expanded there; if enough references and out-of-universe information is found, then they should be split into articles. Why leave them as articles barely longer than a list entry? Who knows how long they would stay that way? I'd rather see a well-written entry on a list than a stub with no chances of real expansion. Your whole argument for keeping the articles as they are is that they have infoboxes. Put them on the list if you wish--GroovySandwichYum. 06:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I personally don't doubt that there are verifiable secondary reliable sources out there for these character articles and that they could be worked up to a standard that meets the WP:GNG. It would be helpful if the proponents of this article could do a little digging and demonstrate here on the talk page that there are sources out there? Maybe start with J.D., since he's the protagonist? — Hunter Kahn 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To Zfish: losing some info is not a rational to keep an article; Wikipedia only has articles that assert notability, not ones that someone might find useful. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Well i'm sure there is some reviews on the characters such as J.D. and possibly Christopher Turk and Perry Cox. But at the moment, i'm looking for some. Don't know the best place to look for reviews or possibly interviews on them.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledging WP:Inherited, my philosophy is more aligned with the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Perusing other articles, it seems that the majority of TV-shows have individual articles for important characters. Many of these also summarize major plot arcs as they relate to each character. For consistency sake, which has been been my primary motive all along, I believe that each Scrubs character article should be improved in place. Its just confusing for users if long standing articles about characters suddenly disappear. I'm not against removing inappropriate content, mind you, just the merge proposal. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You realize WP:Other stuff exists is bad? not all of them fall under the exact same situation of other characters. This is about having enough citation. If it's about being organized than you don't have to worry about that if they merge. It won't be "confusing" as the dicussion is here. I am in favor of the merge (ulness enough third party sources are found).Bread Ninja (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I invoke the essay WP:Other stuff exists, as the author shares my opinion that consistent coverage for similar topics is important. It further argues that some president should be accepted, so that arguments like this aren't repeated over and over for every television series. If you disagree with essay (think its "bad"), I recommend taking it up on the discussion page there. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick search found numerous sources for the characters. I've added several for JD), and will add them for the others as well. I've even trimmed some of the unnecessary plot detail in JD and would do the same for the other characters. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome and good work. The addition of reliable sources to those articles that have them is the best outcome of such a discussion. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Against Combination of even two characters would increase the size of the articles past WP guidelines for article length, they would be almost immediately split again. Je.rrt (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that all of the information would be merged. About 80% of the content of all these character articles are against Wiki policy. We are not a fan site for recording minutiae. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
My merge proposal still stands. A couple sources were added to JD's article and have verified trivial, in-universe character details. That's nice and all but in my opinion he can still be merged with those references intact. And the other characters are still in the same state as before. As Scapler said, this is not the place for the trivial minute details that make up these articles--GroovySandwichYum. 03:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Each of these needs to be assessed individually on a case-by-case basis. Major characters are more likely to be notable than minor ones (although being a major character doesn't guarantee notability). If a specific character hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, then he should be merged into the list. If he has, then he could have a standalone article as well as a place in the list. Since the wholesale merge has been contested, the discussion should be refocused towards specific characters and their notability. ThemFromSpace 03:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Howie?[edit]

Howie is one of the new doctors who appears in season 8. I believe there should be a small section for him. I don't have the skill set for making it, but a section for him should exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.135.81 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Scrubs characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)