Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Archive 2

message: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Warning regarding episode articles 

message: Apparently  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crew member names 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Hence why I said it's sometimes typecast with square brackets, in lowercase. Will (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [scrubs]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [Schedule] 

message: 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. --$UIT 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its not a "long List" it has three items in it, which is extremely short for a tv program article--Jac16888 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how long it is. Trivia is trivia. Even if it has sources. Putting the trivia into the appropriate areas of the articles would only benefit it--$UIT 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trivia 

message: since when was colin farrell in scrubs? who does/did he play? Kiran90 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Season four, "My Lucky Charm". He plays "Billy", a man involved in a bar fight. --Ckatzchatspy 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colin Farrell 

message: ====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.  It was restored twice for reasons elaborated in the parent section on this talk page.   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 
* 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 
* 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media|RfC]]

message: ; Statement by 
* 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 
* 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)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

message: * Very big flunk of WP:NOT#DIR. Not a close question. THF 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by uninvolved parties 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Scrubs]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: Just found this  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)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't Kelso take over as head nurse for a while after Carla gives birth? mattbuck 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thats right, in His Story IV, i cited the episode a few days ago--Jac16888 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah Laverne asks Kelso for a replacement head nurse so Kelso fills in while Carla's away. Jamie jca (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carla Head Nurse? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Australia is Region 4. --Ninevah 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6 DVD 

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

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

message: First, this is a new section for the argument, to make it easy for us editors to add our two cents.
Secondly; to Sgeureka|t; I believe it is possible to make nice, clear, easy-to-read NON-stubby articles for the Scrubs main characters and that this should, in fact, be done, because they deserve it for being noteable and stuff. Lots42 (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each character that has an article should have the following: a short, concise opening, two paragraphs to describe their background and achievements throughout the series, two or three to describe their personality and relationships (backed with actual sources, not just referencing the episode), as many paragraphs possible telling about the character's creation and development, and as many as many paragraphs possible telling about the character's reception and real world impact. More in universe information can possibly be added with the inclusion of more real world information, but that will be a good starting point. TTN (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that each article needs to assert notability. However, the notability guidelines clearly state that once a subject is notable there are no constraints on the content of the article in terms of notability. I don't think it is for TTN to decide how much plot summary is appropriate; this should be a community effort. However, other guidelines do apply and it is important that plot summary in character articles is restricted in length. For episode summaries guidelines for television state 10 words per minute of screen time. There are not currently guidelines for character articles. I'd urge interested parties to consider discussing this at the television wikiproject. However, the main issue in this discussion is that these articles do not currently assert notability. I believe they have the potential to meet the notability guidelines and the editors involved need to work at finding sources that focus on the real world significance and then collaborate on adding them to the articles.--Opark 77 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that limit content would be WP:WAF/WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Both require a balance between real and fictional information. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said this is a digression from the topic of specific merges relating to Scrubs articles so I've responded at WP:TV, specifically here.--Opark 77 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll reply at WP:TV in a minute because I was thinking about this in the past few days also, but I'll reply here first. Lots42, I agree that some of these article can become Good or even Featured Articles, but I don't think they will any time soon if no-one steps in. Think of it this way: I came across Pregnancy in Science Fiction a couple of weeks ago. The article had existed for 4 years and was a mess, so I AfD'ed it with the reasoning "With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written [...] but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - Dogs in science fiction, Food in science fiction, Music in science fiction,..." The AfD ended in no consensus, but look what has happened now. I doubt that this would have happened without the AfD. Character articles are pretty much the same - no-one cares to include secondary information (unless he is really devoted). If editors can forever rest on the assumption that something is notable, why should they actually work on it? If these characters are so notable, why is it so hard for the please-do-not-mergers to demonstrate it? Unless we're talking about James Bond, Harry Potter or Darth Vader, having articles for main characters is not so much about "they deserve it because of popularity" or "... because the plot summary is too long", but "they deserve it because their current encyclopedic coverage is just to much for the main article to handle WP:SIZE-wise. That's the weakest point of all Scrubs character articles. – sgeureka t•c 18:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. Are you under the belief nobody is working on the character's articles to improve them? A character can be noteable and have a crappy article.Lots42 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked. J.D.'s article was started in March 2006, Dr. Cox's in June 2006. Are you saying that anybody was really working on their encyclopedic coverage in the past 1.5 years? I see no (in the best case a handful of) reliable secondary sources. Granted, some articles have a short list of production details tagged on at the end, but all in all, I see no character creation sections, no casting section, no makeup & constumes section, nor a reception section. If you are still saying that anybody put any work into the Scrubs articles, compare them to this character article, which I produced within 3.5 months (the show ran for just 24 episodes). Per WP:FICT, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. and If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. I see no proof of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources nor any kind of encyclopedic treatment. As I've said before, I give J.D. and two or three other characters the benefit of doubt, but I'll reject any assertion that the other characters are independently notable and should be allowed to have a crappy article. – sgeureka t•c 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Please refer to what I said in the past. I'm bowing out of this avalance of a discussion. Lots42 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked whether I believed that somebody was working on these articles. I said, obviously not and proved my assertion. You said notable characters are allowed to have crappy articles. I said most of these articles don't even prove notability and should therefore not have individual article at all. The "crappy" question is therefore irrelevant. – sgeureka t•c 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Merge Part 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jordan Sullivan 

message: Does anyone think it's a good idea to start a Scrubs Wikiproject since i've noticed alot of the episode pages are quite bare and the character pages could be quite alot better, certainly since they have been flagged as not meeting notability guidelines. Jamie jca (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Devil's Advocate - as I understand it, anyone can put up a noteabillity warning, doesn't mean it actually applies. I imagine that (at least at one point) it was possible to do so for Canada. I know, Scrubs isn't as important as Canada (Scrubs can't give us maple syrup). Lots42 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a Scrubs task force of WP:TV?--Opark 77 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrubs Wikiproject?

message: FIRST: Consensus is clear that real-world information is required, backed up by reliable, third party sources to assert notability. As a result of that consensus and the fact that no real-world information has been added to the individual character pages establishing notability, the character pages - ALL of them, without exception - should be merged and turned into redirects forthwith. For the continuation of further dissenting views, the best place to note it is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) where one will see there is an active discussion underway. Let me again reminds editors that consensus always refers to the practices, principles & policies of the site as a whole and NOT to the accumulation of opinion one one article's talk page, so further remonstration here is without purpose. NEXT: almost all the episode articles do not meet our criteria for independent articles, and these should also be turned into redirects, with a brief plot summary merged into the episode list page. Please see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA for the relevant policies.  Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Awesome opinion.  You might want to do this discussion over at List of Scrubs episodes.  Notthegoatseguy (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not continue the discussion here, with the people most likely to simply remove the redirects and cite your posted comment directly stating you will ignore the consensus? Or perhaps [here], where the issue of what you and TNN are trying to do? Scumbag (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said nothing of the sort, and Eusebeus post was about episode redirects.  It should take place on the episodes talk page, not here.  134.68.177.192 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Merge & Redirect 

message: :Image:Scrubscard.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Scrubscard.png

message: Per the earlier discussion, I am going to merge the principal characters of Scrubs to a new article entitled List of major characters of Scrubs. As a reminder, fictional topics need to conform to our policies and guidelines outlined at WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:WAF. I suggest that at the top of the list article, the following phrase be included:
More extensive information on individual characters, including full biographies, character development and trivia can be found here.
That way interested readers can be directed to the Scrubs wikia directly if they wish to satisfy their full craving for in-universe fictional details. I remind concerned editors that the principal focus of our articles on fiction needs to be the real-world significance of the topic. As they stand now, these provide extensive in-universe details suitable for a fan-page, but lack the necessary assertions of notability suitable for an encyclopedia. Longstanding consensus, repeatedly confirmed by the larger community of editors, has determined that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eusebeus (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if each individual character conformed to the policies and guidelines like you want them to (rules which are not set in stone), the article is going to be WAAAAY too long. A brief mention of each character would be silly, as the main ones are noteable and we really aren't supposed to rely on fandom wikis as the source of anything. In short, merging will cause more problems then it fixes. Lots42 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Eusebeus says that Wikipedia is not a fan site but his actions seem to be fanatical.  Tsk.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this move. The major characters of a lot of TV shows have their own articles. As was mentioned earlier, any combination of these would either create an incredible large article or will force the deletion of a lot of content. I am firmly against this move.↔NMajdan•talk 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forthcoming Merge and Redirect 

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

message: Why are there no cast pictures or any form of images on the page anymore, it looks dull and boring, there should really be at least 5 pictures on this page for a page of its size just to make it more interesting and illustrate the characters and the series in general. (86.159.141.185 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they didn't have proper fairuse rationales and therefore did constitute copyright infringement. As no-one was willing to update the old rationales, there was no other option than to delete the images. – sgeureka t•c 12:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's really sad. What a shame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowabc (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images on page

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

message: There is an episode where The Spree play "Light and Day" in a patient's room.  This should be added to the musical contributions... no?  Boydannie (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so since there are no objections I'm gonna go ahead and throw that on up there.  Feel free to revert if necessary. Boydannie (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm gonna change it so it says the episode name, My Choosiest Choice of All. Ladder4321 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  okie dokie!  I had forgotten the name and was too lazy to look it up. Queerbubbles (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Polyphonic Spree 

message: Just a note, the region 2 dvd set does not come with audiocommentaries. I'm currently watching it, and I'm highly dissappointed that there's no commentaries. Dracoster (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put in a side note under that section in the article about the descriptors only being regarded for region 1, I dont see a problem with that.  Anyone else?  Queerbubbles (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I misstyped, season 1 and 2 does have audio commentaries, while season 3 does not, and season 4 only has two tracks of commentary. Which I believe shouldn't warrant advertising about it on the cover. Dracoster (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 2 DVDs and commentaries 

message: Recently the article has suffered quite a few IP edits changing Clock's name to Clark. Not sure what can be done except to continue to revert the edits. I'll ask for semi-protection if it continues. Enigma msg! 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it is vandalism, could just be mistaken, anyway have left a politer note on the latest IP's talk page, no offence, but remember to assume good faith. Anyway, its too minor for the article to be protected form the real problem lately is the IP(s) who keeps adding "homey i can see your doodle" to various scrubs articles, Perry Cox is already protected because of it.--Jac16888 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already left a note about it on the page. Look at the message directly before yours. ;) I'm not assuming good faith anymore on that specific edit because of the sheer number of times it has happened. Enigma msg! 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your note, but sometimes it helps matters to leave a friendly note rather than blunt, to point notes and generic warnings. Remember, there is every possibilty that the Ip is just mistaken, its happened a million times on wikipedia, some ignore or don't understand messages, but it always stops, if it a vandal they usually get bored soon enough--Jac16888 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. I could've been more polite about it. I would've been had I not reverted that exact edit so many times before! By the way, I don't have Cox's article on my watchlist, but I'm going to add it because of what you mentioned. Enigma msg! 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You never warned that last doodle vandal. I'm going to warn it now. Enigma msg! 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, i'm mostly focusing on reverting now, warning seems to do little, and they change ip to often for a block to be any use--Jac16888 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Yay, I had my request declined. Terrific. So I should simply continually revert the vandalism that's become pervasive? Enigma msg! 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was little chance of it being re-protected since the vandalism has slowed down considerably, and it wouldn't help much either since other scrubs pages have started to get the same treatment, to a lesser degree. The fact the changes are slowing down suggest the vandal is getting bored, continue to revert and sooner or later they'll stop. Don't let it get to you, remember, it takes more effort to vandalise than it does to revert vandalism, and by reverting, you're helping the community(bit cliched, sorry). Keep up the good work--Jac16888 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I spend a large portion of my day reverting vandalism! The frustrating thing here is that it's the same person with the same vandalism to the same pages, and we can't get the user blocked or protect the pages. Enigma msg! 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take a deep breath and remember that you are infinitely better than the vandals. You will hopefully continue editing here long after they get bored and give up, for example there is a vandal who started off vandalisng about a year ago from lots of different IP's, regularly at first, but now they pop up occasionally to blank a page or attack me or something. Don't give them the satisfaction of getting frustrated, instead, just revert, warn and ignore, which will frustrate them immensely, most repeated vandals are attention seekers. If vandalism is getting to you this much, consider taking a wikibreak, or limiting the amount of time you spend on here--Jac16888 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm ok. I like helping the community by reverting vandalism. This specific case is just a little frustrating. Worse comes to worse, I'll take the affected pages off my watchlist and focus on the other 400 pages I watch. Thanks for the concern. :) Enigma msg! 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals and Molly Clock 

message: I noticed Perry Cox had semi-protection that expired. Why don't we request longer semi-protection for the pages in question? I'll go ask for Perry Cox now. Enigma msg! 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, I had my request declined. Terrific. So I should simply continually revert the vandalism that's become pervasive? Enigma msg! 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was little chance of it being re-protected since the vandalism has slowed down considerably, and it wouldn't help much either since other scrubs pages have started to get the same treatment, to a lesser degree. The fact the changes are slowing down suggest the vandal is getting bored, continue to revert and sooner or later they'll stop. Don't let it get to you, remember, it takes more effort to vandalise than it does to revert vandalism, and by reverting, you're helping the community(bit cliched, sorry). Keep up the good work--Jac16888 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I spend a large portion of my day reverting vandalism! The frustrating thing here is that it's the same person with the same vandalism to the same pages, and we can't get the user blocked or protect the pages. Enigma msg! 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take a deep breath and remember that you are infinitely better than the vandals. You will hopefully continue editing here long after they get bored and give up, for example there is a vandal who started off vandalisng about a year ago from lots of different IP's, regularly at first, but now they pop up occasionally to blank a page or attack me or something. Don't give them the satisfaction of getting frustrated, instead, just revert, warn and ignore, which will frustrate them immensely, most repeated vandals are attention seekers. If vandalism is getting to you this much, consider taking a wikibreak, or limiting the amount of time you spend on here--Jac16888 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm ok. I like helping the community by reverting vandalism. This specific case is just a little frustrating. Worse comes to worse, I'll take the affected pages off my watchlist and focus on the other 400 pages I watch. Thanks for the concern. :) Enigma msg! 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: "Bill Callahan was an executive producer (2007-2008). He started on the show in season 4 as co-executive producer and has since written six episodes. He was fired during the WGA strike."
Shouldn't this statement have some kind of references?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.144.212 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a source?  Queerbubbles (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what the text says, and it should be sourced. Since i can't find one, i'm going to remove it--Jac16888 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Callahan 

message: There an issue with [19]. I tried fixing it, but references are not my forté. Please assist. Enigma msg! 06:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, basically the last edit before your attempt to fix it was a probably a test edit, which removed part of the ref, just reverted that edit, problem solved.--Jac16888 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm not sure if it would help, but I'm wondering if it would be worth having a comment in the article at some point or various points saying that ABC Studios is not a mistake, seeing how every so often somebody comes along and changes it to NBC...? --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the lines of, "Despite being aired on NBC channels, Scrubs is produced (or whatever) by... " Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something along the lines of "Scrubs is produced by ABC, through its production division, even though it is aired by rival broadcaster NBC". Thats what the article already says--Jac16888 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I know the information is already in the article itself, but I'm talking about putting something like that that's commented out of the article, so it only shows up when editing, right near where the changes keep occurring (for example, the recent ones in "Season 7 and the Writer's strike" (or whatever the section heading is)). That way, when someone goes to make that change to that section, it's right there in front of them and hopefully read. Anyway, just a thought. --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, i've just done that. Remember though, there was nothing stopping you being bold and doing it yourself--Jac16888 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC Studios 

message: John C. seems to think it is a done deal. Might not be an official source, but it is the best we have so far on the future of the series.↔NMajdan•talk 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen worse... but its not my call.  I say yes, but wait a tad for others to input.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reliable enough to me--Jac16888 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to ABC 

message: It says that there were 12 episodes filmed for the 7th season but there are only 11 being shown?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitchin13 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a question? --Soetermans (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

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

message: "Dramedy" is a term that is used almost exclusively within the Unites States and even then, its use appears fairly limited. It doesn't appear to be in any dictionary of note. Wikipedia articles should present a neutral world-view and made up words should be avoided. To anyone (including Americans) the meaning of comedy-drama is clear. On the other hand, dramedy is puzzling to most readers and requires following the link to find out what dramedy means. Comedy-drama is what we should be using here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Dramedy is hardly classable as a real word, and since it means exactly the same thing as comedy-drama, which doesn't sound so childish, and made-up, the answer is clear--Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that dramedy is a redirect to comedy-drama anyway... why shouldn't we just cut out the middleman (or -link)? --umrguy42 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was exactly the point of my last edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramedy 

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

message: Scrubs comedic mediocrity is often the subject of ridicule in telivision series such as American Dad!, The Simpson's, and Family Guy. Should we include this? 68.219.27.35 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if we can find reliable sources for it - our observations aren't enough and would be interpreted as original research. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Sorry, but I took out the section about My Charlie Brown Christmas. It didn't look right for the article. And I don't know why it was even there. It belongs on the List of Scrubs episodes page. Why write a synopsis of just one episode on the main Scrubs page? --67.32.195.191 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it should have been purged. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Yes, it is a term, and yes, the show is slated to return.  Thats how its said.  See .  Qb | your 2 cents 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slated 

message: I haven't seen this anywhere in the article, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the discussion at this point, but has the location of Sacred Heart ever been disclosed?  I've always assumed that it was somewhere in California, and there's a few suggestions about this in various episodes, but I've not seen anything definite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.115 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Sacred Heart Hospital.  There is also a quick blurb on the hospital at the end of this article, the main Scrubs one.  Qb | your 2 cents 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where exacly is Sacred Heart? 

message: Zach Braff is leaving the show, as confirmed by Bill Lawrence. Please someone find a source for that, i have one but it's in spanish.... PD: I'm crying out loud :'( --MakE shout! 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, here's the source... :S Zach Braff leaves Scrubs   --MakE shout! 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Braff's departure at the end eighth season was predicted when the show moved to ABC and there were indications that it might go beyond eighth season. This is just an official confirmation. LeaveSleaves (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nothing of the sort. The article says that Braff may leave the show, and it may go on after that. People say a lot of things that turn out to be false when it comes to leaving shows--Jac16888 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far more than a speculation, see , . LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATENTION!!! 

message: There's no details on how it almost ended (last season was supposed to be a short 7), and how it came back from that.
I think the first paragraph reflects this confusion, with is and was used in the same sentance a few times. 86.139.103.176 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recomission? Is/was? 

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

message: Should this article include other channels that the show is currently airing on? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd seen an answer to this kind of question elsewhere, but I wouldn't know where right now. So, to sum up: personal opinion would be that unless it's significantly notable that it's being shown on that network (for example, NBC/ABC during the initial run), probably not - otherwise the article runs the risk of gaining that dreaded "indiscriminate collection" of networks around the world that it's currently on. If people do think there's some reason to list some of the networks, I would recommend a compromise with such wording as "Scrubs has been shown in syndication on such networks as Comedy Central, WGN, <MAJOR national/international networks>". But that would be my second choice, first choice is not to worry about trying to list them all. umrguy42 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy Central and TV Land 

message: Editors should make themselves aware that every non-free image needs a separate fair use rationale for each article in which it is used.  Simply claiming thst "that one is fine. It has been for some time" does not magically make the image compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. --Baba's camel (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should realize that you are being a major dick about this, instead of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.  See WP:AGF.  Qb | your 2 cents 13:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)fair enough. i can't get my head round all this non-free image stuff never have, i simply restored the image because it's been there a while and figured it was ok.--Jac16888 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationales for non-free images 

message: I took a look at the peer review of this article, and one of the main arguments against a WP:GA was the supporting cast section. I read that it should be done in prose tone, not the long list it's now. I go and make the list, and it keeps getting reverted. I ask, isn't much better to help and improve that section than to simply rv it?. It isn't that hard, the references are in each character's page, i'll do it myself but i don't have time, this is a shared pc and other people want to use it. So please, lets take our beloved (at list mine) Scrubs article a step forward and not backwards, i really think this show deserves at least a Good Article. Thanks in advance.  --MakE shout! 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, your efforts are certainly appreciated. However, in assessing the text, I was of the conclusion that it would need an extensive rewrite to meet GA standards, and as such it was better to restore the older version. --Ckatzchatspy 08:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting cast.