Talk:List of Scrubs episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Scrubs episodes article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Episode Article Redirects

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

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every episode of every TV show ever invented is noteworthy, if for no other reason than because they are all unique. Some show may "tip the hat" or be a reference to another show, book, movie, comic, graphic novel, quote, personality, or event, but they all deserve credit for being, literally, one-of-a-kind. To say that only the arc of a show is noteworthy is the same as saying that each novel by Joseph Conrad is a variation on a theme, and that a one-sentence plot description is sufficient. Aramis1250 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the ones in the navbox as sufficiently notable (award winning, etc). Redirect the less for lack of real world context. Will (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There may be a few more out there with that match up to them, so I'll give them a look over sometime soon. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is just off the top of my head, but My Five Stages is based around the Five Stages of Grief. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And what is your point? Do you think that that makes it worthy of having its own article? Also, it is the conclusion of a two-parter, so "My Cabbage" would also require its own article...etc. etc. etc. This is going to be a big project, and deciding what is notable enough to merit its own article is extremely subjective. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Not true. "My Lunch" is part one of three episodes yet the other two don't have any real world information in it, like My Cabbage. The episode I mentioned has an entire story dedicated to a real world theory. It should stay.Notthegoatseguy (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And "My Screw Up" is followed by "My Tormented Mentor", but that doesn't make MTM notable. Will (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The exercise in determining what merits an individual article is not really that complex. As I note above, awards, unusual ratings or achievements that accrue to a specific episode are certainly grounds for establishing notability. Writing gimmicks may count if they have had enough demonstrable real-world impact; otherwise they should redirect as well. An advantage of redirection is that if any article is later deemed to be notable, it can always be restored. It looks like we have fair agreement on this so I suggest we proceed. Also, please consider weighing in on the upcoming character redirects if you haven't already. The same notability criteria apply. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Not true - they are fine. There's actually another one that has a major award - "My Life in Four Cameras". --Ckatzchatspy 09:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If they do not establish notability with a variety of sources, then they are not fine. Awards by themselves are not enough. TTN 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If we could source it to the awards site, that'd be a reliable source for popular reception. Will (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is while they obviously can be used as notability establishing sources, being the only source is not going to work out. If all we have available is the award, it is better placed as a footnote on the episode list or in a section in the main article. TTN 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
True. I actually said something to the effect of "one Nielsen rating an episode article does not make" on the episode and character AC (although of course a Hugo or an Emmy is more important than a Nielsen rating from a Wiki point of view). Still, I think that, for the mean time, the ones in the navbox should be given a stay of execution longer than the normal episodes as they are notable, and we can discuss the notability in depth a bit more. Will (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I won't make a fuss. So are we about ready to go at this point? TTN 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I say give other people about twelve to twenty-four hours to throw in their opinions, and then go ahead. Will (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Personally I think it's rediculous, removing information from an encyclopedia because it isn't of the real world. If that is the case then why not just delete the articles about a load of ordinary, not exceptional books since they don;t necessarily relate to the real world. You can't just delete all this information, why is it so necessary anyway, is there a lack of space for wikipedia that requires articles to be deleted so more can be written? Or is it just that some people don't like the idea of episode articles and so they need to be deleted? Why was it necessary to delete the articles? nobody has explained it beyond this rediculous real-world based ideaNIKKKIN (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured music

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

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

[edit] Wikia

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

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

It would be nice to see genuine merges rather than simplistic redirects to the List page. The links between, say "My Screw Up" and "My Tormented Mentor" could be discussed in prose. So, please put effort into your "merges." The JPStalk to me 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does each episode have an article?

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

Not enough people who are able to contribute to wikipedia apropriatly are interested in those shows i guess. Although a lot of grown-ups also watch spongebob, which made me wonder why there are no pages for each character there yet. I like reading some episode pages to understand certain references or appearences or whatnot. Other people do as well. So just leave it and turn to those things that brighten your day 217.82.11.175 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The list is currently in the process of being merged. 68.77.91.91 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I also object to the summarisation of episode pages on any show, or at least those with two seasons or more. This turns the helpful resources into petty shadows of what they used to be, and the summaries are completely useless. Can we please stop this madness once and for all? --Riche (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Try here - http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The mere fact you had to give me that link (and that there were no obvious links on Wikipedia itself) proves that the Wikia system doesn't work, added to which is the fact that the Wikias are unlikely to be as updated or have such a large userbase (or quality of articles), that Wikias (in general) lack any support by Firefox search bars or similar useful apps, that the page formats are awful, and collapse completely when the page is beyond about three printer pages in length (in both Firefox and IE, the former of which is practically unusable), and the unlikelyhood of them appearing in a decent position in search engine rankings. I find it amusing that pages such as episode pages are considered poor quality when they are far more readable than many other pages, in particular those on scientific subjects that seem to assume that (apart from the summary, in most cases, which is normally easier to read but more limited than the article) the reader has a full knowledge of every subject mentioned, which simply defies belief in terms of research. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, but deletionism seems to be taking away its primary benefit over other encyclopedias, that being that you can type in a topic you are looking for and in 99.9% of cases there will be an article for it that at least acts as a reasonably up-to-date NPOV (which is particularly useful on subjects otherwise plagued with bias if they were to be searched for on Google) starting point for further learning. Due to the amount of effort required (and the impossibility for those who aren't admin) to return a page from deletion, and the ease with which pages are deleted without consideration, Wikipedia is losing that usefulness. --Riche (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well listen, I think you are making a number of very good points and I think you make them well, even if I persist in disagreement with you. I would strongly urge you then to weigh in on the centralised debate. Remember, consensus is defined globally not locally so the best place to note this is at the WP:FICT talk page where there is an ongoing discussion. Consensus changes, but it does not change here at the Scrubs page, while remaining intact elsewhere. I would recommend you (1) read through (or at least glance through) the archived debates at the Fict talk page before weighing in since many topics have already been extensively discussed. And (2) I suggest you avoid slurs like deletionism. I know what you mean, and I suspect that you are not trying to be insulting, but when you have a good point, which you do about wikia, it is best not to distract from it through infelicitous phraseology. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OH MY GOD somebody deleted the episode links!!!

why!!!!!!! no!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Fuster (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove the episode pages?

Why have the pages been delted?

The summaries are not enough, many ppl will want a more detailed recap of eahc episode, want to know what music featured in the episodes or even want to know what tv show or film they were making a joke at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.118.173 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is, what a moronic thing to do. --82.37.32.93 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Hypershadow647 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too! I loved the episodes summaries here, and it's a real pain to have to go between Wikipedia and Wikia. There was more than just summaries - it's themes, trivia (which I do like to know) and lots of other information that is otherwise hard to come by or spread out over lots of other sources - which at the very least, the episode articles link to. Jess Gordon (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Episode Links?

I am so pissed off at this. There's tons of other shows with separate episode articles. What is the point of merging anyway? Is the whole God damn world going to explode if Wikipedia isn't fucking sparkly shiny clean? Jesus Christ, get a life. My opinion? Leave Wikipedia as is. Don't change anything, because people like myself will go here trying to read about the latest episode of Scrubs, only to be met by a fucking pointless redirect that shouldn't even exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.169.81 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reverse it but the links went no where so it didn't matter. PUT THE PAGES BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.184.201 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This has pissed me off too, i enjoyed reading the episode summaries on these, if there is trouble with unsourced notes and trivia take them out and leave the episode summaries in as per say, house or heroes. Put them back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.89.52 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Where else are we supposed to find out which songs are in which episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently, this is explicitly disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, it's draconian and silly. I'm not even sure why it's disallowed. But it is. --Roguelazer (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I tell, the "no plot summaries" rule has been applied all over Wikipedia, as per the Television Show Episode Guidelines. A casual glance shows that List of Psych episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes has been similarly trimmed, although the anti-plot people haven't yet erased List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Stargate Atlantis episodes (to pick random television shows that I've looked at episode summaries from in the past month). I'm not sure why this has happened, and, frankly, I find it ridiculous, but it has happened. :-( --Roguelazer (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Calm down people. Wikipedia's main focus is on the real-world significance of its topics and while it is possible to point to other places that seem to fail that standard, that does not lessen the need to bring existing content into line with our policies. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) However, the good news is that the scrubs wikia (http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) has all the plot-summary & soundtrack goodness that you need, including an exploration into the minutiae of the Scrubs universe to satisfy even the most die-hard fan. I will add a link and a mention to the list article now. On behalf of those of us who merged the info, I apologise that such a link was not provided before. Eusebeus (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I'm glad this could be handled noble-ly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Italian journalist and writer, and I was finding all the data in the Scrubs episode summaries very useful and precious, while I'm writing a book about Scrubs. Obviously, it was not just a matter of "plot summaries" (and no, Scrubs Wikia is not even near to have all the data of the deleted summaries. Not near at all, the episode list is fairly blank down there). It was shared knowledge about pop culture inside Scrubs. I was thinking the entire Wikipedia project was about sharing knowledge. I think the day someone will start to decide what is "important" or "right to care about" for others, that will be (or already is) a very sad day for Wikipedia as a whole. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i just want to do what other editors haven't, and apologise to all you readers of the project who have come here and are upset about the missing episode pages, i'm sorry this has happened to you, since you are the people who are missing out here, i wish this hadn't happened. Anyway the pages are still available to view, and heres how, type the name of the specific episode page you want to view, e.g. My Overkill, into the search box. that will bring you here. go to the top of this page, and in small letters underneath the title page, it will say "redirected from My Overill. Click on this link, and you will be taken to a page with a link to this page. go to the history tab, and view a version before TTN's redirect. There you are--Jac16888 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It might be a good idea, given the comments above, to transwiki to wikia the scrubs episode pages that are currently incomplete. The ones I had checked, however, were pretty extensive. Eusebeus (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Extensive? Did you bother to compare them to the existing articles on wikipedia?

My Screw Up (top rated episode) Scrubs Wikia vs My Screw up Wikipedia

Elliot on Scrubs Wikia vs Elliot on Wikipedia

My Long Goodbye vsMy Long Goodbye Wikipedia (before deletion)

I could go on all day making these comparisons. Bottom line: the Scrubs wikia sucks compared to what was already here. Whoever said that it's equivalent to the huge knowledgebase that existed here just a few days ago was either lying or didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
I'm not going to bother trying to sift through the condescending sarcasm below, as there's no profit in that, but it's worth pointing out that this demonstrably false assertion about the Scrubs wikia having some sort of parity with the extremely thorough knowledgebase that existed here (as well as the clumsy sales pitch for the Scrubs wikia) shows that the people making these decisions a) are totally disconnected from the subject matter and/or b) simply don't care. Not exactly a good way to gain the confidence of the people who actually write these articles. --Warrior-Poet (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. The Scrubs Wikia is lacking significantly when compared to what was on this site before. To sit here and continue to strut around an inferior Wiki (not on a dedicated server, but a free Wiki service no less) as an alternate is laughable, and the lack of fan support for the Wikia is clearly evidenced by the fact that it hasn't been updated since November, even with these pages going down. Whatever motives are driving this are ludicrous and the one step back, no steps forward approach helps no one. 69.183.162.37 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


This entire decision was agreed upon by very few people. Very undemocratic. Pathetic choices made by pathetic people. This sucks. --69.117.172.143 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, unfortunately. Will (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But this was one of those things that was supposed to be voted on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The motherfucker User:TTN is the one that is deleting everything and encouraging others to delete them. Motherfucker!

This is so fucking stupid, what fucking idiot chose to delete virtually every episode page? We need to bring them back, how about a vote? --The monkeyhate (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: individual episode articles

1. What Happened?

Following a discussion in October & November 2007, it was determined that the vast majority of Scrubs episode articles did not and could not aspire to the standards for fictional topics as they are elaborated at Wikipedia's policies on notability & secondary sources, its prohibition against plot summaries and trivia, and the general guideline for writing about fictional topics. Full debate details can be accessed in the Archive.

2. So are all the Episode Pages lost?

No. At the time of the merge it was determined that most of the existing information at Wikipedia also existed at the scrubs wikia site, which can be accessed at http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. In the event that you find an episode article at the Scrubs Wikia which does not contain complete in-universe information, it is possible to transwiki the information from the original Wikipedia article to the Scrubs wikia. You can either be bold and do it yourself, or else leave a note here indicating which episode(s) are incomplete.

3. This sucks. Why are you ruining Wikipedia for everyone?

We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination. As part of that campaign, we use Wikipedia's policies, such as its prohibition against plot summaries, and guidelines, such as the need for real-world context, to fashion crude but effective weapons and incidentally to promote encyclopedic standards. Also, Wikipedia consensus has long held that this is not a fan site, that information needs to focus on real-world impact. While some readers may feel that the prevalence of fan material here mitigates against its removal generally, that argument has been discredited. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, now do the same for every other episode page of every other show on Wikipedia. --69.117.172.143 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Eusebeus, but I just think your conception of "fan content" is uncorrect. Or, by the way, are not all the sport statistics in Wikipedia "for fans only"? And what about all the data about pop music releases? Are not these a pure fan service? Is the history of Destiny's Child more "Wikipedian" than Scrubs episodes analysis? However, Scrubs Wikia _is_ a fansite, made by fans for fans, far from the quality control Wikipedia can and must have. Therefore, as a professional, I can't trust at all the content of a site like that. Dumping the old pages there (where at the moment they are NOT) will means not to improve them anymore.(And the system to access the deleted pages through history is so unpractical I can't even consider it seriously). But, again, here the problem is to treat informations about a pop culture act of undeniable quality like some stupid childish gibberish that would pollute the great adult encyclopedia. And that's just plain prejudice to me. (Thanks for introduce the sarcasm, anyway. It's very useful in a discussion. Was it in this way you "determined" all your things during October and November discussion?).Kumagoro-42 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry if my attempt at humour came across as sarcasm. While I agree wholeheartedly with the effort to remove in-universe fan-driven content, that is not personal caprice, but instead the even application of our guidelines and policies as they have evolved. Bitching about it on the Scrubs talk page is not going to change what is a larger consensus-driven view of what does and does not belong here. As to the comment posted above, thanks for the encouragement: we are slowly getting around to bringing the mass of non-encyclopedic fictional content up to standard. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Even application of our guidelines"? Go put merge tags on the articles listed at List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes, and List of Doctor Who serials or stop pretending the criteria is applied evenly. --Pixelface (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    You've tossed this "suggestion" out all over the place. I, for one, would be all for merging some of those articles and trimming out the dross. However, I also know that it would cause a huge fight, and I expect that you know it, too. So, basically, you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It would only cause a huge fight if WP:EPISODE doesn't have consensus. If WP:EPISODE doesn't have consensus, it needs to be rewritten or marked historical. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I really really fail to see how deleting a bunch of articles on Scrubs helps any single person in life in any way, shape, or form. In fact, although I doubt anyone is really harmed by it, it provides for the exact opposite purpose of an encyclopedia(which is providing information) by taking it away. And, really why put so much effort into something like that? Why not let people just have their articles? Or atleast have an open discussion where more people express their opinions before just acting on such things.Viciouspsychedelia (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • At the very least, at least as a temporary change while this is all worked out, the music that was listed in each episode as well as the list of special guests should make it to the summaries. These are two pieces of information on every episode that should not be removed just because the summaries are to be banished. 146.95.18.203 (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Since Wikipedia seems more concerned with following its own rigid rules rather than acually bothering with articles that people apparently want, what exactly is the procedure for getting the individual episode articles restored? It seems that there was very little opportunity for discussion before these articles disappeared, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is increasingly going the way of a private members club with more concern for bureaucracy than knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.49.188 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ideally anything that would make the revived episode article look like one of these Simpsons episode articles. But for a start, I guess also something like "The One Where No One's Ready" from Friends would be allowed. It can also be considered to start Season articles for Scrubs, like e.g. Smallville (season 1), which allows for more plot detail but also(!) production facts. – sgeureka t•c 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Echoing Sgeureka's reply, any episode that demonstrates real-world significance (an award, unusual ratings achievement) should have an article about it. I might add that in almost every instance there were: 1) overly long plot summaries and (2) trivia sections. These would continue to be discouraged. If what fans are looking for are detailed plot summaries & trivia, this is simply not the place for it. Eusebeus (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, so articles about "non notable" episodes should be moved to a website where Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley can profit off it? --Pixelface (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    I would agree with this. If all the article contains is plot summary and what songs were played, that belongs on the wikia site. If there is more information on Production/Reception/etc, then an article is warranted.↔NMajdan•talk 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate this new change. I think it's pathetic. Isn't Wikipedia meant to give as much information as possible? The episode pages were great and had lots of info. Hell Seinfeld episodes have less info than any Scrubs page did. I think it should go back to the way it was. This new method is rubbish. Scmods (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstating the episodes

I would like the people who are against the reinstation of articles (especially those who actually voiced that on these pages) to please look at how many people here on the talk page want the articles back. Not only that, but also look at the real page and how many times it's been reverting from people trying to bring back episode pages. Clearly, the users of wikipedia do not agree with this move. So i'm asking you to look into your hearts and bring these pages back. We'll have to keep them in better shape and add more information to them, but just bring them back. It's what the people want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) (18:04, 22 December 2007) diff

And although it may sound heartless, I'd like the people who want to have the articles reinstated to please read WP:NOT#PLOT (policy) and WP:NOTABILITY (guideline), both of which have considerable support from the wikipedia community. The problem is not to keep articles in a good shape, but to get them there. If someone can achieve this for some episodes, then those episode articles surely deserve a place here at wikipedia so that others can enjoy it. – sgeureka t•c 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, these episode articles had more than just a plot summary (so WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't apply here) and WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, WP:N is not policy but it "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (nutshell). So, what did the articles have to justify that occational exception? I randomly picked My Fifteen Minutes, My Drug Buddy and My Brother, Where Art Thou?, and just found a section for featured songs and for continuity, all of which are unsourced and trivial. Common sense says that this is not exactly what wikipedia strives to include as sole content. And I also see no progress for other Scrubs episode articles (in reply to this thread), so reinstating them now just because some people want them to is the wrong direction. – sgeureka t•c 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can write an article that goes beyond the plot of the episode, by all means, recreate it. For instance, My Way Home is a great example.↔NMajdan•talk 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying reinstate the articles for a short period of time, so that way people who want them back can make them into more "wiki proper" articles while still getting the information they want. That way everyone wins. Laynethebangs (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been tested for several TV shows in the past half a year, and except for maybe 2% of articles, no improvement ever happened (unfortunately); instead, the problem got worse with the addition of trivia, quotes, and lots of other stuff that doesn't belong. Why not choose a redirected article and work on it (e.g. in your userspace), and then resurrect the article in its reincarnated form? I've also seen the option to allow for a handful of episodes to be temporarily be resurrected and to then check back in a month. If that's what you want, be aware that the lack of improvement will directly confirm the non-future of all other articles. – sgeureka t•c 10:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
if you want to provide me with a specific episode, I will get the text from the deleted article and put it on a subpage of your userspace to allow you to improve it before publishing it to articlespace. We can do that one episode at a time.↔NMajdan•talk 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps, a new wiki?

It seems that the individual episode pages probably wont be returned, and the other wiki is, frankly, poor quality... so why don't we start up a specific new wiki for Scrubs? I've got a bunch of festering webspace with a tonne of bandwidth... give me 24 hours and I'll have one up and running. If anyone thinks its a good idea...? --Sovvy (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an instance or two of an episode page that you feel is inadequately represented at the Scrubs wikia? Eusebeus (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Scrubs wikia says the last aired episode is My Inconvenient Truth, while My Number One Doctor actually is. The former doesn't have alot of information on its page, while the latter doesn't have a page.

As posted above (in comparison-- aside from the fact that the "last" episode was in November)

My Screw Up (top rated episode) Scrubs Wikia vs My Screw up Wikipedia

PORTED, although that episode meets our notability standards. On the Wikia, btw, you can go into MUCH greater plot detail. Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Elliot on Scrubs Wikia vs Elliot on Wikipedia

My Long Goodbye vs My Long Goodbye Wikipedia (before deletion) 64.148.40.127 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to improve the existing wiki than starting a brand new one.↔NMajdan•talk 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The existing Wikia is hosted on an ad-driven, free-for-all, anyone can create, server. If someone was willing to open a Wiki on a dedicated server (assuming not a burden on the person who starts it), I think it should be considered (for both quality and aesthetic purposes). 64.148.40.127 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the music in

Does anyone want to have a go at this? And if so, what's the format going to be - a bulleted list, or '"X" by Y, "Z" by A, "B" by C'? Will (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I'm out of the loop. What are you proposing?↔NMajdan•talk 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wow

please, someone put the individual episode pages back. i've been watching every episode of the show (yeah, i know, lame) and the pages were really useful for finding out songs played, trivia and references, more extensive guest stars names, etc. i don't know who deleted them but if you can put them back, it'd be great, there was no real reason to delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.253.221 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For songs, check out http://scrubs.mopnt.com ↔NMajdan•talk 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overzealous Much?

Just because a set of articles didn't conform to rules a few zealous folks follow way to strictly doesn't mean the information in them wasn't useful. Deletion of content because it does not conform to stylistic standards or rules is just plain backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By Policy, Articles MUST Be Reinstated

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Read it and weep, CABAL. It's time to revert back to the information we once had (and I suppose improve it to appease those with sticks up their arses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was about to start making episode pages for Scrubs because I just figured no one had gotten around to doing it yet, then I read all this about them being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.197.56 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So are we bringing them back? Laynethebangs (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) W

  • We have clear policies and guidelines governing our content (links above in the discussion on this page). Any episode that can demonstrate the standards iterated by those policies and guidelines merits an individual article. Otherwise, the content is better placed on a site like wikia, or any other fan site where content is not governed by global consensus. When we redirected the articles, we determined which articles could stand on their own, so editors should provide as a courtesy the grounds they have for asserting real-world notability. Let me note further that extensive in-universe detail, trivia and plot summaries are discouraged by Wikipedia, so even if we restore additional episodes, they will focus on the real-world, not the in-show, significance of the episode. Eusebeus (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • eusebeus, we all know that there are "clear policies and guidelines" for all of this, but you have to think about the spirit, not the letter, of wikipedia. i think that any change involving massive removal of material from wikipedia is contrary to wikipedia's purpose, and reversal should be seriously considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.253.221 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, why do List of Futurama episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Family Guy episodes get away with this? I guarantee that should something like this occur to those lists, there would be a ridiculous backlash. What's the train of thought that keeps those exempt from deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the Family Guy episodes and randomly clicked four articles. Each of those four went beyond an infobox and plot summary, which is all most of the Scrubs articles contained. If you feel you can write an article on an episode of Scrubs that goes beyond simple plot summary, then please do. I'll even provide the plot summary from the original article if you want.↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Personally I think it's rediculous, removing information from an encyclopedia because it isn't of the real world. If that is the case then why not just delete the articles about a load of ordinary, not exceptional books since they don;t necessarily relate to the real world. You can't just delete all this information, why is it so necessary anyway, is there a lack of space for wikipedia that requires articles to be deleted so more can be written? Or is it just that some people don't like the idea of episode articles and so they need to be deleted? Why was it necessary to delete the articles? nobody has explained it beyond this rediculous real-world based idea NIKKKIN (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% for deleting articles such as this. But when all the article contains is a plot summary, I can get that elsewhere. Wikipedia articles should go beyond simple plot summaries.↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
They used to contain more than just summaries, they had interesting trivia, but then people decided to ban the use of trivia on wikipedia, something I didn't understand. One of the main complaints here was that the scrubs articles had information about the songs which is now gone. As for summaries, whenever I need a plot summary my first stop was always wikipedia NIKKKIN (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If all you needed was plot summaries, then a Scrubs Wikia should be just as good. As I said, if you need music from scrubs, check out http://scrubs.mopnt.com (would a list of music from scrubs be worthwhile to pursue?). As far as the trivia section goes, I'm iffy. On one hand, some of it is good information. On the other hand, it tends to be used as a lazy way of adding content to an article. Convert the trivia section to prose and properly cite is and you just might have yourself a solid section.↔NMajdan•talk 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nmajdan has made all the points I would make. I would add that I find this hesitation in using a wikia for fandom a bit mystifying. The Star Trek and Star Wars and Pokemon wikis are popular and huge and they exist in part because of the policies and practices that redound to encyclopaedic quality which exist and are enforced here. I see lots of griping that wikia doesn't have this or that, but porting the info over to wikia takes no time at all, and, once there, editors will encounter no prohibition against any type of content they wish to include pertinent to the series. By contrast, there are several policies and guidelines which will need to be changed by global consensus before this material will be considered suitable for Wikipedia. I note that these policies continue to be regularly upheld at AfD, so this is not the actions of a cabal of rule-mongers, but rather the implementation of sitewide policy. That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody. Just that I am in good company. Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, what was the sitewide policy being implemented here? I seem to have missed when you mentioned it. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I will be more than happy to provide anybody with the text from the deleted articles if you do want to improve it in hopes of recreating the article or for porting to Wikia.↔NMajdan•talk 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about this?

As we see in the other episode lists (Futurama, Family Guy, etc), while the individual articles may not meet notability in any real sense, due to the large fan following, the fans make the articles notable and worth keeping. Also, each list namely adheres to the following content:

  • A brief summary of the episode's plot
  • How the episode was received by critics
  • Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
  • Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element

...though there are exceptions in each list.

That said, what if the redirects were reverted back to having the individual articles (there were many hours put in to each, starting from scratch would be an absolute shame) and letting us rework the articles to meet this standard? I'm sure that myself, as well as many others here, are up to that task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your bulleted list would make a great article. Unfortunately, most Scrubs articles only contained the first bullet. We can't just restore all those deleted pages. But, like I've said a couple times now, we can do this one episode at a time. Give me the name of an article, and I will copy the text to your userspace. There, you can improve it and when it contains at least 2-3 of those 4 bullets, it can be moved to main articlespace. And if I have five people willing to improve an article each, I will put five eopisode on their five userspaces. How is that?↔NMajdan•talk 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am up for that, and I'm willing to take on the first five episodes of season 1 (ep101 and ep104 already up). Can other people give a shout out here to take new episodes? Assemble a project worthy team;) Danakin (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing I just noticed, these articles weren't deleted. The content was just replaced with a redirect. So if you go to the history of the page, you can get the previous versions. So anybody, not just admins, can see the versions as they were before they were redirected. Nevertheless, I've put the My Mentor episode in your userspace at User:Danakin/My Mentor.↔NMajdan•talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'll work on this one a bit later tonight. I am willing to go through each episode myself if needed, but it would definitely be better to have a team for this ;-) I'll keep plugging and chugging as I can (though I'm out next week for Katrina cleanup/rebuild in Kiln, MS)Danakin (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the fans?

I'm been reading all the comments made here and one thing that seems to be echoed a lot is that the information in the episode pages doesn't have any value to the rest of the world, or doesn't fit in or whatever.

But what about the fans?

Doesn't the fact that fans of the show might want to read that information mean anything to you people?

Who's going to read episode pages for scrubs? Um, probably fans of the show. Right?

Do you go into a show you hate or a show you've never watched and start reading through the episode guides? I don't.

Only fans are going to read it, so what's the big deal about putting it back the way it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.179.110 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Granted, wikipedia encourages fans to add encyclopedic material, but just plot, trivia and lists of songs isn't. Wikia (for example) however is designed as an all-purpose fan outlet. – sgeureka t•c 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikia is also a for-profit site, founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. --Pixelface (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So? I was thinking to give fans a proper outlet. But we can just leave these articles redirected, practically inaccessible to the average wikipedia visitor, if that's what you prefer. – sgeureka t•c 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when are fans not also users of Wikipedia? Quite frankly, putting down a large group of people as simple fans (a derogatory term in the way it has been used in these discussions) is laughable. If someone wants to look up something, be they a fan or not, why exactly should they be stopped from doing that because of some all-encompassing assumption? --Riche (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Like every editor of wikipedia, fans have to abide by policies and guidelines. So they are not put down because they are fans, but because the articles they want to have aren't (currently or possibly never) in line with wikipedia rules. If a verifiable, non-plotty episode article with appropriate amounts of non-trivial real-world information for context can be written, there is no reason to not allow articles that fans would enjoy. But as before on wikipedia, the burden of prove that this is even possible is on the people who want the articles in the first place (i.e. fans). – sgeureka t•c 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If i's not meant to be a fan base, then how come almost all th other big shows have individual episode pages? Shouldn't we delete them too? 12/30/07 66.31.144.27 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You raise a very valid point.↔NMajdan•talk 15:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
66.31.144.27, indeed they should, and you'll see that merge/redirect discussions have already started for some "big" shows. But this takes time, and there is little to be gained to propose all episode articles for all shows for a merge/redirect at the same time. – sgeureka t•c 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Looking Pretty vs. Wikipedia Containing Content

This is the first step in Wikipedia no longer being a living, breathing encyclopedia of knowledge and becoming a cold, metallic pile of information a small handful of people think looks nice. The episode pages were useful and contained content. The fact that editors and admins are openly advertising external sources as outlets for information is proof that the encyclopedic collection of information is no longer paramount at Wikipedia.

I want to know why the powers that be would rather divert information to other websites instead of trying to improve the use and content of Wikipedia itself. Any site on the internet can tell me that My Mentor is about J.D. trying to get to know Cox. Wikipedia should be able to tell me more than any random site.

If we're going to stop collecting information on television show episodes, one of the largest and most popular forms of entertainment, then I propose two options.

  • Revert the episode pages so they can be improved, or...
  • Start a Telepedia or something, but make it a part of the Wiki family. Don't pawn it off on a Wikia site. Do it for real. WiteoutKing (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your first bullet, I have already stated this numerous times. The articles are still there. If you go to the article history, the content was erased and overwritten with a redirect. You can view the article histories. I strongly suggest that you take an article, get the history, put it in your userspace, improve it, then recreate the article.↔NMajdan•talk 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE bring back the episode pages. 165.129.2.15 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is absurd that Wikipedia would remove individual episode articles. It's not like they take up much server space and I doubt they would bring Wikipedia into a negative light. A true shame as I relied on these articles to provide information on each episode. A very poor job has been done of converting the articles to the list summaries - most likely because there is enough information on each episode to warrant its own article. Another example of the admins taking WP in the direction they want to instead of listening to the community. SillyWilly (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins aren't really that much involved in consensus-finding; the community itself has decided on consensus (e.g. policies and guidelines). Admittedly, WP:EPISODE is under dispute at the moment, but WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:QUOTE aren't, so almost all of the Scrubs episode articles had nothing to justify a separate article (almost no show has). The list summaries aren't the result from converting, but were there when the redirect happened. You are encouraged to improve them if you want. You can even start season pages if you want, see Smallville (Season 1) for a good example. And you can resurrect episode articles when they satisfy all of the above (use your userspace in the meantime). Nothing is set in stone here other than discouraging/"disallowing" poor episode articles. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus either here or at WP:EPISODE for the mass merging and redirecting of Scrubs episodes. Catchpole (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is however consensus to only give articles to topics that can and do establish notability. Almost none of the episode articles did, so the options are to delete through AfD (not going to happen), merge (if there is anything to merge, that is) and redirect (done), improve to meet all the mentioned policies and guidelines (can still be done), or transwiki (can still be done). If someone doesn't want the redirect, he is free to explore the other options. – sgeureka t•c 11:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong about that. See Bart the General or Love and Rocket. The consensus among editors who actually edit articles (and not just among editors who try to enforce their opinions by editing guidelines) is that individual episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. That is the consensus among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll be removing the redirects in another week

I see Eusebeus has decided to overide the no consensus on this talk page and re-insert the redirects from many of the 106 articles I removed redirects from. I'll be removing the redirects in another week, because it's clear there is no consensus here for them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

I have reverted the changes made without discussion by the 3 IP addresses this morning, two of whom were the same user and who all showed up with five minutes of each other. I'm not fixed on this, but you've at least got to provide a rationale if you're going to do that. BLACKKITE 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens all the time, for Scrubs and for other shows with redirected ep articles, and it's probably happening in good faith because everything used to be bluelinked a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't give it any more thought (as long it is just the circular links being recreated, not the episode articles). – sgeureka t•c 10:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite, do you see all that discussion above you? The IP editors don't have to provide a rationale for doing that. Anyone can wikify links on Wikipedia. The fact that those articles are currently redirects does not mean the wikilinks to them should be removed. When I remove the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles in a week, I plan on adding the wikilinks back to this list. --Pixelface (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't both reverting the redirects, as they will just be reverted right back again. If you really want these to come back, show how a bunch of whining editors form a consensus that overrides our "main three" (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS). Please don't try to pick them apart like most people do by saying that WP:V doesn't fit this because "blah blah blah". They are essentially one single entity, so that's irrelevant to this. TTN (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'll be removing the redirects in a few days. You can count on that. There's no consensus here for them. Do you see all those threads above this one? WP:N is not a policy. WP:RS is not a policy. And the information in the episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes. Saying WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS are essentially one single entirety is false. The fact of the matter is that individual episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. --Pixelface (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, those people are just whining because they have to go somewhere else for this information. Why that is so hard, I will never know. Their arguments are not based from the position of policies and guidelines, so they are irrelevant. Please don't use the "It's not policy" "argument"; it's ridiculous to think that you can ignore them because you don't agree with them in this case. I guess you missed "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." in WP:V. TTN (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why you're referring to no consensus as "whining" I'll never know. Consensus can change. There may have been consensus at one point in time for those articles to be redirects, but there isn't now. WP:CONSENSUS says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." I do see that in WP:V, but you seem to be treating each of these articles as separate topics. How is it that Scrubs is notable enough to have an article but the episodes (which is all the show is) are not notable? --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The information is not encyclopedic and it is only valid to fans and parties uninterested in an encyclopedic overview. The information can be found on dozens of other websites, with a good chunk of them being just as easily edited as this one. That is why it is whining. Consensus is not found in numbers, but in policies and guidelines. As I'm sure you've looked over WT:N at least once, you have probably seen that the large amount of people whining about it have not changed it as of this point. All you have to do is read WP:N's nutshell to answer your last question. TTN (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Scrubs episodes? Consensus does not derive from policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines document consensus. I have read the nutshell at WP:N. Now I suggest you go look up the word "presumed" in a dictionary. --Pixelface (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as we haven't brought up The Simpsons in this discussion, I assume I'm talking about Scrubs. Yes, they do document consensus, which is not derived from numbers, but rather extensive discussion based upon an encyclopedic view. A small consensus here does not mean that the consensus formed in our policies and guidelines is wrong. Please don't play with words. Just because it's a loose term does not mean that we can randomly ignore it for no reason. TTN (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were maybe talking about List of The Simpsons episodes when you said "The information is not encyclopedic and it is only valid to fans and parties uninterested in an encyclopedic overview. The information can be found on dozens of other websites, with a good chunk of them being just as easily edited as this one." A consensus among a small group of editors on a guideline does not override the current practice among editors who work on articles. The current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not each have to establish individual notability. Is "worthy of notice" an objective term? How about you tell me what you think "presumed" means. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother responding to any comments relating to The Simpsons from you anymore. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. The "current practice" has nothing to do with consensus, so that is gone. Looking at it again, presumed is defined for you right on that page, so you can tell me. TTN (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were applying your criteria evenly, The Simpsons would never even come up. Current practice is what policies and guidelines are supposed to document. Consensus on some guideline most editors have never even heard of (WP:EPISODE comes to mind) does not override current practice among editors. Guidelines are supposed to describe current practice among editors. The definition of "presumed" at WP:N is ridiculous. WP:N says ""Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." So according to WP:N, notability can only be presumed and suggested.
Definitions of "presumed" from dictionary.com include, "to take for granted, assume, or suppose", "to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary", "to undertake with unwarrantable boldness", "To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove", "To venture without authority or permission; dare", "go beyond the proper limits", "to suppose to be true without proof or before inquiry", etc. Significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable — it does not mean it is notable and WP:N does not say there is only one way to assert notability.
If Scrubs is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry, I must assume that the episodes are also notable because the episodes are the show. Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to assert individual notability apart from the television show. The term "worthy of notice" is not an objective term, and that's probably why WP:N will never be a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. And there's no consensus here for these articles to be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the argument that "the individual parts that make up the sum are necessarily as notable as the sum". I'm not saying they don't warrant their own articles. I'm just saying that if they do, I think it's dangerous to use that as the primary reason. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface, please read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, especially the bit about circular redirects. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
When I remove the redirects in a few days, the wikilinks to the episode articles won't be circular redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Own Worst Enemy

The episode was brought back and given citations from a couple of reviews. While reviews are good, these don't really provide any true context to the episode. I don't really feel that those necessitate bringing it back. TTN (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, would provides true context to the episode? --Pixelface (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Either detailed production notes (more than a couple of trivial bits) or reception comparable to My Musical would be suitable. TTN (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the format of Bart the General would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you please drop the Simpsons? Using it to try to prove a point is pointless as you have been told by at least ten different editors at ten different points. TTN (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry. I think the format of Love and Rocket would be acceptable then. --Pixelface (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Futurama wikiproject (or at least the one editor that cares) is getting ready to start an episode by episode review of the series, so that is also irrelevant. TTN (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, then I think the format of Jaynestown would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You really don't know when to give up on WP:WAX, do you? All articles that do not assert notability or the possiblity to become notable will be redirected, deleted, merged, or transwikied eventually. Some will just take longer than others. TTN (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry. Is this a deletion discussion? Is that essay a policy now? Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. It's your opinion that these articles are about non-notable episodes. Did you pull out a crystal ball to determine that The Simpsons episode articles have the possibility to establish notablity but these these articles don't? You're working against current practice. When articles are split according to summary style, the sub-articles do not each have to establish notability. There is no consensus on this talk page that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the number of episodes currently in existence is nothing more than a very large oversight, "current practice" is not the correct term. And again, just because one side has a large number of people, it does not mean that they "win" over our longstanding policies and guidelines. The Simpsons currently have probably close to one hundred GAs and five FAs at this point. While that does not mean that every single episode will become good in the future, it provides a standard that we can obviously predict. Scrubs on the other hand, only has one GA, and that seems to be a special case. Summary style does not apply to this kind of thing, as the information being "split" is not valid information. TTN (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The existence of television episode articles is a very large oversight? Oversight of what? One of Wikipedia's policies? We can talk about longstanding policies and guidelines if you want. We can talk about longstanding articles if you want. The article Bart the General has existed since May 8, 2003. The first reference to outside sources was added...today. The article went 4 1/2 years with zero mentions of outside sources. Now, seeing as how long that article has been allowed to develop, why should Scrubs episode articles be redirected? You mention that The Simpsons has several GAs and FAs. Are you saying that the notability of a few episodes make the other episode notable? I don't see how you can say the information in the Scrubs episode articles is not valid information. The information is as valid as the information in Duffless. Much of the information in television episode articles is verifiable by watching the episode. The episode is the primary source. WP:SUMMARY says nothing about sub-articles having to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) As I am not responding to this "I'll compare everything to The Simpsons" wikilawyering route of discussion, I'll only reply to the last two sentences. As policies and guidelines document, primary sources are fine in articles, but they cannot be the only sources available, and again, these are not summary style split off articles, so stop trying to bring it up. TTN (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only source available in the Bart the General article for 4 1/2 years was the episode itself. If you don't like hearing about The Simpsons episode articles, the article Chickenlover has existed since September 2, 2005. There is no policy basis for redirecting episode articles as fast as possible. If an editor had actually merged the Scrubs episode articles into List of Scrubs episodes, the article would be too big per WP:SIZE and would need to be split again into sub-articles per WP:SS. The articles were conveniently turned into redirects instead. That is not a merge. Sub-articles do not have to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It does pass the general notability guideline (I'm not bringing up FICT/EPISODE while they're disputed). Reviews are significant coverage. TWP and IGN are reliable. Neither is affiliated with ABC or NBC. Not all shows can hope to have reception sections as in depth as My Musical, Doomsday, Through the Looking Glass, but that doesn't mean that it should be redirected under a pretense of non-notability. Will (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
While the definition significant coverage varies from editor to editor, it's certainly more than two reviews that provide nothing more than a rating and a quote each. Significant would mean having multiple reviews that tie together to give a general view of what people feel in both positive and negative lights. When I said comparable, I meant to add in the general view of the sections, not in length. It has to do more with providing a real feel for things rather than listing them. TTN (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on the general notability guideline, I'd say the topic is just about notable. The guideline specifically defines notable as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." It does not mention the quantity of sources. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. TTN is just making ridiculous demands for shrubberies. Catchpole (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the relevant quote would be "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." The current sources do not provide anything that really makes this article its own topic. Note that I would be fine if more sources are found. It's just that letting an article stand because of two sources that don't really bind into anything seems rather pointless. TTN (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
TTN is right here. No notability has been asserted for this episode. Did it win an episode-specific award? Did it feature an unusual feature of writing/camera-work/narrative, etc...? Did it boast a notable ratings achievement? Insofar as it was a broadcast episode it has left a real-world residue, but there is nothing here that per our own guidelines suggests this deserves its own article. The current debate at WP:FICT still requires such notability as a basis for a standalone article, so I think citing the guideline germane. I think interested editors need to work on changing our core notability guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what WP:FICT says if it doesn't describe current practice. Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to assert individual notability. They are considered sub-articles of a larger topic. WP:FICT needs to be rewritten to describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
More shrubberies. WP:FICT says "For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise." We got audience figures and coverage of the reception from two sources. Of course the whole mentality behind the popular misuse of notability guidelines has been debunked in the mailing list and at the RFC at WT:EPISODE. Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:FICT is a guideline. WP:NOT, however, is policy, and says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". This is policy. I wonder how many times this has to be repeated before it sinks in? As for the article in question, a couple of reviews is a start, at least. BLACKKITE 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, WP:PLOT is from a list of things Wikipedia is not. WP:PLOT says articles are not simply plot summaries. If an article has an infobox, it's not simply a plot summary. Now tell me what the word "should" means in WP:PLOT. Does it mean "must" or is it a recommendation? --Pixelface (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I find the infobox argument a bit weak to be honest. IMO, it's like saying episodes of Battlestar Galactica aren't simply live-action because of the little post-credits skit. Will (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Like it or not, an infobox means an article does not violate WP:NOT#PLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I disagree completely. An infobox, in my mind, doesn't quality as "content." The article must have "content" beyond a plot summary.↔NMajdan•talk 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
            • An infobox is content. I see you think the word "should" at WP:PLOT means "must", but it doesn't say "must", it says "should." And why a list of things Wikipedia is not is saying articles must have certain things is beyond me. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I also disagree with that. An article needs more than a plot section and an infobox. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • And I think mentioning Battlestar Galactica is appropriate. That's another series where current practice is that individual episodes do not have to establish individual notability. --Pixelface (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          BSG episodes are actually on my todo list. I'll get a start on it right away, working backwards. Will (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This discussion was originally about notability so I didn't bring it up, but this show brings out DVDs with commentary which would provide production information. The DVD with this episode is not out yet but it will be at some point soon. I'm in support of WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT but I don't think it would be a crime to be lenient so to wait until the DVDs come out with the information. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pixelface that infoboxes make the articles pass WP:NOT#PLOT. If it still bothers Nmajdan, then we could write out the information in the infobox into the article, and it would seem to be very much information. For example (although I wrote it awkwardly) the infobox in this article could be summarized as:
"My Day Off" is the ninth episode of Season 1 in the American situation comedy Scrubs. "My Day Off" was written by Janae Bakken and directed by Elodie Keene. Charles Chun, who played Dr. Wen, Paul Collins, as Dr. Benson, Michael McDonald as Mike Davis, Trevor Davis as Tommy, Amelinda Embry as Jennifer, Angee Hughes as the admitting nurse, Dylan Wagner as Tommy's brother, and Drew Wicks, who played as Patient #1, all were guest stars. The original airdate was November 20, 2001. "My Day Off" followed the eighth episode "My Fifteen Minutes" and preceded "My Nickname."
...which is all information from the infobox, and that wouldn't include the trivia and "cultural references" sections. I don't think we actually should do that, but I think it shows that information in infoboxes can be substantial. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shall I try again?

  • It obviously didn't work the first time. WP:NOT is policy and is not negotiable. Here - "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". You can take it that the "should" is not negotiable either.
    • If your article's a plot summary and an infobox, or a plot summary and two pieces of trivia, it doesn't get a free pass because "it's got something else apart from plot summary". Not correct. It still hasn't got real-world context or analysis.
    • It doesn't matter about any other article. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
    • It doesn't matter if some editors on a talk page think that the articles don't have to meet certain policies of their choosing. They do.
    • ...and most importantly - why not improve the articles so they meet policies? Some have already - why not spend the time that's being wasted here and elsewhere on arguing and reverting on actually fixing the articles so we don't have to have this argument again?? BLACKKITE 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What he said. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.↔NMajdan•talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That's all very well and good Black Kite, but are you saying the word "should" at WP:PLOT means "must"? It says should, not must. If must was the consensus, it would say must. WP:NOT is a list of things Wikipedis is not. It says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Okay, that's fine. Then plot summaries are listed under that. It says articles are not simply plot summaries. An article with an infobox is not simply a plot summary.
And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is from a essay and means absolutely nothing, especially since this isn't even a deletion discussion (which, by the way, has already happened for several articles of this series, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My_Mirror_Image, and there was no consensus to delete them). I don't know anybody who has said the articles don't have to meet policies. The articles already do meet policies. I agree, why not improve the articles? How does a redirect help editors improve the articles? Why don't you go start Wikipedia:WikiProject Scrubs if you're so concerned these articles need to be improved? Sweeping the articles under a rug by redirecting them does not improve them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that this still is a terrible choice. Everytime I look for information on a Scrubs episode, I feel very sad because I can't do this anymore. I don't see how this helps or improves wikipedia at all. Laynethebangs (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Laynethebangs, Pixelface, et al. Removing the individual episode articles is a ridiculous effort. Those of you forcing the issue are wasting energy due to losing sight of one thing. The goal is to provide information to the end user. I like Wikipedia as a source of information - saying that "you can find the information on another site" is a ridiculous argument, and killing these articles is stifling their chance to grow and become what you would call a worthwhile article. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not me that's saying this - it's Wikipedia policy. And yes, it might seem like a pain, but as I said (and see WP:SOFIXIT) - those pages are available to be improved. Why not have a go? BLACKKITE 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The articles violate no policies. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. How is an editor supposed to improve an article while it's a redirect? --Pixelface (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I diasgree with your interpretation of this policy. ::Surely the real world context is covered in the lede where we state that the article is about an episode of a TV show that is broadcast on X channel. An infobox is just a handy way of presenting content in a way that aids navigation and consistency between articles. I also find that having separate articles is a much clearer way to present information than in a list of episodes. The idea that an infobox is not content is absurd. Real world information that is routinely included in an article about Scrubs episode includes airdates, viewing figures, details of cast and crew including guest stars. In no other area of Wikipedia have I come across this incessant desire to remove content rather than improve it. Catchpole (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes - it is you that's saying this. Don't hide behind the policy. You're the one who sat at the keyboard and typed that message - not the policy. And I'd love to spend half my time sitting here working on articles - unfortunately I don't have that time to invest right now. I have enough time to occasionally pop in and leave a message, or fix some typos in an article. Additionally, you say that those articles are available to be improved, but by forcing this issue you are simply making the process more difficult. There is no reason for it. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck the rules, if people want it back, bring it back. Wikipedia will be gone within two years if you admins and mods don't stop acting like pathetic children. --The monkeyhate (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous deletion discussion

I just stumbled across this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image where the outcome was to keep the number of episodes discussed. I note since then that TTN et al have gone against this consensus and redirected many of the episodes discussed. Does this give a mandate to restore these articles to their prior status? Catchpole (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. The articles existed, went up on AfD, and there was no consensus in deletion so they remained. If they are restored, then, of course, that opens up the possibility for another AfD. But, given the outcome of that AfD a mere four months ago, you have reason to call for restoration.↔NMajdan•talk 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Newer discussions can take precedence over older ones. Using that to restore them would be rather pointy anyways. TTN (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically, the articles went up against a non-biased party, there was no consensus, and the articles were kept. Bear in mind that this policy, while I do agree with it, isn't set in stone. This policy was not handed down by the Foundation. It was set by a consensus among Wikipedia editors and consensus can change. This AfD clearly shows that many people equally agree and disagree with this policy. Maybe the policy in general needs another look. If the articles are restored, I'm sure they'd go up again on AfD. I would be highly interested in the outcome of that. (And, I would vote delete/redirect to Scrubs articles.)↔NMajdan•talk 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right TTN. Newer discussion can take precedence over older ones. It's great that you came to a consensus among a handful of editors that the episode articles should be redirects, but consensus changed. Restoring the redirects that have no consensus would be quite disruptive indeed. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've counted the people who've voiced their opinion against the deletion of the episodes during the original discussion and also since the deletion took place and it calls for the episodes to be reinstated. Laynethebangs (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have any of the arguments changed? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The general consensus is quite clear, and all those against the consensus are self-righteous dolts that are too proud to admit they're wrong. (This is my opinion and is hardly uncivilized. Far worse words could have been used.)69.117.172.143 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In what way is referring to someone as a selfrighteous dolt in any way civilised? Whether you think it is justified is irrelevant, it is still wrong to refer to well meaning contributors in such a fashion.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you really consider them contributors? They seem more like reapers to me.69.117.172.143 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some concepts to be taken into account

I want to repeat here what I'm saying in the Centralized TV Episode Discussion about the value of the works we are talking about here. I'm a journalist and writer from Italy, I'm specialised in cinema and visual media. I'm not a "fan" of Scrubs, I'm writing a book on Scrubs. That means I need all the info I can find about Scrubs and Scrubs episodes, even mere plot synopsis are very useful to me, as I can recollect memories from each single episode through them, while I make connections, compare narratives and summarise styles and visual ideas. What can ben inferred from this? It's very simple: an episode overlook of ANY sort is not a mere fan service, as it can be very useful to researchers. And damn it, academic researches about pop art and popular media are common ground today! And more and more will be tomorrow! It's very very very very stupid to think a "serious" encyclopedia should not treat these matters, because that will turn it into a old-fashioned dumb encyclopedia. And Wikipedia can't be so.
But there are some other things to be noted. From an expressive point of view, some Scrubs' (or other series') episodes are far superior to most movies (and NOT necessarily the awarded episodes, nor the most appreciated ones by fans over the web, a very stupid way of selection for a "fan-less" encyclopedia indeed). The worst movies in film history are covered in great details here on Wikipedia. What makes some teen ninja movie a better subject for a Wiki page instead of a complex-structured, experimental episode of Scrubs?
And we can deep further in this area of hypocrisy showed by the "deletionists": actually Wikipedia is a place where I can find the very important information "[Amanda] Bynes, who has a dog named Midge and drives a white Lexus SC430", or "[Paris] Hilton is known for her love of small dogs, including a Yorkshire Terrier and a female Chihuahua named Tinkerbell". After reading that, it looks very silly indeed to call for an encyclopedia without fan content. I can know all about every American starlette, but I can't have a page about an episode of Scrubs, because the latter is "for fans only". It asks for some serious meditation. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record...

I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY THE EPISODE PAGES ARE BACK!! THIS MAKES ME REALLY HAPPY! THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO BROUGHT THEM BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the above opinion (but in lowercase letters). Thank you Pixelface and Tim Q. Wells! You guys are fighting the good fight. Mwlin1 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
IN LOWER CASE LETTERS?!?! YOU'RE NOT A REAL FAN! just kidding. I was really excited when I wrote that though, it required some larger letters. Laynethebangs (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] These will be redirected again soon

Per the original discussion to only leave the episodes that assert notability, I will be redirecting these again pretty soon. Remember that consensus is based upon arguments rather than numbers, so fans coming to complain have no impact on it. The people here can either continue to whine, wikilawyer, and edit war, or you can actually try to work on the episodes or just utilize one of the many sites that contain plot summaries and trivia for television shows. I recommend that the people complaining go comment over at the relevant guidelines (WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT) to try to change them if they really want to continue with this. TTN (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help myself from reverting your edits pretty soon since I see no consensus in the "original discussion" as an reasonable explanation for redirection. Galadree-el 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The debate is on-going and as determined by my objective observation, no consensus has been driven yet. Any further actions that are mostly based on an intensely disputed guideline are completely depreciated and should be restrained to a rational limitation. At the same time, please pay certain respect to your fellow collaborators and it is not a wise comment to synchronize every editor as "fans". Lastly, before suggesting people to take part in the discussion, please pay a visit there on your own first and state your opinion. Defend your actions instead of waiting for others to do it for you. Galadree-el 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is the 166th most viewed article on all of Wikipedia. It's viewed 124,235 times per day.[2] You said yourself, "Newer discussions can take precedence over older ones." It's nice that you and Eusebeus and Sceptre could agree on something at the end of November, but consensus changed. I recommend you base your arguments on policy instead of two disputed guidelines. --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I said discussions, not votes. The people wanting to keep these have not discussed; they have whined, wikilawyered, and edit warred to keep their precious articles or establish their point in your case. If they had discussed anything, we would be setting up a plan to improve these or going over each one to find notability (something I'd be fine with). My arguments are based off of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS (also WP:NOT#PLOT and others), which require articles to establish notability with reliable sources. EPISODE and FICT are used because they expand upon the principals set up in those. TTN (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call 3 or 4 editors talking for 5 day at the end of November a "discussion." WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:N does not say if an article lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that means it's non notable. WP:N says "look for sources yourself". Have you done that? The information in the episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes themselves. I certainly think the articles could be improved by citing reliable, third-party, published sources per WP:RS, but that's a little harder to do when the articles are redirects. The episode articles are not solely a detailed summary of the episode's plot, so WP:NOT#INFO does not apply. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So now you're going to wikilawyer over words; that's great. Unless it states that articles can be notable without sources (which would go against everything else), it is fine to assume that an article isn't notable without them. I have already pointed out to you that WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Editors can create sandboxes, find references before bringing back the an article, discuss here before bringing back an article, bring back the article and place one of the work in progress tags, or anything like that, so it is quite easy work as they are redirects. Again, don't wikilawyer over words. If the article only contains a plot summary, original research, bad trivia, quotes, and other junk, it is still just a plot summary with some filler. TTN (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it seems to me that you're trying to follow WP:N and WP:PLOT to the letter while ignoring the spirit. The episodes are notable. And Scrubs is the topic. The episodes are sub-topics. You're free to place cleanup tags on the articles to point out any issues you think need to be addressed. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of N is that topics need to assert notability by establishing themselves in the real world, and PLOT's is that articles cannot primarily be plot summaries, thus they need real world context. These are not split off articles. Split off articles are lists like this one or sections of an article that become too long, while still staying encyclopedic. These are summaries that do not need to exist on their own, as they can be contained within a much smaller space very easily. The point of placing tags has passed (that would have been for before the redirects), and it has been shown that most of these do not have potential anyways. TTN (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the spirit of the notability guideline is that topic of an article should be notable. These episodes are notable. Have you asked the articles' creators for advice on where to look for sources like WP:N advises? WP:N does not say that if an article currently lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" that means a topic is not notable. Such sources only suggest notability. The articles do have real world context. And go read the summary style guideline. You can't show that the articles do not have potential unless you've actually looked for sources. Have you? If you want to merge the cast information and music information and production information from each episode to List of Scrubs episodes, be my guest. But redirecting the articles because they are not notable in your opinion is simply unacceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all articles should be notable, but as Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence and Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines show, that is not always the case. Again, it does not have to state the negative for the negative to be true; stop wikilawyering. Also, stop going around in circles involving establishing notability. The articles are currently not notable and nothing shows that more than the five or six that were kept are going to become notable. It's up to the editors asserting that they're notable to provide sources.
I suggest that you read SUMMARY, as it clearly talks about sections of an article that are viable encyclopedic topics being split off for size reasons (see the WWII example there), not the sections of a list. And again, the summaries fit in the this list just fine, so they are not long enough to be split anyways. Important cast information is either covered within other articles (main characters) or the summary (important guest characters), music is generally not included within episode lists unless there is something special about it, and if these have relevant production information, the article should already be asserting notability. TTN (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:N says significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable. That is speculation, which violates the no original research policy. Objective evidence would be a reliable source explicitly saying that something is "notable." I'm not wikilawyering. You're taking the lack of sources as an indicator that something is not notable. The episodes are notable. Millions of people have seen them and thousands of people visit this article every day. Scrubs is definitely notable for more than 5 or 6 episodes. The episode articles are sub-articles and sub-topics per WP:SUMMARY. Either merge in the information from the episode articles into this list or leave the articles as they are so they can develop. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to bend words that were specifically left vague in order to prove a point, so that is wikilawyering. Just because they are vague does not mean that they can be bent backwards. Before claiming that episodes are notable because people watch them, read over the section about objective evidence that you just quoted. Again, they are not sub-topics. Otherwise, characters, chapters of a book, locations in a fictional work, ect are all viable sub-topics because they appear in the pieces of media that are viewed by millions of people, so they are viewed every day by millions of people. All relevant information is already covered here. TTN (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not bending words. I agree that significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable. But I hardly think that's the only way of suggesting a topic is notable. The fact that 9% of all televisions in use in the United States (over 7 1/2 million viewers)[3] were watching Scrubs indicates the episodes are notable. The fact that the article List of Scrubs episodes is the 166th most viewed article on all of Wikipedia and viewed over 120,000 times per day[4] indicates the episode are notable. The fact that were was such an outcry after the articles were redirected indicates the episodes are notable.
Fictional characters and locations in a fictional work are viable sub-topics, see Category:Lists of television characters, Category:Lists of characters in written fiction, Category:Fictional characters, Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings, Category:Fictional locations, etc. I don't think Wikipedia is improved by redirecting these episode articles. --Pixelface (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That is subjective notability, which does not help here. You can talk about the significance of numbers all day, but it still doesn't change anything. When speaking of characters and locations, I meant ones confined to lists or single topics. It's like saying any minor character that millions upon millions of people have seen in various episodes is automatically notable, or any random patient used for a joke in this show is notable because seven million people saw the character and possibly talked about the joke. If you want these to be automatically notable, make sure the policies and guidelines support them before trying to wikilawyer your view into this. As of now, all topics need to assert notability in order to stand; work on getting that changed. TTN (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • These episodes are not notable, and unlike Pixelface who simply asserts they are, I have a raft of policies and practices that back up my assertion. I therefore concur that the episode articles will be redirected unless efforts are made to demonstrate notability per our standards. I see lots of grandstanding and wikilawyering, but no actual efforts to improve the articles to permit retention. We made these points last November and no-one provided any evidence to indicate that Scrubs episodes were generally notable. We don't need to argue this again. The consensus for the redirection of unnotable articles remains unchanged. Scrubs is no exception. Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN really has a problem with wikilawyering apparently. Laynethebangs (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Personally, I think TTN and Eusebeus are right about this issue, and that the arguments made before still stand. However, I strongly urge everyone to stop reverting each other. While many shows and episodes don't require much time to assess them, and we don't want to have to repeat the same arguments for every show, we have here a situation where it will be better to convince other users of these rationales rather than just forcing the issue. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were possible to convince them, I wouldn't mind taking some time to do it. But we're facing the bad type of inclusionism, so it cannot really be done. As I said, I wouldn't mind an episode by episode review or something, as long as it actually will get the job done. TTN (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap. I just went through each episode article for the first three seasons.. These articles are in horrible shape. Some of them can be nicely merged into the LOE, but many of them do need to be re redirected. Most of them don't even have any real content. No worries, TTN, establishing a firm solid consensus to merge/redirect these articles will be a walk in the park. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys honestly can't let this go. I've been so happy that the last few days I could watch Scrubs and get information on the episode, and you're going to take this away from me. Obviously, you guys aren't even fans of the show or else you'd enjoy having the episode pages. I mean, I just really can't believe you guys. You can't let a few hundred people be happy just to let one rule slip. And in a hundred years, I'm sure that people will be looking back on your great accomplishments here by enforcing wikipedia rules instead of making a few people happier with their lives. If it has to be done then I guess it has to be done, I just wish people like TTN would be nicer about it. Instead of being a robot, try comprising. We're all just people trying to get by, man. Do whatever makes you feel right, though. This whole thing has made me sad and is leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth about wikipedia. Laynethebangs (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be downhearted. Your tormentors are like the Janitor rather Doctor Kelso. They don't outrank you because you are an editor too and so your actions and opinion are as good as theirs provided that you act in good faith. They act officiously but seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
Scrubs may be being picked upon because it seems to be a soft target. The answer then is to get organised. Perhaps we should start a Scrubs project or task force? You can read all about this here: WP:PROJECT. There is some bureaucracy associated with this too but the basic idea is to work together in a communal way rather than individually. The mechanics of the wiki mean that there is strength in numbers. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as another show has it.  :)Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a big fan of Scrubs. I do have an idea for a compromise, though. Season pages. They're a step between the LOE and individual episode articles. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh. With all due respect, you sure have a funny way of showing that you're a fan of the show. To provide an initial reaction to your proposal, I think season pages -a seemingly reasonable compromise- are not likely going to work as a substitute for all the individual episode articles. I obviously can't speak for all users and their needs, but people go to individual episode pages for a reason. Mwlin1 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do try to be objective, regardless of my own personal likes or dislikes. I'll see if I can find some good examples of season pages to show you guys. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
See, I have no problem with this, being helpful and human and trying to help the situation. Also, I'm trying to get the Scrubs dvds, after which I'd be able to listen to commentaries and expand the articles, I'm hoping. Laynethebangs (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any discussion on these new reverts?

Or is someone just going against the new cease fire I thought we'd drawn up. Laynethebangs (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No discussion I can see. As per above there is no consensus for these latest redirections by Eusebeus. Catchpole (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I blocked the user for 24 hours for disruption. Lack of discussion anywhere, lack of edit summary further than 'rv'. Cowman109Talk 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A):No cease-fire is in place.
I didn't mean a cease-fire was literally in place. I meant that we'd seemed to have found some peace. I mean, I usually sit for hours at home drawing up cease-fires just in case something like this happens but we didn't actually formulate one here.
  • B):Plenty of discussion on this topic by Eusebus, on this talk page.
  • C):A random check of the Scrubs episode articles show that no one has taken any time to improve them, and they still fail WP:N and WP:V. The redirect was completely justified.Kww (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll have no issue if another administrator wishes to unblock him, but glancing at his contributions, he hasn't engaged in any discussion in a week and his last edit related to this was a post on User:TTN's talk page apparently accusing others of bad faith. When he comes out of nowhere after 7 days and blindly reverts with essentially no edit summary of explanation and doesn't explain what he did anywhere, I find that clearly disruptive. There is an arbitration case ongoing to address such issues. But, like I said, if any other administrator wishes to unblock go ahead. Cowman109Talk 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, going about blindly reverting all of Eusebeus' edits can be viewed as just as equally disruptive, so I would suggest you just leave things however they are and continue discussion. Perhaps looking at articles on an individual basis in the meantime may be more productive rather than the entire series as a whole, at least until some sort of consensus is drawn up? Cowman109Talk 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kww's points above. I restored the redirects since last I checked WP:NOT still pertains and these articles remain simply a goulash of plot summaries and trivia, both of which are strongly discouraged. As a result, our policies are clear: these articles fail to assert the required notability and redirection is thus the best solution. I understand that some editors disagree, but we have provided plenty of explanation for such actions and have clearly, patiently and repeatedly noted why the individual episode pages fall foul of our notability policies. Moreover, the extent of this discussion easily passes whatever burden should be imposed for providing a clear rationale for such actions and have also noted the existence of the Scrubs wikia where such content would be better placed. What more can be asked? Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole process is getting pretty tired. Not one person that wants to keep all of the articles has tried to improve them. Not one. If you want summaries, TV.com is --> over here. The purpose of this site is to discuss the episodes encyclopedically, which requires real world information. We have kept the episodes that show the most potential for that. TTN (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I had final exams for the past two weeks. Before that, we had just reverted the articles. I honestly couldn't clear anytime to work on the Scrubs pages. Now, I have time and you've taken away that chance. Plus, I've seen alot of articles with more information added to them. Is this just me? Laynethebangs (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just you - there are a lot of people who feel as you do, and this difference of opinion is causing clashes across the TV project. However, that aside, you can still work on the articles if you have material; just copy the text out of the article history (ask if you want help) and edit it in your user space. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only person available, so that's rather irrelevant. As Ckatz said, the chance is not taken away anyways (see Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage?). If anything has been added, it's not relevant to improving them; it's most likely just more cruft (feel free to provide diffs to show otherwise. TTN (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to provide a citation that's it's "cruft." --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I note further that recent efforts to overthrow the plot summary prescription at WP:NOT were roundly dismissed, so there is simply no rationale or justification for retaining these episodes, especially after such a lengthy discussion has resulted in NO improvement whatsoever. Thus, unless someone can demonstrate why it should be otherwise, I propose that we redirect the remaining articles per the lengthy back and forth above. I think the basis for this action is crystal clear and efforts to forestall are wikilawyerish, pointy and gaming the system. Eusebeus (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd advise you to hold your horses until the arbitration case is decided. Catchpole (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines are not be to enforced by "wikipolice." --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to all editors here: all Scrubs articles are to stay in the form the are currently, regardless of what it is. No one is permitted to redirect/unredirect. See here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is limited to the involved parties of the case, but it would be wise advice for everyone else as well. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not. The injunction prevents editors from doing this, not just parties to the case. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the case[5]. I will repost the injunction below, although editors need to be warned of the injunction on their talk pages if they perform such actions. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction on television episode/character articles

1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

In this ongoing arbitration case, the arbitration committee enacted the above temporary injunction which applies to all editors. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Add Episode #

Why is scrubs one of the few TV shows without an episode number? Juice10 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do all the episode links in season 2 redirect to the list of episodes

86.27.55.60 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)It seems unlike the rest of the episodes season 2 redirects straight back the list of episodes? i though all the episode articles were back? 86.27.55.60 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Going Forward with Episode Redirects/Establishing Notability

Ok, the arbcom case is about to close and with it the injunction will presumably be lifted, so let's get the ball rolling here to restore a semblance of encyclopedic order to the world of Scrubs. To quickly summarise, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT) the problematic areas are the following:

  • Most (not all) episodes are written from an in-universe perspective and fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent third party reliable sources.
  • Individual character articles which also do not aspire to the above criteria and are similarly dominated by an in-universe perspective.

It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact that individual episodes and characters have. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced.
Now, it is the contention of a number of editors, myself included, after having looked for material about Scrubs episodes and characters that would satisfy our notability and fiction criteria that for the vast majority of Scrubs episodes and characters, demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion.
Per the now almost-completed arbcom ruling, which exhorts:

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question.

editors are invited to contribute to this question. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is:

  • agreement to merge and redirect, or
  • clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case episode and character articles should be retained.

Because of the prior contentiousness that has surrounded this, it would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable.
Finally, if we still cannot come to an agreement, we'll trundle this off to mediation. I was dismayed that, despite lengthy discussion, earlier redirects were reverted in violation of our consensus policies. However, in the spirit of the arbcom ruling, I would suggest that no action be taken on any Scrubs episode or character until we have achieved some kind of agreement via the above or a mediation ruling has been handed down. This has been under discussion for a long time, so in the interest of moving forward, I suggest a further one week of debate and then, should it be necessary (and hopefully not), we can file for mediation. Eusebeus (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned approach here. I greatly encourage editors interested in these articles to find sources that demonstrate "real-world" impact. I greatly encourage deletion-minded editors to accept these sources, even if they seem somewhat tenuous. The consensus/compromise appears to be that when episode articles are unable to hurdle the notability bar, we will merge the information into a list (by season if necessary) with a generous plot summary of up to five paragraphs per episode. There also appears to be a good deal of support for the editor proposing the clean-up to be responsible for merging the information into a list (remembering to "lose" as little information as possible). Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also going to post this at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard to garner greater participation. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I support Ursasapien's view as a reasonable middle ground, but I'd like to add that I don't regard one or two (and maybe even three) sentences for production and/or reception as enough significant real-world information to justify a separate article. See also the current discussions at WT:EPISODE#Where we go from here. Most plot summaries of Scrubs episodes are reasonably short to be merged in full if season articles are started. If the Scrubs episode editors can agree with this also, the work here can start (I guess in about two weeks) even though the discussions at WT:EPISODE haven't concluded yet. – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sgeureka above about the production issue (which needs to assert impact, not existence). If we are going to have 5 paragraphs of plot summary per episode, that is in effect an argument for retaining individual episodes. I think summaries should be much shorter - i.e. 1-2 paragraphs, per the recc'ied standard discussed at WP:NOT & in subsidiary discussion @ WP:FICT. Five para plot summaries belong on wikia, not here. Concision is our goal here. Eusebeus (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Compare these three Scrubs plot paragraphs with these two Simpsons plot paragraphs. There shouldn't be so much of a focus on paragraphs, but a general number of lines (which isn't so huge for most Scrubs episodes anyway). I also like Ned's proposal below, having considered a similar option myself before. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Eusebeus (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't read all of the suggestions yet, but here's my thoughts for a next step (it might not be a final step, but just a possible next one): Season pages with one to two paragraph summaries, as well as non-summary information like special cast changes and so on. It's more "breathing room" than a normal LOE, and is a lot less drastic. I'm not sure if that much summary is a good or bad thing (personally, I wouldn't be bothered by that much summary. Format and organization has a lot to do with my feelings on episode articles as well as WP:PLOT), but it would be a starting point. Episodes that should have full articles would still have them.

Each entry on the season page would have a ShortSummary and a LongSummary parameter. The table portion of the season pages would then be transcluded on the main LOE, reducing redundant editing, and would display the ShortSummary instead of the LongSummary on the main LOE.

That's my suggestion. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that individual episodes of a show like scrubs can have their notability satisfied. I've seen it done with various shows, including lots of GAs. I guess the question is whether we require them to show their notability now, or if potential is enough. If potential is enough, then let them all live. It's going to be the rare (or nonexistant) scrubs ep that can't come up 10 refs given enought digging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If Scrubs episodes are not notable then how does aggregating them into a list improve matters? It seems to me that this is really a matter of style, taste or presentation. I much prefer the individual episode format with a list purely being used for navigation and so oppose a TTN-style of merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) If they are truly non-notable, seven bad articles are better than 150 bad articles. Or Eusebeus suggested to go with just one article (this LoE), if that's what you prefer. (2) Per WP:FICT, In other cases, notability of fictional topics is better demonstrated for a common group than in individual articles for each topic. (3) If individual Scrubs episodes are in fact notable, there has been no progress to prove this. – sgeureka t•c 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend ignoring notability for the time, it really is a big distraction to the issues. We should focus on what is the best way for Scrubs to be covered in Wikipedia. I think everyone agrees that information regarding individual episodes of Scrubs should be available here. The argument is over the way this information is presented. In my view we should make use of the fact that Wikipedia is not paper. Hyper-links exist to make information accessible and I think that having a series of small articles rather than a big long list of information is of benefit to our readers. Catchpole (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Seeking to ensure content complies with our core policies is a red herring? No, I don't think so. We need to cover those episodes of Scrubs that have demonstrable real-world impact, certainly, and from an out-of-universe perspective. Episodes that cannot demonstrate this notability should be redirected per one of the suggestions above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not a core policy. It's not even a policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Single pages encourage pointless trivia and blow-by-blow plot summary. Again, I strongly suggest a per-season approach. I do not think they would be too large, and would likely be better maintained in this way as well. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you end up redirecting or whatever these articles, be aware you are redirecting noteable articles. I'm not going to bother establishing noteablity for 100+ articles, but it can and will be done. An imprecise google news archive search turns up over 5,000 hits like this NYT one. Google news searches turn up a small fraction of all newspaper articles that were written. Most were subsequently put into a subscription only/pay area. Just like the simpsons are slowly turning all their ep pages into GAs, scrubs has that potential. I'm not going to edit war over this, like TTN used to, but don't make this decision saying that NOTE or FICT has your back. If you think that season pages are a better way to organize this info until the time someone adds refs, that's fine. But don't think that refs don't exist for these episodes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the same search for Carnivàle episode where I know that /(almost) no episode would be able to support its own article. I got over 700 google news hits for 24 episodes, and if I scale that for the Scrubs episodes, I would pretty much come to the same conclusion: Not all (by far) episodes of Scrubs are notable enough / have enough real-world content for their own article. As before, editors are strongly encouraged to demonstrate this notability for all articles they think have notability. For the rest, WP:FICT#Notable topics merit individual articles suggests that (in this case) season articles are a fine solution. But I see this thread will not come to agreement, so it will head for dispute resolution in the long run. This is unfortunate. – sgeureka t•c 11:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since multiple episodes of Carnivàle won Emmy awards, your contention that they could not support separate articles seems absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I spent six months finding and reading every last bit of information I could find on Carnivàle, in order to make the topic a Featured Topic, I would consider it absurd that someone disagrees with me without spending the same amount of time with the topic and proving me wrong. – sgeureka t•c 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet, without having even heard of Carnivàle before now, I still disagree. The explanation seems to be our understanding of the word support. Your view seems to be of what is required to support good article status. Mine is of what is required for an article to survive AFD. The latter is, of course, minimalist but seems the stronger practical consideration. Anyway, there need be no clash between the two. Having individual episode articles for Carnivàle would not have stopped the main article from being featured, would it? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Carnivàle would not have been able to become a Feature Topic with individual episode articles. And of what use are articles that do nothing other than say "PLOT PLOT PLOT PLOT (TRIVIA ORIGINAL_RESEARCH TRIVIA) PLOT PLOT. And oh yeah, this episode was nominated for best hair style." LoEs (or season articles for that matter) achieve exactly the same. But this is getting into personal wikiphilosophies again, and I am not in the mood to get into another long discussion why Scrubs episodes defy the standards set by policies and guidelines. If nothing else works to come to agreement here, I support the step to go to dispute resolution. – sgeureka t•c 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there are only 35 featured topics, this concept seems too perfectionist. Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To achieve perfectionistm, you have to go from bad to good first. And the Scrubs episode articles haven't even achieved a good state yet (as in, they satisfy basic policies and guidelines) and currenly make no motion to ever do so as individual articles, so any claims about (my) perfectionistic views are besides the point. I found arbcom's 2nd proposed finding quite helpful about wikipedia's mission, and I'll leave at that. – sgeureka t•c 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The programme outlined above by you and others seems to be a continuation of the mass changes for which TTN is being reproved by arbcom. Arbcom specifically enjoin us not to engage in disputatious edits and to engage in constructive discussion. You indicate that you prefer to force the issue and don't want to discuss it. My impression is that Wikipedia would be better served if you were to withdraw from this topic and work on improving another topic such as Haydn, which seems in need of much improvement. It is generally easier to work on a mature topic such as Haydn because there are more abundant sources and the scholarship is more settled. Scrubs has yet to finish its primary run and so is not a good topic for a perfectionist approach. Why exactly are you so intent on attacking this particular topic at this time? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You did a good job on the Carnivale (C) articles; maybe it will lay the foundation for Carnivale episode articles. The difference between Scrubs (S) and C articles is the number of episodes and the time period they were discussed. Those 5000 S hits are going to be mostly about the past year, and don't count the 5,000 hits each year should have. Take a look at a google news search for scrubs episodes. At the time of this post, it returned 98 hits, most about the recent possible shift to ABC. Compare it to a google news search for carnivale episode which returns 12 hits, none of which are about a C episode. The reason is that this information is time sensitive, not that it doesn't exist. If you have a LexisNexis account, you can establish notability even for obscure middle schools. Episode articles on network programs are much easier. Unfortuanately, S hasn't had an ep for a while, so the articles are behind pay to view barriers now. Looking at an ep that aired more recently, "What he Beheld" from the new terminator show turns up 9 hits, which will soon dwindle. One of the hits is the New York Post. Searching for "scrubs episode" in their archives turns up nothing, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's now pay per view only. With a three thousand dollar LexisNexis account, I could assert notability for almost all these episodes, and would also be able to determine which ones truly aren't notable. Basically, you can establish notability for this weeks episode of most shows, and if you don't, you never will again. This flies in the face of our "notability is permanent" rule, and needs to be considered. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge all of the articles per WP:N except for the ones in {{Scrubs}} and My Own Worst Enemy (Scrubs) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (e.g. like my previous !vote, but with the now notable MOWE added in). Although Ned's proposal sounds good. Will (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Close & Redirect We seem to have general consensus that the articles here, with the exceptions noted above by Will, fail to assert real world impact. As a result, redirection is the best course of action. If we cannot agree on this course, I suggest we move to mediation forthwith, since no demonstrable evidence of real-world impact has been shown and that remains, per WP:FICT the prevailing standard. The back and forth above does not address that core problem and as a result suggests that further movement is unlikely. Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again "real world impact" is a complete red herring. The issue is how best to present information about individual episodes, which in my view is best accomplished by having standalone articles on each episode and making use of the navigational benefits of the hyperlink to present information in a more elegant manner than as a mere list. However I believe that having an article for each season may go some way to alleviating the (imo needless) concerns expressed above and establish a compromise which all editors here can accept. Catchpole (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus that redirection is the best course of action - not even close. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and improve them, if we're !voting. If someone with a LexisNexis account were to improve some random ep then tell me they can't improve the others, I'll beleive sources don't exist. I'm certain they do, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in what you say about LexisNexis and will look into obtaining such an account. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
LexisNexis costs about $3000 a year, I think. Some students can access it for free, at least law students. Local libraries might have access to it as well, I don't know. I'm a wikiproject Oregon participant sometimes, and we have a law student who helps out. Whenever someone nominates an Oregon high school or something supposedly not notable like that for deletion, he slaps five to ten refs on it and the AfD is over.
Most episode article sources are from a time period of about 1 month before it airs to about one week after it airs. Magazines and newspapers only allow you to access their articles for about 2 weeks to a month, then their gone. As a thought experiment, try finding sources for an episode that just aired, then try finding them for an episode from the previous season. For a show as big as Scrubs, you'll find 10 for the new one and zero for the old one. Repeat a year later and again you'll find 10 for the new one, and none for the one that you used to be able to find 10 for.
TV Squad has reviewed a lot the later episodes and they don't pull their content. Same with IGN. Buddy TV does recaps that include a small amount of commentary. There's also tons of season reviews that will comment on individual episodes. I would include some newspaper reviews, but the one month window has passed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I find that I have access to News UK through my local library. This may help, especially with the UK shows.
  • This explains why a fresh episode of Lost can have zillions of references while articles on older works suffer. It is a good example of systemic bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool, good luck with that. It's too bad one has to be a university student with a good amount of eperience in researching just to prove a tv episode is notable but that's how it is right now, at least until magazine and newspaper archives become add supported. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alrighty

You guys are free to keep arguing, but once I get some time I'm going to start formatting season articles similar to ones used on List of Lost episodes. Don't worry, this format doesn't take any side in the debate, so doing that alone should be non-controversial. However, once done it will be very easy to show how easily most of these articles can live in a parent article (and be better presented that way). -- Ned Scott 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects will be undone, that's the will of the fan base

The admins are definitely abusing the fact that Scrubs has a smaller fanbase than a lot of shows. For example, where's the effort to redirect the individual episode articles for Family Guy? 68.101.73.64 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Alternatively the admins are going on consensus that has been proven time and again that there isn't sufficient notability for most articles? I'd love to see every Scrubs article GA class or better, that would be fantastic, but let's face it it will not happen as the outside world doesn't care enough about the episodes to talk about them much - and that means they fail WP:N thus cannot stay. I'm inclusionist so I say that very very begrudgingly but it's a fact. This debate has gone on a long time, long enough for people to add sources if found. No one has and time is up! Put the articles back when sources are found, that's fine they exist in the redirect page history, but not before. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re-redirection

User:Eusebeus is restoring the redirects ("rv to loe per fict"), again, despite the fact that there has no been no further discussion, nor has the WP:FICT discussion come to any final decision. Although i have tried to distance myself from these discussions in recent months, I feel that this in violation of the recent arbcom dicussion, and believe Eusebeus should be reported to the arbcom enforcement board. Comments? --Jac16888 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm for reporting to an arbcom board Runciman81.109.247.173 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WT:FICT makes it abundantly clear that pure plot synopses are not acceptable encyclopedic content - no-one has made any attempt to improve the content here. Point me to that part of the ongoing discussion that deems this content acceptable. The arbcom decision is not a blank cheque to allow unencyclopedic content to persist, despite whatever personal enthusiasms you may have for such fan-driven material. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You might want to check out the following mailing list thread - [6]. Catchpole (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see what the point of that is. The fact is that this remains fundamentally a content issue. Enough wikilawyering: when editors can provide sourced material with a real-world focus, then we should have individual episode articles. Otherwise, these articles will be redirected per the long-established and now renewed consensus at the Fiction guideline: articles that are simply vehicles for plot summary are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I shouldn't have to keep checking back here to make sure no one's trying to get rid of the episodes again. Just stop. The fan base is strong enough, and this show is no different then all the other shows that have individual episode articles. 75.69.196.36 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd like to point out one of the outcomes of the arbcom decision which supports the many of us that want episode articles, "[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

3.1) Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) " Eusebeus is ignoring this and does need to be reported to arbcom for his constant redirecting and ignorance of other editors of this wiki entry. 86.27.66.246 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Season 8

Although there are continuous rumors about the show entering a new season and being transferred to ABC, I couldn't find a single reliable sources confirming any of these claims. So I'd say we wait for a proper announcement before starting a new section. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Sceptre (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there consensus on not keeping episode articles?

It's worth noting that:

  1. WP:EPISODE is a guideline not a policy. WP:FICT is a proposed policy that isn't yet accepted.
  2. More popular TV shows tend to have articles for each episode, even when there's not real third party sourcing (IMDB, TVGuide, etc. excluded)
  3. Including these pages allows for more information.

Is there really a broad consensus to leave these episodes as redirects? Where do editors stand on this? Oren0 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I Wish for the Scrubs episodes to stay and not be redirected. As stated by yourself above "WP:EPISODE is a guideline not a policy." I feel that the redirects and culling of articles is unneeded and pointless.

I would rather the redirects be undone.86.31.43.211 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Runciman

Same here. Scrubs is one of the only shows being targeted, what about every other television series with individual episodes articles. These episode articles are useful to me, and I'm sure they are to many others. 75.69.196.36 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very mistaken about Scrubs being the only show being targeted; it only seems this way because many others already have been merged a long time ago. WP:USEFUL is also not a good reason to keep or delete an article. A phonebook on wikipedia would be very useful, but that's not what wikipedia is for. Neither are plot-only articles. – sgeureka t•c 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is your basis for this arguement that plot is not appropriate? Who decides that it isn't appropriate for plot not to be included in episode articles. Is there a clear cut "no" ruling for this, or is this a set of guidelines which a few members have decided to follow to the absolute letter anally.Runciman 81.109.247.173 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that the redirects should be undone as they serve no proper purpose. Is everyone clear about how to reverse such a redirect? See Help:Redirect#Changing a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • as i have already stated above "[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

3.1) Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) " 86.27.66.246 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Dumb Luck, Notable episode?

I was looking at the banner that includes notable episodes such as My First Day and My Musical etc. I was thinking the last episode My Dumb Luck since it is the episode Dr Kelso retires. Thanks (Eyehawk78 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Just revert the redircts?

Did any admin come by and say all the links have to be taken away? Or was it just a small group of delentionist who said were goning to redirct the pages, no matter what the majority thinks, and no one has gone and just reverted the redirects? I think the episodes deserve there own articlus, but I don't care enghoth to revert te redircts. Also, the episode's are still there, just type in the episode you want to see. It will redirct you to this page, so just go to the top of the page where it says redirect from watever and click on that. Then just go to history and click on a previos version of it. Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this as well. Oren0 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to repair the episode articles, feel free to apply your repairs to the last version of the article, and save the repaired result. That will undo the redirect at the same time. That way, you will actually be doing a service, by adding in the missing critical reviews, outside opinions, and the real-world information that is supposed to be the bulk of an article. Just undoing the redirect so that the existing overblown plot summaries are restored borders on vandalism.Kww (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For example, [7] would be the correct way of doing it. Reviews should exist for most if-not-all episodes, and so should commentaries. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Kww, I'm glad you hold that opinion. I haven't been following this closely, but didn't the arb committee determine that constantly re-instituting the redirects when there wasn't consensus to do so was in fact the act of vandalism, and thusly punish someone for doing so? Where's the consensus to keep these as redirects? Why isn't the same logic applied to other TV shows whose episodes contain mostly plot summaries? Let's take for example, the latest episode of South Park or House (and no, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't give you license to remove these pages without discussion). As a compromise, what about what they've done over at Grey's Anatomy, see for example Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 4)? Basically the idea is to have the summaries, etc in one big article where each episode title redirects to a section of that article. I'm fine with adding commentaries and whatever but that doesn't mean an article should be effectively deleted without discussion because an editor doesn't want to add these things themselves. Oren0 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the point that was brought up by someone is that it should look like a merge - plot summaries should be expanded a bit more, and the music (being an important part of the show) included. Sceptre (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oren, you may interpret that Arbcom decision that way. I read it more as We don't know what to do here, because it's a content dispute, so we will apply this simplest restriction that will get this out of our hair. It isn't working, and I expect a third round to hit Arbcom within a few months. FWIW, there have also been editors blocked for repetitively undoing redirects as well.
As for effectively deleted because an editor doesn't want to add these things themselves, no one can make an editor care. It's a core policy of Wikipedia that articles are based on independent, third-party sourcing, and an article that consists of a plot summary fails to do that. Any editor is free to get rid of such articles, and is under no obligation to repair them himself. If it were my choice, I wouldn't even have the lists of episodes around, but those are a compromise that seems necessary to make Wikipedia work at all.Kww (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason that WP:AFD exists. With the exception of speedy deletion criteria, we require a process to delete pages. Editors are not, as you claim, free to "get rid of" any articles they don't believe meet WP:N or any other policy. For example, all of these articles contained cast lists, director/producer info, and featured songs. Those are all out-of-universe details. I don't see how the addition of a few production notes or reviews would make that any more the case anyway. I'd like more input on this, but if more editors don't side with you re:keeping these as redirects I intend to undo that in a few days. Oren0 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirection is not deletion. All the information of previous versions is there, available for an interested editor, such as yourself, to repair the articles. There's no reason at all to bring them back in the shape they are in. I would strongly advise you not to unredirect them without making the necessary repairs first.Kww (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirection is effectively deletion. Merge is a very common outcome of AfDs. Oren0 (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD is to get the articles and their page history deleted, needing help from an admin. The result merge is just a version of keep, because nothing gets deleted (in the page history sense). If someone just wants to merge or redirect, that can be done as part of the normal editorial process via a merge proposal, and you don't need an admin. Also saves the trouble of deletion review. Please take the advice of Sceptre and Kww to heart to not get into trouble yourself. – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So far as I know, no-one has mandated that these redirects should exist - they are just the action of individual editors who have been acting unilaterally. I support the reversion of these redirects. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Although i would like the episode articles to be un-redirected, do not just undo the redirects. To do so would be in violation of the arbcom ruling, just as much as the re-direction was. If the articles are to be restored, they do need some more real-world balance. Not masses, just a reception section would do as a start. See My Own Worst Enemy, which the so-called "deletionists" allowed to stay simply because it had the beginings of a reception section. I do intend to start doing this, but for now the real world has me good, it may be a few weeks--Jac16888 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you read the arbcom ruling that way. The ruling said that consensus should be reached before making widespread changes (I'd say that taking 100 articles and making them redirects is a fairly widespread change). I see no evidence of any consensus here to have these pages as redirects. Quite the contrary, in fact, there seems to be a consensus among most editors here to undo them. Oren0 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
you make a good point, at the moment there is only one person actively maintaining the redirects, but my point was that the arbcom ruling did not go either way over the fate of episode/character articles, just the methods used, so while the mass redirection, was (in my opinion at least)a violation, simply reverting them back to how they were would be too, saying otherwise would make me a hypocrite. However, if we're ever going to actually get the episode articles to stick, and not just get blindly redirected again further down the line, we need to make some improvements, that, is the consensus of the community at large--Jac16888 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that you can rest assured that more than one editor is monitoring this situation, and will help maintain the redirects if need be.Kww (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • so your saying that you are going to inflame the situation if needs be? i feel the redirects should be removed as i have been doing for the last few days. As well as this i will also be reporting you and the other editors to arbcom as your behaviour is not unlike User TTN's over christmas. You and your fellow editors are portraying a bullying swagger to which it seems that your opinions are upmost law. Runciman 86.24.147.125 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • By your undoing the redirects (are you?), you would in fact be the one inflaming the situation. FYI, your comments are also coming close to personal attacks. Please comment on the content, not the editors. – sgeurekat•c 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I undid the redirect on my mentor and was contributing towards it when it was redirected, i havent been doing them all. By all means i wasnt being personal, it jsut seems that 3-4 editors are discouragind people from adding; this is because its difficult to get into the episodes as they have all been redirected. 86.0.109.56 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • By contributing, do you mean this? Kww (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes but i was also in the middle of getting reception information and other real world references when it was redirected. Not easy to put everything together in one day when you teach full time.82.2.95.124 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I've waited a night so that I can stay polite. That contribution is exactly the kind of contribution that lead to the articles being redirected in the first place. It has three problems:
                1. It's completely trivial.
                2. It's unsourced, and, while verifiable, the fact that it is unsourced reinforces it's triviality: no independent third party thought it was important enough to write about.
                3. It walks right up the edge of original research, and may cross it. This is not an obvious observation that is easily verified by watching the episode: you need to watch 70 hours of video to come to this conclusion. You weren't even certain it was right, which is why you put the word "may" in the description.
What the articles need are facts reported by independent third-parties, not unsourced trivia.Kww (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                • As i said before i was midway through establishing these things when the article was redirected and non-helpful comments like that make me wonder why i even bother with wiki. To be honest have your way redirect. I#m trying to improve things but your making it awfully hard. I think that this may be negative towards first time contributers such as myself. 86.26.101.31 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Either you can establish notability, in which case the article can certainly be recreated, or you don't, in which case there is nothing wrong a redirect. Please stop playing the victim. – sgeureka t•c 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • I don't see why you found my comments non-helpful. How can a newcomer learn from his mistakes if no one points them out?Kww (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My impression is that Eusebius is the one most at risk in that he has been repeating TTN-style unilateral redirects and seems to have not the slightest intention of compromise or reacting to good faith attempts to improve the articles. The editors here have little alternative but to respond in kind otherwise they will be faced with a fait accompli. Myself, I bought a book at lunchtime today today to provide me with another source and will continue to ferret out more sources. The Xena article that I saved at AFD from Collectonian is now in good shape and shows what can be done if one just works at it. Edit-warring over redirects is disruptive in that it gets in the way of improving the content. Please desist. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
          Speaking as the suddenly transformed orthodox Caesarean (look up Colonel Warden, way up ... no higher), I feel confident that this sentiment is borne out of ignorance of my contribution record, or TTN's perhaps, as well as the idiosyncratic views this editor specifically holds regarding fiction, and the tinge of malice and acrimony he bears me personally. I have engaged in extensive discussion on this page and have reacted in good faith to the responses that have been forthcoming. I doubt I am at risk here, since I have extensively and repeatedly contributed to the relevant discussions across many fora; I think there is general agreement that articles that consist mostly of plot are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I know you disagree and feel that all content should be permitted as long as it is not WP:OR and verifiable, but then some people think the earth is flat too. Eusebeus (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We certainly read Colonel Warden's comments differently, Eusebeus. I saw a man that had purchased something he could use to improve articles, and a request to stop edit warring over redirects. What did you read him as saying?Kww (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was reading the comments who characterised my actions as not having the slightest intention of compromise or reacting to good faith attempts to improve the articles. That's pot and kettle time from someone who rejects in toto any argument based on WP:FICT or WP:NOT#PLOT. The fact is that certain episodes may well merit individual articles and I've no truck with anyone who wishes to improve any of them such that they demonstrate their real-world impact and aspire to more than plot summaries and trivia sections. But I don't see much evidence of anything being done to make a compelling case that this attains to even a significant minority of Scrubs episodes. I might finally note that as I redirect these, I bring over the featured music, guest actors and other such info into the LOE; insinuations that I am mindlessly redirecting as deletion by other means is incorrect and self-serving. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moving content from one article to another and redirecting without consensus is disruption. If your objective is to reduce the amount of plot coverage then this could more easily be done in situ, reducing articles to stubs. Redirection just seems to be a tactic designed to obfuscate the material and so confuse new/inexperienced editors. This is contrary to Newcomers must always be welcomed et seq. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no intention of inflaming any situation. Right now, the vast majority of Scrubs episodes are redirects. That's fine with me. If people undertake to write good articles, using as much of the old article as they want to, and place those good articles in place of the redirects, that's fine with me, and I won't do anything to stop it. Might even help scrub them for typos and such. If people recreate the existing bad articles without performing any meaningful repair effort, I'll restore the redirect. Recreating an article that you know is unacceptable doesn't help anyone accomplish anything.Kww (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirects unless notability is established. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in My Philosophy in season 2?

In the plot synopsis, it says: Elliot demands single-sex change rooms from Dr. Kelso as it's becoming increasingly embarrassing changing in the traditional mixed-sex rooms. I just watched 2x13. The one where Turk is sitting on his bed holding a red pillow at the start? Either my episodes have a numbering problem, or these do, or there's a vandal. Or I'm wrong. That would be fine too. Miyoka (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My Philosophy does contain the storyline given in the article along with Turk's efforts to propose Carla. It's the following episode which starts with the scene you mentioned. LeaveSleaves (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)