Jump to content

Talk:ER season 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carter was still Chief Resident in season 9

[edit]

(repost of my post on the John Carter page) I know it doesn't make sense because he was already CR in season 8, but he is still clearly referred to as Chief Resident in late s9 (i.e. 2003) so I guess it's a mistake on the show's part. I've already made this clear in my edit summaries but this has been willfully ignored. Jerkov (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carter WAS Chief Resident during S9. There is a substantive scene early in the season where he agrees to stay on as CR because he can't get an attending position. He was never formally hired as an attending, although he morphed into one in S11. That one stray comment by Jerry was just as likely a continuity error, especially given the ceremony that followed every move Carter made. Drmargi (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That scene you're referring to actually occurred in early season 8, either episode 8x02 or 8x03, i forget honestly, when chen was CR. Carter told abby he had 6 weeks left of his residency and he would leave for a faculty attending position at another hospital if he wasn't promoted to an attending at county. Chen quits and he's promoted. Assuming his residency is extended for another year, by S9 he's a full attending. he may still be assuming the CR duties, but his title is fully licensed. attending —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q102josh (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in S9 during one of the few episodes in which Romano is in charge of the ER, two scenes make it clear that Carter is still Chief Resident: Romano tries to assign a case to Pratt and Carter says that as Chief Resident, that is Carter's responsibility; than later Romano assigns med students for Carter to initiate (they then promptly disappear, something that endlessly annoys me) because as Chief Resident, Carter is in charge of med students.98.235.34.95 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q102josh

[edit]

He keeps reverting my edits regarding Carter's carreer status in this article as well as Carter's page and the season 8 page. I've repeatedly attempted to debate the matter with him, but refuses to do so and has ignored all my requests so far. Protecting the article seems rash considering it's a very trivial matter and probably wouldn't help much since Q102josh seems to be an established user, but something definitely needs to be done to settle this dispute. It would help if Q102josh opened himself to debate and not keep plowing on with a 100 miles per hour like he's the only one editing these articles. Jerkov (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that will stop, and pronto. Nothing is gained by edit-warring. I certainly hope someone is encouraging the user to calmly discuss the matter here in article talk. If he doesn't respond, (s)he marginalizes him/herself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of us have tried and tried to get him to discuss, work with the system, etc. Nada. He insists he knows what's right, and even had the articles semi-protected rather than stopping the edit war. No compromise, no teamwork, only rare responses to talk pages, and only then to tell us we're wrong. Drmargi (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it sounds like its time to widen the circle. Involve an admin or two, and get their input. IF the person continues to revert uncommunicatively, they can be blocked. Talk is necessary for the wiki to function. Edit-warring is stupid, since no one is going to be convinced by a one-line edit summary or even worse, none at all or some dickish comment. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that he immediately reverted to his old behavior the second this article's protection expired. He learned nothing; instead of thinking about his actions during the protection he was merely biding his time, waiting for the protection to expire so he could continue reverting and ignoring consensus. Jerkov (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave it to the admins to make that call. Who wants to ask one? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You go ahead. My sense is you're experienced. He's now moved on to Season 15 and is trying to claim the actor billed first when he appeared is recurring, with no source of course. This was extensively discussed at the time and consensus reached based on NBC's inclusion of the character on the show's website and in promotional material. Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Addition of Cast

[edit]

An editor persists in adding massive lists of cast, taken from IMDB (which is not a reliable source), most not notable and the vast majority without character names, to the article. I have attempted to remove them and limit the list to Notable Guest Stars, only to have them immediately restore to the article. This is not a fan page for the season, and to add all that cast, particularly with no reliable sources for most of it, is ridiculous, is and violates {{WP:NOTABLE]] and WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- this article is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Moreover, collected as it is, we lose the notable performances from each season in a sea of "who was that?" junk. Moreover, making an accusation of vandalism is inappropriate, and very poor practice. Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems

[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on ER (season 9). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ER (season 9). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ER_season_9&oldid=1216298278"