Talk:List of Scrubs episodes

My first step

I added the song "Sabrosa by The Beastie Boys to this episode. It plays when Heather Locklear furst enters the hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.130.30 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Now that it is official how should we go about writing it in? I think it is more important than a single sentence at the end. Cs302b (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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))

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, [1] 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. – sgeureka^t•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)

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)

Episode 52 "My Advice to You"

In this episode Carla's brother Marco makes an appearance. The actor is Freddy Rodriguez. He has done some notable work. Someone should edit him into the episode article and the same for any other episodes he appears in. --ShadowCrew (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another whine about deletion

Today when I came over to wikipedia to find out about a Scrubs episode I had watched I was disappointed to find the article deleted, so I read some of this discussion and had a few questions/points:

• The suggestion to put TV episode articles on wikia has the problem that it is a different site. On of my favourite things to do on wikipedia is to start reading one article and by clicking the hyperlinks end up reading about a totally different topic. There will be much less interlinking on a separate site.
• Is the desire to delete articles based on conserving server resources or wanting to only include deserving articles? If the former, I would be interested to know what proportion of storage is spent on article content, and how much on all these pointless discussions about wikipedia rules ;-). If the latter doesn't the fact that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with hyperlinks mean if you don't want to read such content it doesn't get in the way as it would with a book?
• I agree with those who say the redirects make it hard to find/improve the deleted articles, thanks to Jac16888 for saying how to find them!
• Now that the list of episodes page includes music I think it is too long. How could we solve this problem? Articles for each episode detailing amongst other things the music!

Uberdude85 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you far taking the time to read through the debate, and for making an informed comment. Server space is not the issue. The community policy at [WP:NOT]] is what is germane here. As it stands, the consensus is fairly clear that episodes which can aspire to little more than in-universe detail do not merit individual articles on Wikipedia. That is the case for the vast majority of Scrubs episodes - hence the redirects. That said, no-one wishes to stand in the way of any editor who seeks to make a good faith effort to improve any article, and if you have an episode in mind and are having a hard time locating it, I would suggest simply asking for assistance here and someone can direct you to the older version. As for the list becoming too long, I am not sure I agree, but should that be deemed the case, then individual season lists can be spun out in order to redress questions of length. Overall, the brief synoptic content here is better suited to the encyclopedic goals of the project as they are currently iterated per longstanding consensus policy. Eusebeus (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Janitor's Name Was Revealed

When Janitor is making up articles for his newsletter, Cox asks why Janitor is going after him. Janitor says its because Cox called him stupid, and that he's been called alot of things, including "Josh" in the short list of three, also stating that "each of which is true in its own right". So the line about Janitor's name not being revealed is wrong, it was, his name is Josh. ~~CuCullin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.106.172 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that he was in fact saying that his name was Josh. He only said that he was called Josh... or how about J.O.S.H. (Janitor of Sacred Heart) - possibly just another way the Scrubs writers are having fun with its hardcore fan base. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And the Janitor is an habitual liar. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Justsomerandomguy32... How on earth did you come up with that? Its good if its true.. Cs302b (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Both Bill Lawrence and Neil Flynn have said that the Janitor's name will be revealed in the series finale, if at all.ThomasSixten (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading Lawrence saying that when we heard the Janitor's real name that would definitely be the end of the show and since the show is still going on then Josh is most probably not his name --Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article mentioned on Blogspot

[2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskan assassin (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 July 2008

What's your point?? LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My Princess needs to be moved up

NBC aired an episode of season 7 out of order. My Princess, continuity-wise, belongs between My Manhood and My Dumb Luck, regardless of NBC's dumbass decisions to air them out of order. —Preceding ThomasSixten comment added by 128.173.235.230 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the list of episodes that are arranged as they were aired, not as they were intended to be aired. The production code indicates the actual intended order. You can see another example of such a situation in season 6 for Episode 11, My Night to Remember, which was aired out of order. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in continuity

The episode MY Princess states that its not in continuity? The episode was just played out of order. Theres nothing wrong about it that I can see. Thefro552 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelso was still chief of medicine in My Princess, despite retiring two episodes before--Jac16888 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The episodes were out of order because NBC wanted to make what they were calling "the last episode of Scrubs" to be something that would stand out. They did so because they had lost Scrubs to ABC after shafting Bill Lawrence and Scrubs by not giving them the chance to end Scrubs properly. It is likely that the episodes will air in production sequence when played in syndication.ThomasSixten (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Split

The article is presently 122kb in size. Looking forward to information from another season with songs details and all that, I have no doubt that the article would reach somewhere near 140kb by the end of the season. I think we should consider splitting article into separate season articles. This would remove majority of information regarding episode description, credits, song information etc. into individual season article, thus reducing the load on a single article. I have created a rough skeleton of upcoming season eight which can be seen here. If such a split can be agreed upon, I propose we finish the split before the premiere of upcoming season. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's probably a good idea eventually. I would suggest two articles, covering the first four and second four seasons. However, I don't think the split needs to take place urgently and we can proceed woth adding season 8 to this page for now. Eusebeus (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• I like the idea, having different pages for different seasons, but I also agree with Eusebeus, its not urgent to have it done for the upcoming season.Tej68 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• As much as I personally love the ease of access to songs played in each episode, perhaps we should [re]move that information from the page, and just keep them to the Episode's article (if applicable since not all episodes have pages yet) or, else, create a separate page for songs in each episode. In addition to that, however, considering there's not much confirmation for anything after this coming season, maybe it's not even necessary if this is going to be the last one. But I'm in concurrence with the above, I think it's fine for now until we know more about the future. When it comes to it though, doing something like what List of ER episodes looks like could work out wonderfully. --Snojoe (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  "not all episodes have pages yet." - And round and round we go. Used to be they all had pages (literally every single episode), then they were merged here per WP:FICT (a decision I think was wrong personally). Have a look at the revision history of any episode title, like this or this before they became redirects or check the archives. Now this page is too crowded so you want to move things back to those pages. Sounds like a vicious cycle. Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone recreated all of them and moved the music and some other extraneous info to the individual episode articles, thus removing the need for a split. But that might be a tad controversial around here. Oren0 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  I've always been in favor of each episode having its own page, and that goes for every show. There are some things that are left unsaid when they don't have their own articles, and it's that information that is sometimes more important than what the List of xxx Episodes snippets can provide. --Snojoe (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  What it comes down to is whether there is anything to be said about an individual episode beyond regurgitating the plot and putting in a few items of useless trivia. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is a resource for encyclopedic insights, and where things like production details, episode themes and concepts etc exit in reliable sources then episodes warrant articles. Certain episodes most certainly do meet these criteria, and thus do have articles. Anyone may bring to the table reliable sources with similar information for the other articles, and thus make a case in favour of the creation of one for that/those episode(s). Eventualism is however not likely to be applied here, as it just caused laziness and the articles became a mess. Note that I'm actually in favour of the articles - but not in the state they were in before the merger. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would urge everyone not to deviate this discussion towards episode articles. My primary reason for bringing up this issue is unreadability and huge size of this particular article. My insistence on early beginning of split process, possibly before upcoming season, is to avoid further clamoring of information which would unfavorably increase the article size, which is already beyond limit. As is practice with most of TV shows, individual season articles can provide necessary help to create readable and focused articles. Furthermore, this significantly eases the task of creating featured content. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Based on the above, I would suggest the following: we leave the content as it is for now and then when the series is over, interested editors can arrange a split into 2 or 3 separate articles, tbd. Let's leave the featured music here for now - I ported it over from the individual episode articles since about 90% of our Scrubs traffic is from people who have watched an episode and are looking for the music details. Eusebeus (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support proposal by EusebeusThat works for me, this article clearly isn't going to be complete until the end of the series, and until that time we won't know what we're looking at length-wise. Yes, we can estimate, but crystalballing ourselves is little more productive than any other case of WP:CRYSTAL. Split if/when there is a need to split. Simple! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:SIZE it clearly indicates that the article is way beyond suggested article size limits. There is a serious need to split. And saying that the article would reach a certain size after particular period of time based on well known information is not crystalballing but a common sense estimation. Plus the split I'm suggesting is virtually a standard practice for many TV series at the moment. It is nothing particularly radical. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this page the past week and will continue to be revising it. Please do not split anything yet. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Music on Season 8

The song that plays in episode 1 season 8 is "I wanna be your man" by endeverafter. just thought someone could change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.208.167 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to update it for me, On the episode "Their Story II" The song playing at the ending of the episode is by Rogue Wave entitled "Chicago X 12"--Noliebro (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. ^LeaveSleaves 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Season 8 spoiler(s)

Considering the page contains snippets of the episodes' storylines, I feel like season 8 delves too far in without offering any real alert for spoilers. I know it's assumed, but I think there should either be a formal warning for the section, names shouldn't be dropped, or else remove the snippets for unaired episodes until such a time that they've aired. --Snojoe (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed at enormous and divisive length across the project. Bottom line: Wikipedia does not do "spoilers". Eusebeus (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER. Plus also note that the storylines for unaired episodes are obtained from releases by ABC. So it is not like we are revealing anything exclusive. ^LeaveSleaves 05:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

OK, User:LeaveSleaves is repeatedly adding and re-adding notability tags to all the new episodes. Aside from the general question about individual TV episodes addressed elsewhere, I don't see where else the notability was questioned. Look at the articles on the earlier episodes, for example. They were not challenged, as far as I can see. Enigma^msg 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all I'm not "repeatedly adding" or "re-adding" the tags, but inserting them after article is created and restoring them when they are removed without being addressed or under masquerading summaries. Next, why is it that tagging an article with valid issue wrong? How does it matter that other older articles are not tagged? Or is it that these articles are immune to policies and guidelines? And the reason I'm focused on new articles at the moment is because they are in fact extremely poor and many simply reverted redirects with no concern given towards possible notable parts such as production, review but only towards some useless and unsourced trivia. Another reason why I'm tagging only new articles is because I know that if I started tagging old articles that are in similar state, everyone would go off the handle saying who am I to tag them now if they weren't tagged before, which is the sort of argument I received earlier and here. ^LeaveSleaves 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are repeatedly adding and re-adding the tags, and edit-warring to keep it in your preferred version. Enigma^msg 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some "fictional notability" guidelines that falsely label WP:FICTION as a guideline. Regardless of the merit, adding it to every single one certainly doesn't help any more than to advance the opinion that no episodes are notable. Grsz¹¹_Review 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't at any point edit warring or trying to retain my own version, but merely restoring tags that you removed without addressing the issue. In fact, I wouldn't restored it the second time if you hadn't chosen to remove them under false summaries. Notice that in those edits I only restored the tag and did not just blindly revert you to retain earlier versions. And if you choose to ignore genuine problem tags by providing reasons such as "there are other episode articles, so why not these" or "other episode articles don't have the tags, so why should these", it is pointless for me to have a coherent and reasonable argument.

And please notice that the tags are {{notability}} because the articles fail WP:GNG and not under WP:FICT, which is not yet policy/guideline. ^LeaveSleaves 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(Coming here from FICT) Seconded. If someone objects to a notability template and wants to remove it, he's got to actually establish notability. Without a working FICT, WP:N is the notability guideline for fiction articles, and Scrubs articles aren't above that guideline. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He has to establish it, but not necessarily cite it in the article. Pointing out that reliable sources exist is good enough, though they have to be in this case for the episode, not season or show in general.じんない 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed fired?

In My lawyers in love did dr cox fire ed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.177.141 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Question About Season 8 Episodes

A few days ago or maybe a week ago I checked, and it had in the season 8 section the next two episodes. I checked today (February 13, 2009) and it had practically the rest of the season's episodes (I also checked the Scrubs Wiki and they said the same thing)! But there were no links on the episodes indicating where they came from...so if anyone could maybe find out this highly valuable piece of information...you could either contact me here at my talk page or at the article talk page (it'll be on my watchlist). I thank anyone for taking the time to do this. With much gratitude, WM2 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for the origin for an unsourced and unsubstantiated information? Because such information floats around those spoiler-related websites and can't really be traced. And how is this "highly valuable"? ^LeaveSleaves 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Second questions first, it is highly valuable because I am a HUGE Scrubs fan and I must know this information. First questions second, I guess it doesn't really matter anymore because someone deleted the (possibly) upcoming episodes, which puts me at ease. So thank you whoever did this!:-) Sincerely, WM2 16:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 3 Episodes are off.

Most Notibly 309 is not 'My Dirtly little secret', That should be episode 303. Mostly because the facts will not stand from the show. In 'My Dirtly little Secret', J.D. explains that he is not have sex in the last seconds of the episode when he is forced to watch Jack by Jordan and Dr. Cox. Yet if the episode list stands he's having plenty of sex in 308 where he is dating Jordan's sister, Danni. It was fixed by the creators of the show to change the episodes around. Other than that though the Episodes should be right. -Wolfen (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was listed correctly. An anon IP changed it a few weeks ago. Found it and reverted it. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But none of the story works if you put it in that way. Every other episode works... Elliot is even with Shawn in 'My Dirtly Little Secret', Yet he leaves for New Zealand in episode 305 'My Lucky Night', and doesn't come back until Episode 318 'His Story II'. -Wolfen (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed it again today. I reverted it back to the correct numbering. -AnonGuy99

My Boss's Free Haircut and other episodes

I'm a bit unsure why we've got some episodes as blue links and not others. I've been looking at those that seem to have major plot points and just restored one (which was reverted). I'm not finding specific discussion on the topic and it looks like the work of one user. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to a restoration of that episode and the link here? Hobit (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Check the archives above. Eusebeus (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm finding minimal, if any, discussion about particular episodes. Could you point me to the discussion where people agreed what criteria to use for which episodes to redirect? 141.212.111.116 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode 107 Music

In Episode 107, Living Life is listed as by Eels. It is originally by Daniel Johnston. Should this be by Daniel Johnston performed by Eels, or is that only used to denote a character performing a song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.116.65 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My Finale is two episodes

The DVD has the episodes in their separate forms, they've aired internationally separately, they're up on Hulu separately... Infact, the only place they aired as one episode was the initial airing on ABC. Shouldn't the page be adjusted accordingly? I would've done it now, but then it would've been reverted until I came here and discussed it. Wattlebird (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what there is to change. As of right now, the episode entry is entirely accurate. Remember, the episode tables refer to original airings. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit, which should have been discussed here first since I specifically asked what needed changing, is wrong. The episode tables refer to airdates, not to DVD releases or subsequent airings of episodes on different channels and/or in different countries. This is clear from the column titled "Original airdate" and it is specifically stated in the documentation for {{Episode list}}. The episode was originally aired as one episode[3] and there is no citation from a reliable source indicating that two production codes applied to this one episode. This is why I stated above that the episode entry, as it stood then, was accurate. If you still believe that the episode is really two episodes, you should refer to Talk:Scrubs (TV series)#168 episodes, where I pointed out that, in addition to ABC treating the episode as a single episode, two-part epsiodes, such as "My Soul on Fire", are clearly identified as being two parts.[4][5]. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"in addition to ABC treating the episode as a single episode" Um, it's on ABC's site to view online as two separate episodes... So they're treating it as two. Wattlebird (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That only means it has been split since it aired, which has no bearing on the season 8 episode table, as that deals with the original airing. Did you follow the link the link I provided to ABC's website showing it was one episode, #818? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC.com isn't always 100% correct. ie with Better Off Ted tinyurl.com/l3mhy7 lists 'Jabberwocky' as 112, but the credits cleary shows 1APX04 aka 104 (tinyurl.com/mrswag). How can you say that ABC.com is more likely to be correct than a press release[6] that states My Finale has two production codes and is therefore two episodes? Wattlebird (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that the program's production company doesn't know what it's talking about is, at best, ridiculous. Arguing that it isn't correct because of something that you claim happened somewhere else is classed as original research and is unacceptable. In any case your claim is wrong because "1APX04" is the production code, not the episode number which, is reflected at List of Better Off Ted episodes. The url that you've used as a citation is invalid because it contains a disclaimer stating, in red just so you don't miss it, exactly that: "THIS LISTING HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE NETWORK AND IS NO LONGER VALID."

By the way, tinyurl.com/l3mhy7 points to episode 13, production code 1APX12, titled "Secrets and Lives", not "Jabberwocky". --AussieLegend (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The "THIS LISTING HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE NETWORK AND IS NO LONGER VALID." was because the airing was replaced with an airing of My Soul on Fire Pt 2. as seen here: http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=scrubs&view=listings . And ffs, ABC doesn't make the show, a company it owns does. It's made by ABC Studios. Not ABC directly. The press release I linked to is from ABC Studios, the evidence you are presenting stating it's one episode is from ABC. My info is direct from the production company, yours is from the company that owns the company that makes it. Which info is more likely to be correct?

And my point with Better Off Ted was that the episode number on ABC.com doesn't reflect the prod. code so my changing the prod. code on my finale to 818/819 was valid. Wattlebird (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of your post is a specific type of original research. You can, and should, read more on it at Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You really need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. As for the episode number not reflecting the production code, production codes and episode numbers very rarely relate directly. Changing the episode number to 818/819 based on Better Off Ted sources was most certainly not valid. It's original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence that episode numbers on ABC.com mean nothing and my Finale is two episodes.

ABC.com currently lists all episodes of shows that are currently on air that have a had two parters that are really two seperate episodes are listed as one episode. See Lost, all their season finales have aired on ABC as one episode. See http://abc.go.com/watch/lost/93372#sl-96319;. It lists both parts as "322" even though looking at List_of_Lost_episodes it is really two episodes. If we follow ABC.com's count, the episode that is considered Episode 100 by the creators of the show would be incorrect. Examples of a similar nature apply to Desperate Housewives (all season finales), Grey's Anatomy (S04 Finale) and Ugly Betty (S03 Finale).

Why would Scrubs, the only other show on the ABC site now that has a two parter I haven't already listed, be exempt from this rule. Like Scrubs, ABC makes all of these shows. Are you saying the ABC.com webmasters are able to keep track of how many episodes are made than those that work day-to-day on the show?

Futon Critic's press release has two production codes and there is evidence that ABC.com (your ONLY proof that it is one episode) may not be correct. If the episode was truely one, why one earth would the company that makes the show split it for the DVD? They wouldn't. They would include it as one because that was how it originally air and how the intended you to view it. And like the episodes I mentioned above as ABC.com listing as one episode, were also on their respective DVD's in their seperate form.

This original research invalidates your only source it is one, and since that is not the info I'm publishing, changing My Finale to two episodes (as indicated by the two production codes listed on the press release I've previously linked to) is valid.

Wattlebird (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Firstly, comparing one show against another in the way that you have is, as I've already explained to you above, a specific type of original research that is commonly referred to as WP:SYNTH. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is unacceptable. Your claim that ABC is unreliable is also original research and not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can't simply dismiss a citation because you don't believe it's accurate. You need something more authoritative that shows the citation is wrong. Your problem here is that the citation you're using is a press release that was authored by the same company used in the first citation. In effect, the two cancel each other out. You can't say that one citation is more accurate than the other when both originate from the same source. That's original research. Looking at the other citations you've used reveals the same obvious problem with both. Citations must directly support the claim made. In order to successfully claim that the episode is as you say it is, the citations used must say that "My Finale" is two episodes. They don't. They don't even mention the episode, just a total number. However, that total number does not directly confirm the episode number of any episode. The conclusion that you have reached is again WP:SYNTH. If we look at the episode itself, we know it originally aired as a single episode, and since the episode lists deal with the original airings of episodes, again as already discussed, then we have to use a single episode number, since that is how it aired. Clearly, you don't understand Wikipedia:No original research so it's probably best in the future, if you find something that you think supports your position, that you present it here before editing the article. Continuing to resort to WP:SYNTH is seen as disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Would providing photos of the DVD disc and screenshots of the DVD menu that both clearly state "19 episodes" end this debate once and for all? Wattlebird (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because the DVD has nothing to do with the episode being originally aired as a single episode. You do realise that we're now back at the beginning of this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention ANYWHERE in the article that everything is listed as per the original airing. Besides, how the episodes aired on ABC is irrelevant. If they had aired the entire season as one long episode, would you list it here as a single episode? And how is the DVD (which is designed by the people that make the show, not the production comapny, not the company that airs it, the people that work day to day on the show) less likely to be correct than ABC.com that (even though it's original research) has been proven to be incorrect with similar situations with other ABC shows.

And using your logic, if the show reaches 200 episodes, the 200th episode will HAVE to be listed here as 199 because My Finale originally aired as one episode and that is how this article is layed out. Can you not see what is wrong with this way of thinking?

There is enough evidence to support it it truely two episodes, and your only way of blocking it is that "that is not how it originally aired". Where is there anything that points to the article being layed out as per original airings. If Bill Lawrence came to your house to tell you that it is two episodes, would you still say 'No. That's not how it originally aired'?Wattlebird (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're now just going over old issues from the beginning of this discussion. All of the points you've raised in your latest post were addressed 3 weeks ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no mention three weeks ago where I questioned laying out the article as per the original airings. Setting it out this way is an extremely bad idea (see above about the 200th episode). Why would you want to do it that way when HOW they originally aired has no encyclopedic value? Wattlebird (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this edit, which I made after you changed the article without answering the question I had asked before you edited it. Laying out the article in this manner is convention and it is consistent with all of the related articles. What happens after the initial airdates is usually dealt with in separate sections titled appropriately. What you're arguing for will make this article inconsistent with other articles. That's not encyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So your only argument now is consistency? Well then the changes can also be applied to the relevant articles to maintain it. Easy. Wattlebird (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, my answers are as they always have been. You would do well to re-read this entire discussion since you're clearly missing something. If you want to change to your way of doing things then you're going to have to change not only the Scrubs articles but others as well. Why not just find the appropriate articles and add a "DVD Release" section, explaining how the single episode finale has been released on DVD as two episodes? You could have done that three weeks ago instead of pushing this argument. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So you want me to add a brand new section JUST so I can add "-169" after "168" isn't overkill? And you say listing by original airdate is standard across articles for episodes that aired as one, but a really two separate ones. Give an example. Wattlebird (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have had sufficent time to provide an example. Unless you can provide proof that setting out episode lists by how they originally aired is standard on Wikipedia, the edits I am about to make on Scrubs articles are valid. My examples of layouts on Wikipedia that list them as two episodes even though they aired as one are Lost (all season finales), Desperate Housewives (all season finales), Grey's Anatomy (S04 Finale) and Ugly Betty (S03 Finale). Wattlebird (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone sits on their computer 24 hours a day. Some of us have lives. The citation you've added is yet more original research, this time it's specifically a self published source. As for your quite ridiculous claim that I haven't provided proof, I did so in the edit that I quoted in this reply from less than 2 days ago. What is the point of saying something if you're just going to ignore everything? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That quote of yours does not contain example.

"Laying out the article in this manner is convention and it is consistent with all of the related articles"

What articles are set out like this? I have not seen any other than the Scrubs articles.

"What happens after the initial airdates is usually dealt with in separate sections titled appropriately".

Again, where is this also done? I have not seen anything layed out like that on Wikipedia.

And as for calling that image original research, it's not. The link you provided all the examples it has detailed are text based because they can easily be manipulated to say whatever someone wants them to say. Also, here are two DVD reviews that also mention the season has 19 episodes which verifies that the image I posted has not been manipulated to show what I want it to [7][8]. Wattlebird (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you've used Wikipedia since my last message and have not replied, can I assume you're unable to provide an example as to any evidence that laying out the articles as per original airings is standard? If you simply ignore this message as well, I will edit the relevant articles with the sources I linked to in my previous message. Wattlebird (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't assume that. I have 570 pages on my watchlist and have to fit Wikipedia into my life where I can. I will reply in more detail when I can. Until then, please be patient. To keep you busy in the meantime, please read WP:SPS. It will help you understand why the image you linked to is WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been 6 days, and you have clearly had the time to go through your watchlist and revert edits on various articles (that someone else could revert), yet you haven't have the time to find anything to backup your claim here that only you are going to provide? Either provide an answer, or I'm going to make the required edits and they will stay there until you find the time to show that episodes should be listed on Wikipedia as they originally aired. Wattlebird (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If only it was as simple as that. I have to go through my watch list each day (compare the ~190 edits I've made to the 3 that you've made in the last 6 days!) and I have been exceptionally busy over the past two weeks with other issues outside Wikipedia. I have already given you numerous reasons as to why the changes shouldn't occur, and some of the more compelling reasons were given at the very beginning of this discussion. It isn't that I can't find something to back me up, because there is plenty to back me up, it's trying to find something that will satisfy you that is the problem, since you seem to be ignoring well established conventions. Changing just because you aren't getting the answers that you want could be considered disruptive. Please don't start edit-warring. You seem to be the only person who wants these changes. There's clearly no consensus to change to support your changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is really convention to list episodes as they originally aired, there would be something somewhere that explicitly says it - but there isn't. I've looked, and apparently, so have you.

"I have already given you numerous reasons as to why the changes shouldn't occur"

No you have not. You've only said it's convention to list them as they originally aired yet you have nothing that proves it is convention. I have also provided reasons why it should occur - ie if the show reaches 200 episodes it will be listed here as episode 199.

"You seem to be the only person who wants these changes. There's clearly no consensus to change to support your changes."

And you seem to be the only person who wants to keep it the way it is as no one else has come in to support what you are saying either therefore that comment is moot. Wattlebird (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

As I have previously indicated to you, first at the beginning of this discussion five long weeks ago,[9] episodes tables refer to original airdates. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated because it's implicit in {{Episode list}} due to the inclusion of |OriginalAirDate=. However, if you look at various articles you will see that the episode numbers used are the episode numbers as aired and you can see that by referring to reliable TV guides such as TV Guide or MSN. As I've also indicated to you, an encyclopaedia needs to be consistent. This consistency doesn't just extend to consistency between articles, as was your misunderstanding,[10] the articles themselves need to be consistent. When you include an original airdate, the episode number should reflect the original airdate too, or there is no consistency. This is just plain commonsense. You previously mentioned a number of TV programs with two episode numbers for finales that aired as one episode. Airing as one episode doesn't necessarily mean that they originally aired with a single episode number. There are no citations in the articles supporting a single episode number for the programs you mentioned, except for Grey's Anantomy,[11] Why the single episode number isn't used is best discussed at Talk:List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. In this article we have a citation from a reliable source (the program's creator) and to this day that citation shows the episode that aired was episode 18, not 18-19,[12] so that's what we should be using for both accuracy and consistency and since it's verifiable. Regarding your final comment "And you seem to be the only person who wants to keep it the way it is as no one else has come in to support what you are saying either therefore that comment is moot", this is wrong. Silence implies consensus that the article remains as it is. Anybody can edit an article and nobody, other than you, has tried changing the episode numbers. If they had, this would indicate that there is opposition to keeping the numbers as they are but failure of anyone to change the article(s) implies that the community is happy to leave the article as is, with the correct episode numbers. This has been the case since well before this discussion. All of this aside, in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, the status quo reigns. This means that unless there is significant support to change from the cited episode number, the article remains as it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Special Episodes

On Scrubs Wikia it has two special episodes from season 2 and 7, can't we include those?--69.72.86.244 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Table of seasons

What is "Keep Talking" in table's header? Explanation or definition is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gritskevich (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added only recently,[13] but I have no idea what it is either. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the featurettes found on the DVDs. Most of the DVDs have a featurette called [actor name] Keeps Talking..., where the actor talks about their character. It should definitely be removed from the table. Though, a DVD section should added to this page. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 9 Premiere

Regarding the latest edit, they should be considered separate episodes. They're just airing on the same night, it's not like they're a two-part episode. I'm just saying this because there's plenty of season 5 and 8 episodes that aired on the same night but aren't formatted like that on this page. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The reason cited for that particular edit was "using AussieLegend's logic detailed in "My_Finale_is_two_episodes" on the talk page, these two episodes should be considered one".[14] This is effectively WP:SYNTH with a bit of WP:CRYSTAL thrown in for good measure. The argument for "My Finale" is based on the fact that the episode was aired as a single episode and that it wasis still treated as a single episode on the CBS website, and is cited appropriately. Wattlebird's argument fails immediately because the episodes haven't aired yet. "My Finale" was called "My Finale" regardless of whether you think it was a single episode or a two-parter. The episodes combined by Wattlebird have two different names. It makes no sense to combine them. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am merging the two together. As per the discussion on 'My finale is two episodes', it was said the article is laid out as per the original airings. And as the episode aired as one (one opening credits, and no end credits after the first half hour) to leave it as it is now would be going back on what AussieLegend was fighting for in that section and would as a result enable My Finale to be listed in the article as two episodes. Wattlebird (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They're two episodes. Just because they aired on the same night doesn't mean they're one episode. They have two different titles, different set of writers and directors, and aren't referred to as "part 1" and "part 2". Like I said before, there's several episodes of Scrubs that aired back-to-back, most notably season 5 and 8 - that doesn't make them one episode. Check the official site which labels them as two different episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You're resorting to WP:SYNTH again. "My Finale" aired as a single episode. The season 9 premiere episodes aired as back to back separate episodes and should be listed as such. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No they didn't. They aired as one. The opening credits were only used once last night. After the first half hour, there were no end credits. During the end credits at the end of the episode, Sarah Chalke's name appeared in the credits, and she was only in one scene at the very start of the episode. Had they aired as two, her name would have appeared in credits after the first half hour. It aired exactly like My Finale, flowed from the first half into the second.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattlebird (talk • contribs)

That there was only one set of credits is irrelevant. Credits don't determine what is a single episode. The episodes have different episode numbers, titles and production codes.[15][16] As indicated by Drovethrughosts, the ABC website treats them as separate episodes, as do the episode lists on external sites. There is even a citation in one of the articles that states they are two back to back episodes. There is nothing that points to them being a single episode. Labelling them as such is WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The episodes have different episode numbers, titles and production codes."

As did My Finale but you dismissed those as not being valid points in the argument. So how is this any different? My Finale was two episodes, 8x18 and 8x19, they had two different titles, My Finale Part One and My Finale Part Two, and production codes 818 and 819. Which I linked to on FutonCritic, but you decided that FC wasn't a credible source and told me I couldn't use it, yet you are for this argument. Way to go hypocrite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattlebird (talk • contribs)

Incorrect. "My Finale" was "My Finale", regardless of whether or not you want to add "part one" and "part two" to it. It is still treated on the ABC website as one episode and, as I've previously posted and expanded on, it was advertised and aired as a single episode. It was only after the initial airing that it was split into two episodes for susequent viewing and DVD distribution. Now compare "Our First Day at School" and "Our Drunk Friend". Two different names, treated as two different episodes on the ABC website and was advertised as two back to back episodes. As far as FutonCritic is concerned, the citation you used was invalid, it was marked as invalid, we've been over that. This time we have two completely different, still very valid, releases on FutonCritic from the very beginning showing the episodes as two different episodes. Lastly, concerning your last comment, please, be civil. And sign your posts. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't usable as a reference, but if it helps resolve the issue, our cable company's programme guide (ostensibly sourced from the network) had listings for two episodes last night, and the PVR recorded them back-to-back, as separate files. Each had its own unique description as well. At the end of last season, the finale was listed as a single one-hour episode, and recorded as such. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Wattlebird can't see that though. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewers per episode

I feel that there should be a section for each episode stating the number of viewers (in millions) that wacthed that episode. --Mr. Chicago (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Table of Contents

The purpose of the Table of Contents is to provide easy navigation to this lengthy page. This function is not met by the table of seasons.ThomasSixten (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What doesn't the table provide that a TOC does? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the season numbers are links is not obvious. Additionally, the table of contents is something that is standard and, therefore, more easily recognized and used. I see no reason that this particular list of episodes should have a different navigation format. ThomasSixten (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The seasons are listed down the left and and clearly linked and there are links to the References and External links section. All of the information in the TOC is in the table in pretty much the same format, with the exception that the References and External links are in bold in the centre. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One or two digits being links is not exactly "clear", especially without non-link text near it to put it into context. Additionally, other episode lists have both a table of contents followed by a season list with the same functionality (examples being Friends and Seinfeld). Finally, the table of contents is something that is present throughout Wikipedia. Keeping to this standard keeps the page more user-friendly, especially to those who don't often visit episode lists.ThomasSixten (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas, this page needs a toc, using the season table is against the norm people are used to (even I keep looking for the TOC for a few seconds) and if you don't know to look for them, its easy to miss that the numbers are links.--Jac16888^Talk 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The position of the TOC on the right side of the screen is confusing and not readily apparent. There is no reason to have it on the same line as the TOS. The TOC is common to most wikipedia articles. It is a tool that most wikipedia users are familar and comfortable with and arbitrarily removing it or changing it's position is pointless and counterproductive. ThomasSixten (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The TOC in this article is redundant so there's no need for it at all. The table in the article has been altered to make it even easier to navigate as a result of your concerns.[17] Inclusion of a TOC is not mandated, nor is its position in an article. However, as a compromise we've added it to the right. You are correct in saying "arbitrarily .... changing it's position is pointless and counterproductive". Therefore, please stop doing that. As I indicated to you in the discussion on my talk page that you initiated, it's edit warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article

While fixing some references I discovered several errors in the season 9 table. These included, but were not limited to |LoneColor= instead of |LineColor=, hashes in front of the LineColor codes that prevented the lines from displaying etc. After fixing these I checked Scrubs (season 9) to see if it contained the same errors and found that it did, so I copied the table from here to there. However, having identical tables in two different locations is unnecessary duplication so I've boldly transcluded the lists. This means that it is now only necessary to edit the list at Scrubs (season 9)#Episodes and the changes will be automatically duplicated here. This is consistent with other season articles and Template:Episode list#Sublists. Noticing similar issues with the season 8 table, I've done the same for season 8. A benefit of this is that this article has been reduced in size by ~15KB. However, this article is still 115KB, which is large. Wikipedia:Article size recommends consideration be given to splitting articles >40KB and recommends that an article this size "almost certainly should be divided". As there are already articles for seasons 8 and 9 I don't see an issue with splitting out seasons 1-7 but I thought I'd seek consensus before doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Supersized Episodes

I think it's a good idea to label which episodes were "supersized" aka episodes that run longer than the usual 21-22 minutes, as there's nothing in this article or the general Scrubs article that makes mention of them. I came across a set of in-depth Scrubs DVD reviews here which list the episode length for each episode, so I was able to check which were "supersized", this is what I got:

Season 1: "My Bed Banter & Beyond" (28:16)

Season 2: "My First Step" (25:28) and "His Story" (28:05)

Season 3: "My Lucky Night" (26:48), "My Catalyst" (26:18) and "My Porcelain God" (26:18)

Season 4: "My Old Friend's New Friend" (24:35)

Season 6: "My Long Goodbye" (25:32) and "My Conventional Wisdom" (25:36)

Basically label them the same way the List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes article does them. We could also label "My Finale" as an hour-long episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Scrubs episodes. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iwEcAyP4?url=http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052709_07 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052709_07

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) 17:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Scrubs episodes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706225258/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_12079.asp to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_12079.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717115135/http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/ratings-chart-attack/2009/05/scrubs_season_finale_not_too_b.php to http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/ratings-chart-attack/2009/05/scrubs_season_finale_not_too_b.php

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) 09:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)