Talk:Scrub

Scrubber (data remover)

What about software that removes images and other deleted information from a hard drive? Captain Jackson 00:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs (webcomic)

Is this really notable enough to be included? The comic itself looks fine to me, though. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just added examples of real life scrubs, is that fine

scrubber

you could add scrubber as a person who scrubs money if people say srubs wen they play games there dumb ok and plus it it means shrub and grass charecteristics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.157.37 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tv show

I think Scrubs should redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubs_%28TV_series%29 This page should be a disambiguation page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.136.207 (talk • contribs)

Scrubs disambiguiation

I don't know how to report or mark something as being inappropriate, but whoever wrote that Scrubs is "a television sitcom about life working in a hospital full of queers and fagetssssssssss" should somehow be sanctioned.

scrubS should undoubtably redirect

See also Talk:Scrubs#Where should this page point?.

the plural of scrub, "Scrubs" should link to the TV series, which is undoubtedly what people want when they search for Scrubs. To redirect to the singular form "Scrub" is just plain stupid. There can be a disambiguation link to the singular "scrub" on the page.Dkkicks 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than possible that users might be looking for scrub (as in scrubland) in particular; less so in the plural form, but there is no way that Scrub should go straight to the TV show. --Harris 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub should redirect to the disambiguation page, but Scrubs should go to the TV series. I can tell you that most of the searches for "Scrubs" are for the television show. Enigmaman (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one will respond to this. It's just a bad decision, though. Enigmaman (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i didn't reply before now, but i'm afraid you're wrong. Even though 90% at least of the people searching "scrubs" on here will be looking for the tv program, the point is that, the tv show is not the primary usage of the word, obviously, its named after the scrubs type of clothing. So to make Scrubs redirect to the tv program would be against policy, particularly if scrub was to redirect here, as thats a very different usage of the word--Jac16888 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone who has suggested it has agreed, the plural should redirect, not the singular form. The vast majority of people searching for "Scrubs" are looking for the TV program. It would make sense to have "scrub" go to the disambiguation page, and "Scrubs" to go to the TV series with a disambiguation link at the top. Enigmaman (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to what i am saying. Scrubs are, first and foremost, a set of clothing worn by medical staff. Which is what the show is named after. Just because most people will be searching for the tv show, doesn't mean we should go against policy, WP:Disambig. Remember, wikipedia is not a fansite--Jac16888 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're responding to my old comments, I'll respond to yours. :) I still disagree, but oh well. I tend to think that if the vast majority of searches for a term are looking for something specifically, the term should go to that article, and then there should be a disambig link at the top. I'm a believer in convenience. Enigma ^message Review 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know what the "vast majority of searches" are looking for? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Scrubs" should favor what scrubs are-- that is, the clothing-- over the recent television series about hospital series whose name is based on (once again) scrubs as a type of clothing. I know that the average media-absorbing web surfer will be wanting to come to "Scrubs" to find out what the theme song is or to see if they'll be putting on new episodes. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia by definition. It should go to an explanation of what "scrubs" are when being searched for, and their history etc., and yes, the reader should also be made aware of the cultural reference to it with a "For the television show, see..." at the top. In a hypothetical example, say that CBS aired an action-detective-drama called Harry Truman that received substantial attention and high ratings-- everybody on the internet begins rushing to Wikipedia to find out about this new amazing venture in television. Does this mean that searches for Harry Truman should be directed to the more popular search result according to pop culture at the time? Scrubs refer to clothing, and have always meant clothing, and won't stop meaning the clothing. What's more, the television show also refers to the clothing. ~ magbatz 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this debate hasn't seen any action in a while, but I've taken up the task of making those changes. Scrubs is now the main article for the clothing, and it has See Also links at the top for the TV Series and the disambiguation page. Hope everyone's satisfied. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this move, because it was done by cut-and-paste, which should not be done. The proper way is to put a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves, which I have done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that most people will necessarily be searching for the TV show. It's a big world, and not all of us watch NBC series. Recall that more speakers of English live outside of the US than live in it. When I hear the word "scrubs" I think of medical garments. The idea that a TV show is named after those garments is incidental and irrelevant to me. We need to be careful about "recentism" and US-centrism. American popular culture in the 2000's decade is not all of existence, or even the most significant part of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

really? so you think theres a bunch of people coming on to wikipedia to find out the luxurious history behind docter's clothing? the show has a lot more probability of being searched than most of theses things. and we could still link it to the disambig page. its because of this pointless beaurocracy that you guys run on things like this that people constantly down talk wikipedia! no need to take what everyone searches for so literally. how many people search for an article on clothes over here and type in "scrubs" cause thats all they know? honestly just put a disambiguation link on the show's page for crying out loudMadhatter9max (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs Question

I recently added that the show was somewhere with a day of tacoma Washington and it was deleted? i was sent a message that it was vandalism? why is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.75.161 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 February 2007.

Cleanup

I cleaned up this disambiguation page per MOS:DAB and removed the following entreis because they were dictionary-like entries (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and/or because the linked article didn't mention the word scrub, making such entries nonnotable. Dicdefs can be added to wikt:scrub if they don't exist there yet.

An unskilled player, in the terms of fighting games.
Scrubbing audio or video content, moving the currently viewed or heard part of it backwards or forwards in order to locate something in it quickly
To scrub a RAID array. This refers to examining an array and regenerating parity information.
Vigorous cleaning, usually with a brush

– sgeureka ^t•c 10:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what's currently on the page, all of those sound like they belong. Enigmaman 06:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs)

No, because those are dictionary definitions, which belong on Wikitionary, not here--Jac16888 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reply is a little late. :) Enigma ^message Review 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I saw the page had just being edited, and mistook your comment for the most recent edit. Sorry--Jac16888 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's a common assumption to think the latest stuff will be on the bottom, but obviously that's not always the case. Man, I was a bit of a newb back then. Enigma ^message Review 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from Talk:Scrubs

Where should this page point?

I have redirected it to Scrub, which is a disambig page and seems to be reasonably neutral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should direct to a dab page. 70.51.8.59 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as consensus then. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is not closed; it continues at Talk:Scrub. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued

I think the page should point to the article of clothing. Many people will argue over whether or not it is the current meaning that everyone is looking for but in my opinion that is irrelevant. The relevant fact is the simple one of chronology. In the simplest of terms, Scrubs are the garment of clothing worn by doctors. You can branch off into scrubs based on sports and any other aspect of culture, but inevitably you return to one thing; the basic word scrubs leads us to the TV show and the clothing they wear on said TV show. The clothes are the namesake of the show, and should therefore be the dominant article when referring to scrubs. It's basically a chicken or the egg question. Which came first? The clothing. Then, as I had done previously (although in hindsight I should have realized that the prior page history would make the cut-and-paste edit job look rediculous), the article on Scrubs should have a "See also" bit at the top for the TV series and this very disambiguation page. Personally I believe it adds a better feel of organization around the whole topic. That's just my viewpoint, though. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does it now? hey got to the main page of wikipedia and type in: Cheers. see what you get. any harm done?96.25.80.203 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, I have reinstated the redirect to the TV show, with a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page. I understand that some editors consider the primary topic to be Scrubs (clothing), but in fixing disambiguous links to the word "Scrubs", almost ALL of them are referring to Scrubs (TV series). Fixing the redirect, will prevent the extra step of going through the disambiguation page to get to the TV show, and lessen the work of updating the disambiguous links on all of those individual articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2010 there was a proposal to move Scrubs (TV series) to Scrubs.[1] With two supports and three opposes the discussion was closed as "no consensus to move". The discussion noted that the primary topic is Scrubs (clothing). By redirecting Scrubs to Scrubs (TV series) you have gone against consensus, since Scrubs (TV series) is now effectively at Scrubs. This is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to go against any consensus, or to change the title of the article about the TV series. The point is, every time I check the "What links here" page, for pages that link to the word "Scrubs", ALL of the disambiguous links are intended for the TV series article, but they are redirecting people to the disambiguation page instead. Again, fixing the redirect for just the word Scrubs, will prevent everyone from having to go through the disambiguation page first, before they get to the article Scrubs (TV series). And having fixed hundreds of those disambiguous links, I know it would also lessen the extra work of having to update those links on each individual article... Fortdj33 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be redirecting things to cover up errors. If there are wikilinks that need to be disambiguated so they properly link to "Scrubs (TV series)" lets get on that and fix the problem. There are bots and autotools that can help if it's too big for one person to handle. I don't think anyone wants to revisit the dispute with the Scrubs fanboys. :-) --NormanEinstein (talk)

No one is trying to "cover up" any errors here, but the problem of people linking to the word Scrubs instead of to Scrubs (TV series), is not going to go away until the redirect is changed. I will leave it alone for now if that is the consensus, but anyone who doubts that the vast majority of searches for "Scrubs" are looking for the TV show, should check out this page from time to time, so that other editors like myself are not constantly fixing errors like these: [2] [3] [4] Fortdj33 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs

See Talk:Scrubs - a new discussion has opened up about the TV show and the redirect. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has moved to here. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub

Definitions: 1: a stunted tree or shrub 2: vegetation consisting chiefly of scrubs 3: a tract covered with scrub 4: a domestic animal of mixed or unknown parentage and usually inferior conformation : mongrel 5: a person of insignificant size or standing 6: a player not belonging to the first string 7: a person who is extremely bad at sports, gaming, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomed (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skincare

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Maybe add, "Scrub, a skincare product used for cleansing and exfoliation (cosmetology)." --Talky Muser (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This is a disambiguation page. No article = no entry. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanonNi. I thought my suggestion correctly followed the formatting of MOS:DABMENTION. Either way, if I'd request Scrub (exfoliation) through WP:AFC/R as a redirect to exfoliation (cosmetology), would you then add this entry, "Scrub (exfoliation), a skincare product used for cleansing and exfoliation"? Or will neither ever work, and should I pursue redirects for e.g. facial scrub or face scrub instead? --Talky Muser (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs

No, I don't want no scrub A scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me Hangin' out the passenger side Of his best friend's ride Trying to holla at me 2600:1006:B185:5283:50F6:7557:D18D:1E96 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]