Jump to content

Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Comedy Central - new episodes

I just saw a commercial on Comedy Central saying they're showing new episodes... what's the story here? Are these new new episodes, or just new for Comedy Central? LordAmeth (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's merely syndication. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah new ones won't appear on local television until January 6,2009 68.94.94.180 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are episodes from Season 7, they are only new to Comedy Central. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEyes284 (talk • contribs) 12:53, October 30, 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Comedy Central, does anyone know when Scrubs started on that channel? If so, it should be mentioned in the article as it's pretty important.--Montaced (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been at least a year or so. Actually, maybe more... Ok, found this: [1] (CORRECTED). I'll add the info to the article. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, don't bother adding it. Scrubs is syndicated on hundreds of different channels, and its of little importance since all long-running shows are, there is no reason to add it. Besides, that source doesn't say anything about scrubs--Jac16888Talk 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Weird, the article I was viewing was an article specifically about Scrubs. Wonder why the URL didn't copy correctly, unless I messed up... Oh - I was copying a few different ones - I must have pasted the wrong one. Check it now. Anyway, actually, I was about to come back here and amend my previous reply, pretty much in line with what you just said. Not worth adding, considering it's not anywhere near exclusive or notable... --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Can someone put up reviews from critics about the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.82.217 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DVD releases

The DVD releases section is really cluttered, and also that "bonus" part is completely unnecessary and feels like something that would be in a manual, not in an encyclopedia. I will remove it unless someone has good arguments for keeping it. - Jetro (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell did the DVD section go?! For people not in the US, this was crucial to get ahold of the sets when they came out! - Tallaussiebloke (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (ACST)

Season 8 spoiler

The line "On July 10 it was reported that Courteney Cox would join the cast as the new Chief of Medicine for a three episode arc." is a spoiler, and I did not want to see this... there should be a spoiler warning, or not include so much information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.38.207 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wikipedia does not give spolier warnings, WP:spoiler. I wouldn't worry about it though, you would have found out anyway, it will no doubt be well advertised--Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, even though this is old and by now anyone who cares knows... was it necessary at the time to say her role? I understand wikipedia doesn't give spoiler warnings, which is a relatively stupid policy, but that doesn't mean things like that revelation need to be included, either. If it only mentioned she would be on for a three-episode arc, people who wanted to know who Courtney Cox was playing would have been able to find it easily. Ultimately, I would like others to take that approach, because policy isn't hard to change-it just needs a decent consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhiterussian (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect/misleading info on Scrubs' camera equipment

The last paragraph under "Production Details" indicates/implies that the episode "My Transition" was shot digitally in HD, which is incorrect. All Scrubs episodes are shot on 16mm film. The ONLY difference with "My Transition" was that it was BROADCAST in HD and not SD like every other Scrubs episode - (HD is a digital video format. Film has no 'real' digital resolution and can be scanned at any resolution desired, be it standard definition or high definition. Just because a program is broadcast on TV in "high definition digital video" does NOT automatically mean it originated on video! The majority of HD TV sitcoms and theatrical movies are from film.)

Anyways, I feel it needs changing as it is misleading.

Zwh02 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs on ABC

It was announced in house today that [Scrubs] would be premiering on January 6th, 2009 at 9-10pm. With the second episode on the 13th ambiguously being 1 hour as well, before going to the normal 30min show on Jan 20th. As this has not been officially announced and Idk if I can be fired for revealing this, I'm not going to sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.33.177 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The supposed one hour episode that you are referring to on January 6th that will kick off the next season is 2 separate episodes called "My Jerks" and "My Last Words". I assume that on the 13th of January it will be two episodes as well. Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Grounded for Life move from Fox to the WB in 2001? (responding to statement regarding Scrubs being the first show to switch networks since The PJs in 2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.19.206 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, re: above...Buffy the Vampire Slayer switched from WB to UPN for the 2002 season, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.14.116 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence altogether, since it was inaccurate and not really of much use anyway. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Syndication

can we please add a syndication article ? 75.43.137.97 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Last season...

I noticed that someone had changed the season 8 part of the article to say that this is definitely the last season with a citation of Sarah Chalke on TV guide. I read the article and couldn't really find any evidence that this was the final season. I think whoever wrote it was assuming that Chalke meant the end of the show as a whole but could possibly mean the end of the show with these characters etc. I think until we hear it from Bill Lawrence or ABC, it should be changed or removed.

The only evidence I could find was this "The actress says that that unlike other years, the Scrubs cast and crew knew that this season truly would be the last one"

Can we really be sure that this means the end of the show completely? Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC

I read the article too and it does not seem that the article is saying this is the last season period. This should be removed Jakk55 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can find a better citation then it can stay in but to me it's as if this article is speculating for itself. It is not really that clear. Chalke could be referring to the current crews last season. I am confused. Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I am now sure that it should be deleted as I read this article by Entertainment Weekly,

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/exclusive-scrub.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbhoy2805 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that the 9th season of Scrubs would be fantastic, but no J.D. equals NO SCRUBS! And even if it gets renewed without Braff, Lawrence, or all the other cast members, the whole series needs to be revamped into a completely new series (could be called, like, "Doctor's Orders" or something and have a JD-like character). Also, i don't think ABC would like this format, so CBS or FOX could take this comedy (FOX, due to its rights of syndication; CBS, due to E/R) and even NBC could do some type of series to replace Kath & Kim. Still, it won't be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameGuy95 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameo Appearances

Does "Braff, Chalke, Reyes, McGinley, Flynn and Lawrence all made cameo appearances in a scene in It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie; in the film, Miss Piggy appears as an extra in Scrubs trying to improvise and give herself a bigger role.[9]" really deserve to be in the cameo appearances. These people made cameo appearances on other programs, not on scrubs. As it should be a section for famous people who have appeared on the program I think there is a case for having this removed.

Alan16 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved the item to its own subsection just below the current one. I'm not too happy with the title, though. "Crossovers", maybe? --Fru1tbat (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Bill Lawrence

Here's a recent interview with Bill Lawrence that could help improve the (or create a) production section: link. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

can someone add a link to the episode list for season 8 under the season 8 header, like there is for season 7? (i don't have an account and don't want to create one just for this) 98.243.65.191 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, although creating an account only takes a couple of minutes you know--Jac16888 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is locked, I can't edit it. Somebody please link "Waiting for my Real Life to Begin" to the relevant Wikipedia article. 68.63.165.28 (Please contact me at my GnomeHQ account) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Jac16888Talk 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD Releases

Since I don't have the patience to do this, could someone please add all the DVD Releases since they have disapeared. I will make any changes that are needed, thanks.--Joshm1995 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Braff's departure

Is the reference for this even reliable? They can't even spell his character's name correctly (they spelt his surname Doran and not Dorian). 94.172.8.156 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

and you can't spell spelled... just kidding, it's a known fact that zach braff and perhaps more people of the cast will leave at the end of season 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.196.106 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'Spelt' is a perfectly acceptable spelling in British English, actually. That's also how we (at least us Londoners) tend to pronounce it. Zestos (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How to handle the show's "finale"

According to the "future" section of this article, Bill Lawrence is in the process of trying to renew the show and says there's a 50/50 chance it'll be back next season. According to the lead people keep reverting to, the show is 100% over. Something has to give. If the "future" section is indeed incorrect, it needs to be fixed. Changing the lead only is not enough, as the lead needs to reflect the contents of the article. Oren0 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I doubt the show's returning, it's not officially dead until we get a reliable source to show that. Dayewalker (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Main Cast

I think it should be changed to something like:


Because, if they have their own article, there isn't really a need for a small bio on them on the main article. Shows like Ghost Whisperer have also done this. 86.148.103.165 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever changed it, it looks far better (: 217.44.97.219 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

no reason there shouldn't be a small bio on characters, the purpose of the page is to be informative, and you have to take into account not everyone will no characters by name, having a small bio is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.167 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The small bios seem as if they were written by someone who doesn't know English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.181.99 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps you'd like to correct them instead of moaning you prick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.167 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing you made it then? =O Don't get touchy. 217.44.97.219 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry sorry angered moment. someones changed in all now, I find it slightly annoying having it like how it is at the moment, just when you're trying to find out a piece of infomation like who plays who in a TV show a list with brief description works a lot better? Person opinion really but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.167 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A list tell you nothing, prose is the preferred format as it means we can include a brief character bio--Jac16888Talk 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense?

I think now that scrubs is finished I think the article needs to be changed into the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.171.45 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points; many believe that Scrubs is not finished, it might still have another season. And in terms of fictional characters, their relevant actions are presented in present tense. Lots42 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC)As mentioned above, the show isn't finished yet. When it's officially cancelled, then we can end it here on the page also. Dayewalker (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that even when the series is over, only information related to production etc. should be turned into past tense wherever relevant. In-universe sections and particularly article's lead sentence remains in present tense. LeaveSleaves 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Random Picture of Courteney Cox

An IP removed it tonight and it was replaced, and it got me to thinking. Is there any reason or logic to have a picture of Courteney Cox in the article? She was only on the show briefly, and the picture is from 1995 and has nothing to do with Scrubs. It seems to have been posted merely to show the trivial fact that Cox was the second Friends cast member to appear on the show. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-removed. I see no purpose for this image in this article, and the removal shouldn't have been tagged as vandalism either. Oren0 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Season 9

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id8b91cde574aee6579e23949fd192e9c

take a look at that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.207.37 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

168 episodes

ABC treats the last episode as a single episode, not as two parts.[2] Two-part epsiodes, such as "My Soul on Fire", are clearly identified as being two parts.[3][4] Given that IMDB is generally not accepted as a reliable source because anyone can edit it, just like Wikipedia, ABC's treatment of the episode that it created seems more authoritative. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring up a point regarding the episode number. ABC did bill it as a single hour-long episode, but since Scrubs is a half-hour show, for it to produce a hour-long episode, technically, I believe, it's still considered two episodes. Like, for example, an hour-long drama that airs a special two-hour episode, that wouldn't be considered just one episode, it's still two episodes. For comparison, The Office has 100 episodes, which includes all its hour-long episodes as two episodes, because you can't have a half-hour show producing double-length episodes and only considering it just one episode. Also, The Futon Critic has My Finale as episodes 818 and 819. Drovethrughosts 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drovethrughosts (talk • contribs)

the episodes aired as two seperate episodes in new zealand, plus they're seperate on the season 8 dvd. Wattlebird (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

critical response section

We need to make this section to improve the artical, it is needed and we can do it, who supports me?.--Pedro Jose (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

yes of course, it would help the article a great deal. However, using a comments section as a source is a terrible idea, we proper reliable references from professional critics--Jac16888Talk 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where can we?.--Pedro Jose (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could this work as a correct section:

Critical Response

Scrubs in it's eight years of airing (soon to be nine) has had very good reviews, by many critics in the english and spanish states around the world.

Some crtics say that the seven season finalie is the end of Scrubs becuase of the change of channel, still the critical status of Scrubs has gone up by the time of the years, for the diffrent type of comedy, as it was even nominated for an emmy award for best comedy show in the 57th Primetime Emmy Awards and it has been nominated many times through out the years. It has been rated and reviewed by many news papers and stations and even rotten tomatos. The show has also been reviewed by medical institutes giving them a good review for there medical forms and precens of like a hospital should be traeted.

The most part of the critics give positive reviews to the show and many say it is an 8.5 from 10 and many audience members show how they like the show with blogs and comments on official websites and have seem to give a positive review from all the comments. [1][2][3][4][5]

It would help if you put the reference with the piece of information instead of lumping them all at the end of the section. BOVINEBOY2008 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA

hey we have to improve a littel the artical, it has just been mominated for a GA we need to improve it in any way. --Pedro J. (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

the character prose

Since the show is going to be majorly different to what we've had thus far (with a change in setting and most characters leaving us), is it still relevant to have? I would rather see it replaced with a table and perhaps a shortened prose detailing the first eight seasons and then one can be added underneath that later once season 9 has started airing.

Am I alone on this? Wattlebird (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the show is changing doesn't mean this information isn't viable. It is still true and, as with works of fiction, old episodes are still the present. They aren't less important because there are going to be more episodes. It would be perfectly fine to add prose about the new cast, but deleting the old is not acceptable. In this case, you are alone as far as I can tell. BOVINEBOY2008 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with bovine, prose is a much better, cleaner tidier and more informative way of presenting the information, it was made into prose after an article review said to do so was standard--Jac16888Talk 10:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
why not both? - a list and the prose since the list would make it more clear which characters are still on the show, and the prose would then give an insight to who they are. Wattlebird (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I watch this show and don't need to find out who the various characters are because I find this one of the more difficult articles in which to find information on the main characters. It's actually easier to find information on supporting characters. With the main characters only mentioned in the prose, it's necessary to read through the prose to find the link to the character, which is made more difficult by the inclusion of links to common terms and episodes. The seemingly "quick" alternative is to click on the "Main article" link and be transported to List of characters on Scrubs (via a redirect!) where, voila!, there's yet another link that has to be clicked to find any information. (Of course, recurring characters are nicely presented on that page and you don't need to go anywhere else.) Just thinking outside the box here, I'd suggest that a better alternative would be to combine a list with prose, the prose consisting of a very brief bio, much like the layout here. That gives you an easily navigable list of main characters, with the main recurring characters if desired, with a brief run-down on each. The links provide you with direct access to the main article on the character for a more detailed bio. Put yourselves in the shoes of somebody who doesn't regularly watch the program. If you can't do that for this program, hopefully you don't watch The Penguins of Madagascar. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the table again, it looks terrible and having the new season characters is pointless since it hasn't even started. I agree with aussie that a prose list is the best option, as is done for Friends--Jac16888Talk 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That looks much better. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A Scrubs Task Force

Support

  1. Pedro J. the rookie
  2. BOVINEBOY2008 :)
  3. Alan16 (talk · contribs)

Oppose

Comments

I really don't think there are that many articles to start a complete task force. BOVINEBOY2008 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is Soundtrack, the shows page, the interns, quots, the Blanks, the template, list of episodes, the caracters, Sacred Heart Hospital, production cast, and many other articals and things that can be can expanded or created. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Category:Scrubs (TV series) there are a total of 14 articles tagged as Scrubs articles, not counting the 63 episodes. I would support the task force and possibly even join it, but at this point, there aren't that many tagged articles that would fall in the scope. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a Moment. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Look there is going to be a nother season and possibly the interns are going to srow into at least puting them in an artical, and we have to make articals about the seasons and we have a lot to make if we decide to do the TF. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a taskforce is ok. A WikiProject, no. Most taskforces just require a number of participants and at least a dozen articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's all right, a task force it is. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think Bovineboy2008. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not! I am working on a project right now for List of Nintendo DS games but I'd be willing to go in after that! BOVINEBOY2008 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A taskforce is better than a wikiproject, but you'd almost be better off just using this page. It isn't really that swamped with conversation. Or you could use the main Scrubs page. Wikiprojects and taskforces seem like they'll get more action from participants, but they don't really. Do a bunch of work, and announce it here, and you'll probably get the most help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, maybe i could tell some Scrubs editors to see what they think. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Scrubs is a comedy-drama, but come on - we all know that Romance is always happening. I've got series 1-7 on DVD, and watch them all the time. I know that constant romance between JD & Elliot, Perry & Jordan, Carla & Turk and more recent Lady and Janitor with Ted & Gooch. So why would you not also class Scrubs as a Romance aswell as comedy-drama. If you look of the Grey's Anatomy, it says more than once genre, so why not Scrubs?. And i also think it should be classed as a Medical drama since there is a operation in almost every other episode. If you don't agree with the romance, think back to the three sex scenes between JD & Elliot in series 1,2 and 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighMichelle75 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current consensus to classify Scrubs as a comedy-drama. The romantic aspects of it, as well as the medical drama portion are both minor in comparison to the overall comedy aspects of the show. I'd like to see what other editors think before changing. Dayewalker (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Same. Just because it features relationships doesn't make it a romance. It features a lot of death too, should we class it as a thriller--Jac16888Talk 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So what would Scrubs need for it to be classed as a Romance then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighMichelle75 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The central plot of the show would have to revolve around the romantic involvement of the protagonists--Jac16888Talk 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, Scrubs has more than the one genre. And one is comedy-drama and the other is Romance, do you undrtstnand now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighMichelle75 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're the one who doesn't understand. Did you read the definition for a romance? Romance is a sub-plot of the show, one of many. It featured the muppets, is it a kids show? It features death and suffering, is it a serious drama? It features music and singing, is it a musical? Its generally medically factual, is it a documentary? It has regular fantastical scenes, is it a fantasy? action scenes, is it an action show? suspense, mystery and excitement, is it a thriller? Should we add all of these you think?--Jac16888Talk 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Improve Cast and characters

I believe that the cast and characters section should be improved, the bio's for each character should be larger and more up-to-date.--Mr. Chicago (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see List of characters on Scrubs. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be perhaps a bit more detail about them, preferably with sourced information about the evolution of the characters or other production style details--Jac16888Talk 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Premise

I believe that we should change the last three paragraphs of the introduction back into the show's premise so that people new to the show will be able to find out what the show is about faster, having a premise would also make the page more organized.Please let me know what you think.--Mr. Chicago (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it be in the lede? Would sticking a header in the middle of the introduction make it flow better or make things easier to find? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You do realise premise basically means "introduction", the two are effectively the same thing, right? [5]. Basically, look at Friends. Its a good article, good probably be featured, that's how we want scrubs to look, and it is possible, to an extent, sources aren't as easy to come by for scrubs as it didn't have such a huge impact, but that's still what we want to aim for--Jac16888Talk 07:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

True scrubs dose not need a premierse. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose

Should we change the cast and the crew into prose. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look here. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the crew does need converting into prose, per the articles last review, the problem is that its not so easy to do as with the cast, since apart from Lawrence, we don't know that much about their involvement beyond their job titles and what episodes they worked, the info most sources give--Jac16888Talk 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to investigate. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

converting to prose means a lot more than just replacing bullets with "ands" and fullstops--Jac16888Talk 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jordan

It would make me very happy, if someone could create a page for Jordan and add her to the main characters list, and add the actress's name to the cast section in the side box. I feel she should be added because she is Perry's partner and appears alot in the show. I know characters like The Todd and Ted are in a larger ammount of episodes but when they appear, it's like more of a short cameo appearance rather than getting a storyline for their characters like Jordan. She had many storylines, Ted and Todd have never had proper one. And don't reject my idea straight away, just give it some thought. LeighMichelle75 (talk) 0:14, 4 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighMichelle75 (talk • contribs)

sorry but have to reject it straight away. The 6 Main characters are defined by the show itself, they are the ones who are the "stars" of it, there names appears in the opening credits, they're the only ones on the dvd covers and the group promo posters etc. Jordan is, and always was, a supporting character. Besides, they all had articles not long ago but some people felt it was uneyclopedic and they were removed--Jac16888Talk 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs: Janitor's name

User Ckatz removed an edit regarding "Janitor's" name on the Scrubs TV series entry. You stated "no implying, speculation, guessing, etc" as the reason. The word imply does not mean speculating or guessing. It means "To express or indicate indirectly". The edit I made was part of the joke when Neil Flynn's character reveals his "fake" name to Zach Braff's character J.D. which everyone leaves out of the article. The Janitor in fact never reveals his true name and is known to be a consistent liar, especially to J.D. This is not speculation, the "extra" that calls him Tony "implies" this fact and it is not speculation or guessing, as you cite in your reason for removing my edit.

My edit: As J.D. walks away, an orderly (played by an extra) passes and exclaims, "Hey Tony!", implying "Janitor" was lying to J.D about his true identity.

This is an integral part of the character "revealing" his name to J.D. and therefore is not speculation or guessing. The current information about Janitor revealing his name to J.D. shouldn't even be in the article (if the article isn't amended) as it is misleading information (a lie from Janitor). It makes people think the character's name IS in fact Glenn Matthews unless you've actually seen the final episode, which until the DVD comes out, not everybody has. DLake31565 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, the name issue is nothing more than a magnet for personal opinions; it has switched back and forth from Tony to Tommy more times than I'd care to count. Secondly, you added the text "As J.D. walks away, an orderly (played by an extra) passes and exclaims, "Hey Tony!", implying "Janitor" was lying to J.D about his true identity.". The detail about the extra is trivia, and the "implying... lying" part - basically, the entire second half - is speculation. At most, you could salvage "As J.D. walks away, an orderly passes and addresses the Janitor with a different name." (Until we have something to reference "Tony", "Tommy", or whatever it is, even that part is iffy.) --Ckatzchatspy 16:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Green tickY b (MoS): Red XN
    The Lead does not fully summarize the article. A good guide is that every section of the article should be summarized in a sentence in the lead, for instance there is nothing about music, impact/reception or awards in the lead. The lead states: The series has repeatedly featured guest appearances by movie actors not generally seen on episodic television, such as Colin Farrell, Heather Graham, and Brendan Fraser., but this does appear in the article. I don't think the geo-coords need to be next to North Hollywood Medical Center where this is mentioned as a location. The geo-coords for that hospital belong in the article which is already wikilinked. I suggest that Impact should contain a section on critical reception. The last sentence of the lead: The show's title is a play on surgical scrubs and the slang term for a "low-life" level individual (the main cast of the show was originally made up of medical interns, one of the lowest ranks in the medical hierarchy). is not echoesd in teh artcile and would need citing.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Red XN b (citations to reliable sources)'Red XN': c (OR): Red XN
    There are a number of dead links, some have been tagged for some time. I have added citation needed tags where I believe support for the statement is needed. There were also some outstanding tags.
    Ref #1 does not mention number of episodes; ref #7 refers to the episode His Story IV, it shouldn't be wikilinked as that makes it a reference to another WP article; ref #18 doesn't relate to Scrubs; ref #24 is a dead link; ref #46 is dead, ref # 66 is dead, as is ref #69.
    With regards to the Zach Braff Blog, MySpace and Facebook citations can you find 3rd party reliable sources that confirm these postings are by Zach Braff. With out such confirmation these are not RS. This encompasses refs # 15, 29, 30, 43, 63, 73, 75. Reading the discussion of this issue at WP:RSN at [6] should help. If they can be shown to be genuine, then such posts could only ever be used to demonstrate Zach Braff's opinions as they would be self published sources. If used they should be introduced as a direct quote - something like - In his blog Zach Braff wrote "quote".
    I have tagged areas where a citation is needed to confirm that no OR is involved.
    Some of the citations are just a bare URL with title, they should be consistently formatted using the appropriate citation templates.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Green tickY b (focused): Green tickY
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Green tickY
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: Green tickY
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Green tickY b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Red XN

#:: The caption for File:Braff, Zach (LF).JPG is not acceptable. This is a photo taken on the picket line, it has nothing to do with his MySpace comments.

  1. Overall: On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Pass/Fail: Red XN
    • The sum total of edits in the past seven days is little apart from a little bit of vandal reverting and a couple of stylistic chnages. The nominator was informed of the review but has failed to respond. I am not listing the article. It can be brought back to WP:GAN when the above points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:2010s American television series

I believe my edit to add the category is correct. The category is meant for shows that have aired during the new decade and Scrubs has, not just shows that premiered this decade, of course I may be wrong. But I went to check multiple TV show articles for shows that aired during multiple decades and they include categories like 1990s American television series and 2000s American television series, for example, The Simpsons and Friends. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The category is actually for "television shows that originate in the United States during the 2010s". Scrubs originated in the United States in the 2000s. Category:2010s American television series includes a link to a CfD that proposed deletion of a number of categories that were ultimately renamed to [[Category:<decade>s American television series]]. The decade refers to the decade of original production (ie the decade that the program originated). It seems some editors don't understand that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible allusion - The Picture of Dorian Gray

Don't know if it is something to include in the article. But it is quite probable that the writers named the characters as an allusion to The Picture of Dorian Gray, where the main character Dorian has a mean grandfather named Kelso. Ponkatron (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Merchendise

Scrubs has many merchendise and i think we should make a section of it who supports. -- Pedro J (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

does it? Like what? I can't think of anything beyond the dvds and soundtracks, no toys or books or games or anything like that. A section needs content and the content needs references--Jac16888Talk 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Look check it out [[7]]
None of that is official, and most of it anyone can make without to much trouble. I wouldn't call that important or worth including--Jac16888Talk 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Hey there, is this interessting for the article: the original stethoscopes which are used in scrubs: http://www.mdfinstruments.de/content/de/Aktuelles.html 217.94.40.164 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Enrico

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrubs (TV series) → Scrubs — Per WP:PT, the TV show is the primary means of Scrubs. The disambiguation page is located at the singular Scrub, so only this article will be affected by the move. The name of the show derives from scrubs, the clothing worn by medical staff in hospital, but I don't think many people will be looking for that on this site. A google search for "scrubs" already places this Wikipedia article as the top result, where 16 out of 20 hits refer to the tv show. I'm not sure how to measure the number people viewing this article compared with the disambiguation page, but I expect this page would get much more hits. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are previous discussions relating to this at Talk:Scrub. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that this article is viewed more times than Scrub. In fact it's significantly more, this article has been viewed 523,103 time this month compared to 9,014 times for Scrub. Views are also significantly more than Scrubs, which has been viewed 98,324 times. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
And I would bet most of those 98,000 were looking for the TV show. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The name of the article has nothing to do with the popularity. The point of the matter is, there are several meanings of the word scrubs, and the TV show is show is not the primary one. It may be more popular on Wikipedia, but I imagine more people in the world are aware of Scrubland or medical scrubs --Jac16888Talk 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to suggest the TV show is objectively more important than the medical garments. What I am basing my move on is the fact that a whole lot more people are looking for this page on Wikipedia than Scrubs (clothing), which is supported by the statistics. With regard to twilight, aside from the fact that usage is already divided between the novel and film, everyone knows what a twilight is; I think by contrast the clothing is pretty obscure for non-medical people. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).

Popularity (in terms of the number of people seeking a particular article) is the criteria for determining a primary topic and naming articles accordingly. By that criteria, it seems apparent the TV series is the primary topic for the term "Scrubs". Propaniac (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If popularity in terms of the number of people seeking a particular article is the criteria, then this would seem to be the correct location for this article. In January this page had 590,000 views while Scrubs had only 110,000. It would seem that people are seeking the article here, not at Scrubs, despite that being the default when you search for scrubs. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Strongly. All the other TV Series have that notated in their address. There is no reason to change this format for this show. Also, the show doesn't need Wiki to help advertise it... --Avé[[]] 20:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avé (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scrubs: Med School a separate show or not?

We seem to have forked off a new article, proclaiming the new season of Scrubs to be a new show, Scrubs: Med School. The show does have a "Med School" logo on the opening credits, but as far as I can tell, seems to still be only titles "Scrubs." Any thoughts on whether or not to portray Scrubs as one show or two? Dayewalker (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same show, it's season 9 of Scrubs. Regardless that the new season is much different than the previous, it's still the same show. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but Bill Lawrence calls it a new series, almost everybody but the head of ABC calls it a new series. In the opening title sequence it even flashes Scrubs, and then "Med School" we should have two pages Scooby7292 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a tricky subject, but the new season is officially known as season 9, not a new series or spin-off. Us as viewers can consider it a spin-off or whatever, but we can't just ignore the fact that the network it airs on (ABC) refers to it as a new season. I like to hear what some of the other Scrubs editors think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to say that its the same show. Yes, I noticed the "Med School" logo, too... but it is considered by the network to be a new season of the same series, regardless of what cute little editors like us like to believe. Qb | your 2 cents 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I brought the matter here, and was waiting to comment until I saw the discussion take shape. I tried to post the question neutrally, in hopes of getting the best discussion. I agree with the sentiment above, the ninth season still appears to just be "Scrubs," and not a new series. I agree with keeping the series intact. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...I guess you guys are right, although I still like to think of it as a new series Scooby7292 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
With each episode of the current season, it becomes clearer to me that Scrubs: Med School is a de facto spin-off, even if the heads of ABC insist it is not. If there is a source where the producers (Bill Lawrence]] etc.) say it is a spin-off, then we should treat it as such. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As I understand what happened after last season, it was always intended to be a spin-off of the show. However, ABC was adamant about keeping it under the Scrubs title. Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, the broadcaster wants it to be treated as Scrubs season 9. However if the people making the show consider to be a spin-off called Scrubs: Med School, then that's how we should treat it. Which brings up the question I sort of asked before. Does such a source—as mentioned by Scooby7292—exist? —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New source available

TV Squad has an interview—Keller, Joel (January 16, 2010). "Bill Lawrence on the Cougar Town renewal and Scrubs missteps - TCA Report".—in which Bill Lawrence makes it clear that from the beginning he has considered Scrubs: Med School to be a spin-off of Scrubs, with Scrubs having ended last year.

Based on that, the "Scrubs: Med School" title card, and all the significant differences between "Season 9" and Scrubs Seasons 1–8; I beleieve we should treat the current version as more than a "ninth season". —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Bill Lawrence "considers" it a spin-off, and yes as he is the creator that should probably be noted if it isn't already, but he doesn't own scrubs, and the people own it/pay for it/and broadcast it (including the last 2 episodes hopefully soon), ABC, say its season 9. Therefore, its season 9, no question--Jac16888Talk 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing topic to past-tense

Now that Scrubs is cancelled (albeit unofficially), perhaps the article should be changed from present-tense to past-tense? -26/3/2010-MCAspire (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, standard procedure is to keep articles on tv shows in the present tense after they've finised--Jac16888Talk 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Sacred heart Hospital with this page

We should merge sacred heart hospital with this page as recommended by the last AFD. When typing in a name of a real hospital it should not bring you to an article about a fictional one. pointing to the tv series would be a better idea as its notability is in the tv series and leaves no room for confusion -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Hospital redirects to a disambiguation page listing a number of real Sacred Heart Hospitals. It doesn't take you to Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs). --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I just changed that. I went ahead and merged the page as when you get right down to it. Almost all the info was merged already... just noone set the redirect. -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you'll also be fixing all of the links to Sacred Heart Hospital that are now effectively broken because of the redirect, as was indicated would be necessary in this edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

you know what they say about assumptions... but yes.. I updated them as needed -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Every time I check the "What links here" page, for disambiguous links to the word "Scrubs", ALL of the links that are intended for the article Scrubs (TV series), are being redirected to the disambiguation page Scrub instead. I understand that some editors consider the primary topic to be Scrubs (clothing), but fixing the redirect for just the word Scrubs, would prevent everyone from having to go through the disambiguation page first, before they get to this article. I tried to correct this error, and was accused of trying to go against consensus. It is not my intention to change the title of this article, but having fixed hundreds of these disambiguous links, I know that simply fixing this redirect would lessen the extra work of having to update those links on each of those individual articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A link to the discussion can be found here. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempts at saving the series from cancellation

Is there any way we can add a section on the different attempts past and present to keep Scrubs from cancellation? This would include the current Save Our Scrubs campaign on-line and the current E!Online Save One Show Campaign: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b173297_save_one_show_on_get_in_here_vote_people.html where Scrubs is listed as one of the shows possibly worth saving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmacasl (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we may have to accept that like all TV shows, none of them last forever. Scrubs is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.232.85 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre

To me, the show is obviously a comedy. My cable box even says that the genre is comedy. However, the infobox says comedy-drama. When I tried to change, it said to not do it unless I went on the talk page so here I am. Does anyone have a good reason for this show to be a comedy-drama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.161.82 (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A comedy-drama is a genre in which there is an equal or nearly equal balance of humor and serious content, wich Scrubs has. The series is also listed as a comedy-drama on almost every site that mentions the show, and is considered one of the most famous examples of comedy-drama's. For other examples that show this series on a comedy-drama, see the attributes of comedy-dramas on television. — Mr. Chicago (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No. of episodes

Since the reference being used for the no. of episodes is a dead link now (since it was from the ABC Scrubs website), should the ref and even the accompanying (+ double-length episode) just be removed? Because technically, shouldn't be it including a double-length episode? Anyway, I think it might just look cleaner with just the number and there's no guideline of having to mention that there's double-length episodes for a show (I haven't seen that for other half-hours that have hour-long episodes). But, that ref was being used for the argument whether "My Finale" is one or two episodes, so it should be replaced. Although I don't want to start up that argument again, the link should be replaced if it's supposed to back up something that had some controversy. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Cox and Jordan's Kids

I just wanted to know who played Jack and Jennifer Dillan, the two kids Dr. Cox and Jordan had. It doesn't give their names in the list of Cast and Characters. Thank you. Sonya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.170.12 (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dramedy?

I'd never say Scrubs is comedy-drama or dramedy. I mean, it's full-fledged comedy with the occasional dramatic aspect every comedy has. Even if it's somewhat heavy (say, Brendan Fraser's charcter's death), it's intended as whimsical (in action, development, thought behind the scene, etc), always to the side of Seinfeld, never towards Brothers and Sisters. We can't compare Desperate Housewives or Ally McBeal to Scrubs in any way, and I guess the qualification given is incredibly biased. - 187.20.79.131 (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My cable box calls it a comedy, therefore, it must be a comedy. ? Twinsfan133 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely elements of drama in the series, and cable box classification or not, it's obvious from the (now deleted) comment in the infobox that there is no consensus to change it to "comedy" right now. With that in mind, I'm changing it back. The discussion can continue here, but I don't think changing it right now serves any purpose.
I'd also like to point out that, while I agree that the dramatic elements are sometimes presented whimsically, that's essentially the definition of a comedy-drama. I'm not sure what bearing Desperate Housewives or Ally McBeal have here. The bounds of the genre are certainly wide enough to encompass multiple shows that are in other ways dissimilar, or that appeal to very different audiences. Where is the bias? I fail to see it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
All comedies have some sort of drama aspect to them. Friends, Cheers, Frasier, or any other comedy on earth has some seriousness to them. Scrubs was even on NBC's Comedy Night Done Right. The network Scrubs was on even admits that Scrubs was a comedy Twinsfan133 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's saying it's not a comedy. It is a comedy. And a drama. There's no "Comedy-Drama Night Done Right", so there's no reason it should be considered strictly a comedy because of the billing for that block of shows. Plenty of comedies have some dramatic elements, and plenty of dramas feature a joke every once in a while. At what point does it cross the line? It seems plain to me that Scrubs has more dramatic elements than most sit-coms, and is presented in such a way, especially in the certain seasons, that the drama is presented as such, not made light of. Incidentally, we're not looking for an "official" description from the network here, anyway. We're looking for the most accurate description.
That being said, if most of the other involved editors agreed on just "comedy", that would be fine with me, honestly. But it's been discussed several times in the past, always with just about the same arguments, and the decision seems to have been reached that "comedy-drama" is a good enough compromise (see here and here). I don't see why it really needs to be changed. --Fru1tbat (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do third-party sources call it? Doniago (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Many sources refer to it as just a comedy (though one might argue that's just convention, or laziness/shorthand). Here are a couple that don't: [8] (Comedy Central's official site for the show) - "an injection of comedy and drama", [9] - "Scrubs helped to define the modern dramedy" (it's genre-defining!). I'm willing to accept that it's generally referred to as a "comedy", but not exclusively, so I think either choice could be considered valid. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It can either be referred to a comedy or a comedy-drama. However, it is more commonly referred to as a comedy. Therefore, I think that the main genre in the box should be comedy. Twinsfan133 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise. We call it a sitcom. The wikipedia page for sitcom says "as opposed to stand up comedy and sketch comedy, a situation comedy has a storyline and ongoing characters in, essentially, a comedic drama." It sounds like that is what Scrubs is. Twinsfan133 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite that line from the sitcom article, I don't think of Scrubs as a sitcom at all, and I've never heard it referred to as one. Let's try to have at least some discussion here before making potentially controversial changes... --Fru1tbat (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Scrubs wiki page , which is mainly written by fans, says that Scrubs is a sitcom. The diehard fans who have seen every single episode know best, and if they call it a sitcom, then I think that it should be called a sitcom. Twinsfan133 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a fan who has seen every episode, I disagree, but let's dispense with the back and forth point and counter-point. This is how I feel about the issue, restated and summarized:
I will agree that Scrubs fits into the category of "comedy" more than "drama", but it's clear to me that it has more distinctly dramatic elements and sequences than most other comedies, which in my opinion at least puts it into a grey area. It's more often categorized by third parties as just a "comedy", but that is likely just because of a reluctance to use mixed genres when classifying a show (it's much easier to just put things into one or the other). As for "sitcom", that's somewhat interchangeable with "comedy" for most TV shows, but to my ears it carries certain connotations (multi-camera, studio audience, laugh track, and a certain style of writing/jokes) that make me uncomfortable with applying it to Scrubs, which is written and filmed very differently from traditional sitcoms. And I'm not just arguing because of a personal preference -- I feel that the dramatic elements in Scrubs are a key part of the show, and not mentioning that aspect prominently is less accurate, and does a disservice to the article and the encyclopedia.
You also haven't clearly stated why you find "comedy-drama" so troublesome. From your comments here, it appears that it's just a matter of majority rules, that is to say "most people call it that, so that's what we should call it." Or is it something else? How would you feel about "comedy with significant dramatic elements" or something like that?
What I'd really prefer, though, is to maintain or establish consensus. In looking through the talk archives, several previous discussions pop up on the same subject, and at some point, the "comedy-drama" compromise was apparently reached, and nobody seemed to have voiced a serious problem with it. If you want to establish a new consensus, more editors need to get involved, not just the two of us.
--Fru1tbat (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right. I have not stressed why I do not like Scrubs called a comedy-drama. It is because I think that people would get the wrong idea of the show to see it as a comedy-drama such as the shows mentioned above. Also, why I find it so troubling is that the term suggests that there is an equal mix of comedy and drama, which you would agree is not true. I have one final proposal. Kind of like you mentioned, we give the show two genres. The first one listed as comedy (or sitcom), then the second one medical drama (or drama if you prefer). Listing comedy first seems to say that it is more a comedy, but putting drama afterwards shows that there is still some dramatic elements, which I think is the truest to the show. Twinsfan133 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I would be ok with that, if you can find a way to word it so that the intent is clear. I'd still feel more comfortable if some other editors weighed in on this, but this discussion has been going on for weeks, so you might as well go ahead and try a change. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to sitcom because I have not found one comedic television show that is not called a sitcom. I agree with you that the term is generally used with a laugh track and multi camera set up, and even the Scrubs episode My Sitcom made fun of this. However the true meaning of sitcom is a comedy that centers around story lines in a common place with common people every week, which is what Scrubs is. The laugh track and multi camera set up are just added. If someone thinks differently, they can talk about it, but I think based on the definition of sitcom, Scrubs, and maybe every other comedy on TV right now, is a sitcom (and in Scrubs' case, a little medical drama added in). Twinsfan133 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for supporting characters ?

I'm asking for re-create the acrticles for the main supporting characters of the show: Jordan Sullivan, Ted Buckland, Laverne Roberts (with a section for her following role nurse Shirley) and Todd Quinlan (and maybe Doug Murphy too). Beacause, despite never having considered as main characters they all appears during 8 seasons, who mad them very importants for the show's history. In many other TV series, supporting characters less importants than this ones had articles, such as this ones for Lost or this one for Doctor Who. Jordan, Ted, Laverne and Todd had articles before, so it will be very simple to make it once again via the historic. (excuse me for my english, i'm french). -Hyliad (d 11:08, 15 november 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of how important they are to the show, but whether there's enough that can/should be said about them that would warrant an entire article. Looking over what's currently there at List of Scrubs characters, I'm not sure most of them could reasonably be expanded all that much. Some character articles are long because they're just collections of plot summary, but I don't think that's the right way to go. Some of the pages for these characters on Wikia are long only because of significant content that's not very encyclopedic. Fine for fan sites, but not Wikipedia. That's my take, anyway. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Waters redirect?

Why does Brandon Waters redirect to this page? The name Brandon Waters does not appear in this article at all.89.146.16.105 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone making some random article about themselves and claiming they were in scrubs, and it ended up redirected here. However I've deleted it now, so thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 Talk 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It appears from this action that the nominator wishes to withdraw the request. Favonian (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Scrubs (TV series) → Scrubs – I don't know if this has been discussed before (it probably has), but isn't this the primary topic over everything else? Like Friends doesn't have TV series in it (ahead of friend), nor does Shameless (ahead of disambiguation), and there are other things by those names as well. I'm sure other examples exist but I CBA searching. Unreal7 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reasons it's been opposed many times before, at Talk:Scrubs_(TV_series)/Archive_3#Requested_move and more--Jac16888 Talk 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – WP:RECENTISM. Also, I think that if you asked random people what they would be reading about if they were reading an article about "scrubs", most of them would respond that they were reading about clothing worn by medical professionals. That question should ideally be asked verbally, so that the response is not influenced by capitalization, since Wikipedia doesn't support case sensitivity for the first word of an article name. Moreover, there are probably many places in the English-speaking world where this TV show is completely unknown. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location in the United States

In Episode 4 of Season 4, when molly says that it's 6:00 (but she is referring to Greenland time), Dr. Reid corrects her and tells her it's actually 3:00, so we can suppose the hospital is located in Central time zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.172.220 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Style for season numbers

What is the correct style for numbering seasons? Should it be season one or season 1? It appears both ways throughout this article. Vivatheviva (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scrubs (TV series). 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) 23:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Another janitor's possible name

In one episode it is revealed that the janitor acted in a real movie Neil Flynn had acted which would mean that the janitor's name is Neil Flynn. Should we mention that in the article? 89.164.179.126 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable source took note of it. We don't publish trivia. DonIago (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's something. [10]. DonIago , the article mentions the fact I had mentioned. I don't see how much more formality it is needed. The fact is that the one of the episodes reveals that the janitor had acted in The Fugitive. Common sense is to say that his credited name there is one of the possibilities for his name in the series. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
That site seems to be speculating more than stating anything definitive, in my opinion. DonIago (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
That's why I had written that the series "suggests" that. Yes, I agree that the article is speculating in the question of janitor's name, however it has confirmed my words that the series says that the janitor had acted in the real movie The Fugitive. From that part it's only natural to say that the series suggests his name is Neil Flynn. Furthermore I would like to ask you how much credit do you give to Bill Lawrence's words that the janitor's name is indeed Glenn Matthews? Let's be objective here. If that is not said in the series without any doubts attached to it, then we can't take the words of the creator that this is true. Can we? What if he would now change his opinion and say that the real name is something else? I hope you see my point. Continuing on that, how much different do you think his statement from your definition of trivia is? I think that the post-series statements about janitor's name is more trivia than what the series suggests. Ok, here's what I suggest. We write the name of the episode that says the janitor had acted in The Fugitive and we say that would suggest his name is the same as in the credits of that movie, Neil Flynn. The fact is that his name is unknown and all that is written on that part is a speculation. Maybe his name is Jan Itor. That's what he uses in his thoughts... 89.164.172.23 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that the possibility that his name is Jan Itor is also not mentioned. Furthermore the whole passage is clumsy written. At first is says that his name is not revealed. The is says "However, it was later confirmed". My opinion here is that it can not be later confirmed if it's outside the series. So that's the key point to deal with. What's your opinion on that? I think we may mention what the creator of the series had said after the series had finished, but that we can't say that "it was confirmed". People are watching the series, and not the inner thoughts of the creator, that can change. For instance the janitor was supposed to be a part of JD's imagination which would be revealed at the and of first (or second, I don't remember) season. That had changed because of the great performance by Neil Flynn. So let's go back to the middle of season one and imagine that the Bill Lawrence had revealed that. Could we write it on Wikipedia as a fact that the janitor is just a part of imagination? No we couldn't because that was not revealed in the series. Who says that Lawrence won't change his mind again, make a new season of the series years from now and reveal the janitors name then? We can't know and we can't say that's a fact from the show. Lastly, the creator is not the only one who has imagination and the article I had posted is just as valid as the creator's imagination. Your's and mine is also just as valid and someone might think that the janitor's real name is Jan Itor because it is the one he think in his imagination. I hope I had presented my thoughts clear. I'm looking forward to yours. Fun fact. I don't know if you had watched Columbo. His name was also not revealed directly, but it is known because he shows his badge with the full name visible. It would be an interesting thing to decide if that's a valid thing to do, because the creators obviously did not intend to reveal his name in the later seasons. They also could have changed it although it was indirectly revealed in the series. 89.164.201.132 (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
If Lawrence's statement on the Janitor's name is questionable for any reason, the wording could be changed to the more factual "stated" rather than "confirmed". As for the Fugitive stuff - any conclusion drawn here is definitely WP:OR. It's not obvious to me - I don't recall the Janitor ever admitting in that episode that he was actually in the film (did he?). The article linked above thinks he did, but is that the standard interpretation? What I recall is that he hinted at it, and used it to tease/torment J.D., (as usual). Additionally, as that very article points out, it still doesn't mean his name is actually "Neil Flynn" - how can we argue here that it definitely is? Usually, when a fictional show references real-world content, it's safer making assumptions along the lines being discussed here, but in this case, because the Janitor's name is a running joke/mystery involving frequent misdirection, I would absolutely not support making any assumptions or guesses based on any of the above. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not questionable. However, how much credit is to be given to that statement? Regarding The Fugitive, I hope I can post this [11]. I think it's quite obvious that he had admitted that was him + the scene with him was shown. I'm not purposing to change the statement that his name was not revealed. I'm just asking whether we should mention this. 89.164.248.16 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it should be mentioned unless at least one third-party reliable source commented on the fact. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I agree, we need a source. When I catch time I'll look for it. 213.191.138.4 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the YouTube clip, but the parts from that episode still are not definitive to me. He says the words "yeah, I was in a Harrison Ford movie", but dripping with sarcasm, and clearly not to be taken at face value. He appears to be more genuine in the next part of the clip, from the end of the episode, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "quite obvious" - I agree with DonIago - as it pertains to the Janitor's name, it needs a reliable source. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I agree about the source. 141.138.51.170 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scrubs_the_complete_first_season/
  2. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/tv-reviews/tv-review-scrubs-1003926536.story
  3. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/tv-reviews/scrubs/2009/06/06/1244234416434.html
  4. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scrubs_the_complete_fourth_season/
  5. ^ http://tv.ign.com/articles/773/773387p1.html
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scrubs_(TV_series)/Archive_3&oldid=1186124047"