Talk:Grey's Anatomy/Archive 2

Networks
The networks section is getting out of control. We really don't need an exhaustive list of the channels that show this TV show around the world! Given that this is the English-language Wikipedia, perhaps we could at least limit it to the English-speaking world, but I'd be in favour of it being seriously truncated beyond that. What do people think? Docta247 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the list removed at one stage already? In my mind, really it only need mention the United States and Canada, the two places it is broadcast first. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should have a list, just as well used to. No explanations, just a list of all the countries and where it is broadcasted at.  σмgн gσмg  12:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted one a month ago. In articles for other TV shows, this section is usually deleted per Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. If you need a bonus argument, Grey's Anatomy is entirely unsourced, and will quickly become outdated. The entire section should be deleted.
 * Generally the network the show was made for, and the network of first broadcast (if different) are considered notable. However, a list of all current broadcast networks is not very readable, not uniquely interesting (Does it really matter if it's on channel 27 or channel 19?), quickly outdated, and generally not something you'd find in any encyclopedia.
 * Incidentally, this issue was brought up previously on this talk page. It's been an issue in articles for several other shows. / edg ☺ ★ 13:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Only listing English language countries is completely biased! The list should all stay or all go, and in my opinion it should all go because it violates policy. -- Wikipedical 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the direction this talk has gone (though I still don't think English language networks only on the English language articles only Wikipedia is biased, but...) and I have been WP:BOLD and removed the networks. I suppose if anyone disagrees they'll have to voice their opinion here :-)  Docta247 06:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Network stuff off - name below 88.106.60.155 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD release dates
I should just shut up at this point, but DVD release dates aren't that encyclopedic either. Non-notable, and Wikipedia is not an online sales catalog. / edg ☺ ★ 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial diversity
The show is drenched in self-conscious Political Correctness, so it is silly to aver that the show's producers pride themselves on the fact that they used a "blind-casting" technique, resulting in a racially diverse cast. The writers carefully chose the specialty of each doctor as an important analogy to their character and foreshadowing of their development, which adds a layer of complexity to the show.

This show has one Asian female actor - Sandra Oh, as a physician which is considered to be quite a change. Because most of the time, Asian actors are only given roles of nurses, medical students, etc; even though there are large amount of Asian physicians in the US. According to the 2002 census, there are 8.6% physicians are Asian Americans, only 2.4% physicians are African American. For example, NBC's TV series ER which started in 1994, it has hired many Caucasian and Black actors. The only Asian female actor Ming-na only lasted for a short time. In the year of 2007, ER has never had any Asian male actors as doctors.

Further, the Asian female doctor - Dr. Cristina Yang was in love with a black doctor in this show, this kind of Asian-Black love relationship is quite rare in any TV shows or movies, even in the year of 2007.


 * I'm going to remove this from the main page becuase there are no references anywhere, the tone is personal, it's centred around one character (not the show), 'quite rare in any TV shows ...' is opinion. Also, grey's anatomy isnt that diverse. Main characters - 8 White, 2 Afro-Americian, 1 Latin Americian, 1 Asian. (67% White) ER, for example has (taken from their Wiki) 5 White, 1 Afro-Americain, 1 Indian (71% White). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.102.9 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything stated here is the FACT, it is like 1+1 = 2, do you need a source for that, too?! are you people that stupid? hello, there is no Asian male doctors in this show, this is a simple fact, why do you need a source for that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.105.97 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is arguing that it isn't a fact. We're just arguing that it isn't a notable fact that is worthy of being put on the main page. There aren't any male asian doctors, you're correct. There also aren't any green alien plumbers on the show, should we put in a paragraph about that? Or the significant lack of speaking canine lawyers. If it's notable that there aren't any male asian doctors, then there should be source showing stating that it's notable. If you can cite that source, then we can add the info into the article. But not until then. --Maelwys (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

just because you think that it is not "notable" that does not mean that it is obvious to everyone who watches! And of course, it is notable! how many TV shows have any asian male doctors in them? can any of you name five TV shows?! no, you can't! you are a racist in disguise! shame on you! you think that it is ok not to hire Asian males when in real hospitals, you can see tons of Asian male physicians in many urban cities in the USA. If any of those TV shows does not hire any black males, you think that that tv show will last for one day?! you are an ignorant fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.46.68 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just me that thinks it's not notable... it's also apparently every newspaper and entertainment magazine in existence, if none of them have ever done a story on it. If it's not notable enough for them to write an article about it, when it's their job to talk about things like that, then why would it be notable enough for us to talk about here? Also, you'll find that you'll be able to carry on longer conversations with people if you don't try to insult them every second sentence, especially when you don't actually know anything about them. (some of my best friends are asian... in fact one of them is an asian male doctor!) --Maelwys (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

a possible compromise
I think this is useful information. Inclusion of discussion about racial diversity in a cast/show that has a lot of it does not seem at all "biased" to me. (Biased towards what, anti-racism?) However, I do understand the concern that the information on Christina's character seems to veer off topic from an article about the entire show. So, to the person who posted the information on Christina, what about moving the information to Christina's article? Mlewis2 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add, "seems to veer off topic" because there is no similar information for any other character presented. Mlewis2 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I expect the commentry to be balanced, but it is simply way off topic.  There   Yes, I agree to mentioning the random allocation of roles to actors to varying ethnicities (if you can find a reliable source).  But the discussions here are simply one's own private research, seemingly framed to present one's own opinion.  Wikipedia is not the right place.
 * I would support Mlewis's suggestion of moving the discussions to Christina's article, but only if you demonstrate the issue has attracted enough attention to be noteworthy. Protestors complaining about the allocation of roles in Miss Saigon was noteworthy.  A rant in a college newspaper or political rag  to an extremely limited audience isn't.  Kransky (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't support it - the whole passage is actually vandalism and needs to be excised. A "racial diversity" vandal has been attacking both this article and ER (TV series) with this type of shit. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to discuss this
Since this keeps being reinserted so much, lets go point by point (again) as to why this doesn't belong here. As has been explained before, Wikipedia requires reliable sources to include this kind of information here. And you still don't have any yet. Until you find some (and after wasting 4-5 months pushing in the same information without any, I'm assuming you can't), please stop adding your point of view and personal criticisms to the article. --Maelwys (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You keep REMOVING valid citations every time to revert to your prefered version. Why? What is the purpose of replacing a cited version of the first few comments with a whole bunch of 'citation needed' tags? How does that help to improve the article at all?
 * 2) You keep posting the section with a lot of 'citation needed' tags. If you know it needs citations, why not go find some? You've been trying to get this information in the article for 4-5 months now... surely if there were any reliable sources to backup the notability of these additions, you could have found them by now, and added them in.


 * Well, your latest revert shows that you actually read this page at least, even though you don't respond here. Instead of just mindlessly reverting and calling me a vandal, why not come discuss these things and see what we can work out? Obviously, you've addressed the first argument, by no longer removing the citation. Unfortunately, that brings up a whole new problems, because now the paragraph appears self-contradicting. If the actors were blind-cast with no attention paid to the colour of their skin, then why is it at all notable how many of them are of each ethnicity, and which of them have romantic storylines together? That's like me flipping a coin a hundred times and then commenting on how the coin was made unfairly to the queen (or president, or whomever) because her face only appeared 35 times out of one hundred, so obviously there's some conspiracy to hide her from the world. If it's random chance (as the article claims it was), then the way that the random results compare to the real world is entirely non-notable, because there was obviously no malicious intent from anybody. --Maelwys (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Americans have a real complex about racism and racists... Who the hell cares of which race are the actors?? Just watch the show! I don't care if I see a black, white or asian actor, I just want to see a good show... No one should care if all actors are white or if all are black, asian, green or anything... Come on, is it really that important?? --201.253.246.73 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Music
The full list of music link doesn't work. It should be removed or corrected so that it links to a page that does contain this information. There are several external webpages containing this information. Lamillsap 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There was missing a link for french band LOS CHICROS appearing in Grey's Anatomy through a remix of their song "Back In The Wild" by Greenskeepers. Here is the link of their wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicros —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbbiaggi (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The band Interpol has also appeared in the show, with the song "Evil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.27.31.106 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The band Patrick Watson has also appeared in the show, with the song "The Great Escape", from the album "| Close to Paradise". - 24.212.5.84 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Specialties
When in the show did it suggest that:

(a) Izzie is interested in Neo-natal Surgery (b) Meredith is interested in Neurosurgery

Because as far as I can tell niether of them have expressed explicit interest in any specialty. Meredith - Neuro??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.93.92 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Izzie expressed interest in neo-natal surgery when she was assigned the task for looking after quadtuplets in Season 2 under Dr. Montgomery when she first arrived. Meredith expressed interest in neurosurgery during her first surgery to scrub in as well as various other incidents. Hope that helps.  σмgн gσмg  05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Merideth was pointed in the neuro direction by her mother in that episode when she was lucid. Ğavin  Ťing  04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Izzie once said was helping Addison but in the same moment she broke up with Alex and Addison lecture her. Than Izzie was prety mad at Addison. But when Alex was under Addison Izzie said that she don't like Neo-natal.--Sensational Max (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In one episode the chief complains that 2nd year residents are spending too much time in their chosen specalties and one of the culprits is meredith and spending too much time in nuero another reason why she is intrested is because her mother said she should go into nuero. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Greys-anatomy-1-cast.jpg
Image:Greys-anatomy-1-cast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Info for people who havent seen any episodes yet
I've never watched any episodes of Grey's Anatomy before, and I came to this article wanting to know what "kind" of series it is -- what to expect, such as the kind of humor, the kind of drama. Is it witty and emo like House MD, is it action-packed like Prison Break? But such info does not seem to be here.

Racial Diversity
There are two inaccurate statements in the racial diversity segment. First, Ming-Na was on ER for 9 years; that is not a "short time" to be on a television series. Second, her character and that of Parminder Nagra, an actress of South Asian descent, have both had serious romantic relationships with African American doctors on ER, so Grey's Anatomy was not the first to explore this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious georgianna (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, do tell everyone, how many white males have appeared in ER as doctors, and have you ever seen a single Asian male as a doctor in ER? And have you ever seen any single asian male doctor in ER falling in love with anyone?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.40.220 (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly, have YOU ever seen a single newspaper or magazine article that has made as big a deal out of this as you are right now? And if so, please tell us where? If nobody has ever published anything making this such a big deal, then it would appear that you're the only person that thinks it is. And if you're the only person that thinks it's a big deal, than it has no place in the article. Since you've been trying to get this information inserted into the article for 4-5 months now, and still haven't provided a single such source, that's why the rest of us continue trying to remove the uncited information from the article. --Maelwys (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

because they are racially ignorant, you think that black people will allow that, if ER or grey's hires no blacks in their shows?! what kind of reaction those producers will get if they do that?! just because asians don't complain, that doesn't mean, it is ok not to hire any asian males! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.229.19 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that it was okay. But an encyclopedia article about the show isn't the place to make your arguments. The only arguments that should be included in an encyclopedia article are ones that have already been made in public, and have been well-covered by the press. But Wikipedia isn't press, and so previously unmade and unreported arguments of bias have no place here. --Maelwys (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

exactly, the fact is loud and clear, encyclopedia is not a place for you to randomly deleting things that you don't like, get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.32.232 (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the 'exactly' is referring to... but don't worry, we all fully understand how you feel. You've made no secret of that fact. The problem is that people can't just go around writing what they feel into the site and still call it an encyclopedia... at that point it's just an open blog. For the topic to earn coverage in the encyclopedia, you've got to prove that OTHER people also feel the same way. Find a newspaper or magazine article about somebody else that feels there's racism here, and you might have a point. Until then, you're just one person ranting about something that bugs you, and you should go get your own private blog to do that in where nobody can censor you. --Maelwys (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John Forbs
Can anyone provide a good reference for this fact? I have one website in Australia (http://www.wchannel.com.au/profiles/default.aspx?p=175) that mentions this and a website that bears a strong resemblance to the wikipedia article (http://blog.bitcomet.com/johnmax/post_13335/). I can't find this guy in any Grey's Anatomy material nor on imdb.com. Hughdbrown (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Will there be a Season V?
I think this topic should be treated properly. I am very curious about it as, I suppose, every fan of this show is. Thank you!

Maria, 21:49, 21 January 2008
 * I can't think of any reason why there wouldn't be a season V, other than the writers strike. Apr1fool (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope there is but there was talk of Izzie and George leaving, i hope they dont it wont be the same. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Cultural impact
Why no mention of how they brought the term "vajayjay" into the cultural lexicon?05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Caracters Relationships .. ?
Why have someone deleted some (or all.. didn't check all..) the character's relationships? I think that we should change it back to the way it was before..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattia (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would like to see that as it was. Lexhatesyou (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release is wrong!
Greys Antomy season 3 has NOT been released on Region 2! Im a long time fan STILL waiting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.184.2 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception
The reception only shows TV Ratings, without any sort of professional critical review cited. This seems to be present in other TV show articles too, just noticed it here blatantly.

I'm not sure what the procedure for this sort of discussion would be, but it seems like TV Ratings isn't necessarily the entire picture, when movies and books are subject to critical analysis.

Anybody agree?

05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)eastwood414

Character Pages
Per official Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT, articles need to provide more than simply an in-universe perspective. The real world impact of such characters needs to be established. Could editors more knowledgeable than myself about this series weigh in on the potential for individual character articles to be refocused on their real-world significance? Otherwise, we might consider merging them to a List of Main Characters page. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've very very slowly been going through the character articles, weeding out WP:OR and condensing highly excessive plot details over the past few months. As yet, Erica Hahn is the only one I've re-written fully from a largely real world perspective. I think the standard of that particular article is adequate, and as one of the most recent characters on the show, demonstrates that there is greater potential to expand the longer standing characters further than that. It just requires a few more editors willing to put the work in :)  Frickative  15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's a very solid model Frick and some really good work there - moving the focus to a real-world context, backed up by reliable sources, and focusing on those aspects of the character that have had demonstrable impact outside of the in-universe context of the show. Well done! So, do the other characters have that kind of potential - i.e. reaction and asseveration from (real-world) advocacy groups, meaningful (non-trivial) neutral, third-party sources, etc...? Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Of the rest of the main characters, I would say the ones that have clear cut potential and notability are Meredith Grey, Preston Burke, Addison Montgomery and Callie Torres. Undoubtedly if I set out tomorrow to write an article in the same vein as Eric Hahn for any of those characters, it would be possible. I'm less certain about Izzie Stevens, Derek Shepherd, George O'Malley and Alex Karev. While they're major characters within the series, I'm unclear on how much significant coverage in reliable media they have received (though presumably with a few quick searches, that would be easy to ascertain). That leaves Miranda Bailey and Richard Webber, the two characters I think are probably least likely to stand up well against WP:FICT and it's ilk. That said, I have a vague recollection of Chandra Wilson having won a whole host of awards for her role as Bailey, so again, it would probably take a little searching and sifting through available media to gauge the strength of potential. I'll try to spend some time over the next week or so coming up with some sources, in order to give a better idea of how each article could stand.  Frickative  01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It fails to include any sections about the parodies, such as in MadTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.17.252 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean people Grey's Anatomy is one of the most popular Tv Shows right. I know that once Grey's Anatomy was the most watched show in that year right??? Please people i come from macedonian wikipedia and there i am making big, very big articles about the characters and its stupid Macedonia to have bigger articles than USA so please let me help and lets get organised!!! --77.29.15.153 (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Frickative, on George O'Malley's importance outside of the Grey's realm. Remember it was the conflict between T.R. Knight and Issah Washington that eventually lead to Washington's departure from the serious when he "outed" Knight during a fight with Patrick Dempsey. Washington later went on to repeat the homophobic slur, which eventually pushed writers to take him off the show, during an award show. Kathrine Heigle was a vocal supporter of Knight and an avid activist to get Washington off the show. I think it should also be pointed out that while Knight opened up to the public a few years ago (after the Washington fiasco) about his personal life and choice, that it was his characters ex-wife that had the brief same-sex relationship (with Erica Hahn). Once the dust settles, it should also be further investigated about Grey's choice to axe their story line with no pre-warning. At the moment, there is a lot of talk and gossip going around, but in the upcoming months, hopefully more will come out about why they chose to make such a rash decision. It's interesting to note that a show that released Washington because of his homophobic views, turned around and quickly rewrote a same-sex story line (and by many sources, also rewrote a guest star's role that involved her and Meredith and a past fling). Said story line was indicated that there would be same-sex indications, and that she was also brought on as a relationship option for Callie, but when Grey's booted Hahn, they also rewrote this story line. I know that at the moment I don't have any sources to back up my information, which is why I'm posting it here first. It's very late (or early, I guess) and I don't have time to get all the needed citations, but I know they are out there and I will add them as soon as I am able to. Thanks Barbiegurl676 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hee, this is a bit of an old discussion & I'm sad to say I never did get round to much of the research into improving the articles as I intended to. To address your first point - while it's certainly true that the T.R. Knight/Isaiah Washington controversy was huge news, I'd say that on the whole it didn't really affect George as a character. Certainly it affected Knight personally, and saw Burke written off the show, but I don't recall it directly impinging on George's storylines at all. Of course I could be completely mistaken, so do feel free to remind me if I'm forgetting something important! :) You are right though in that there's been a lot of media revisiting of the event in light of Brooke Smith's firing, and I know that I've read in several places that the aftermath has lead to reduced screentime for George as a result of Knight's dismay over the whole debacle. Obviously we need to be careful of WP:SYNTH because I think a lot of it is still just conjecture at this point, but frankly any citations you can turn up would be great. All that ever seems to get added to any of the Grey's character articles are plot details, and it's a pretty sad state of affairs when the article for Owen Hunt (who's appeared in what? 4 episodes so far?) is infinitely better by Wikipedia standards than the one for the show's lead character Meredith Grey. So, yes. Looking forward to see what you can turn up :) Frickative  16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting organised!!!
We really need to get organised about Grey's anatomy articles so who want we to start WikiProject Grey's Anatomy. I would be the main editor and we could really make Grey's Anatomy articles better so who is aggreing with me. --Sensational Max (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

George/T.R. Knight Leaving
Can we remove that T.R. Knight is leaving the show. These are currently only in the rumor stage. Even the link shown as "source" doesn't say he is leaving. It says he is rumored to want to leave. (Iroc24 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Scrub Nurse
Someone turned "Scrub Nurse" into a link in the Season 4 section, but there is currently no wiki page for Scrub Nurse. I'm unfamiliar with the medical hierarchy, but would this be the same thing as a Surgical Technologist? SapphireSkies (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No a Surgical Technologist is in charge of the electronical equipment in an OR/Theatre whereas the scrub nurse is the person how hands the surgeon the instruments. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

This is incorrect, a Surgical Technologist is colloquially known as a Scrub Nurse. The only problem with the colloquial name of an ST is the nurse part, as ST's are not registered nurses and are limited to the scope of the OR. An RN can perform the role of a 'scrub nurse' within the OR in addition to circulating patients post-op. ST's, depending on hospital-policy, can round on patients as well but, most of the time, they round under the supervision of an RN; additionally, unlike an RN, ST's can't administer medication to the patients as they do not have the adequate licensure to perform such a function. RN's do. To answer your questions, yes, a Scrub Nurse is more formally known as a Surgical Technologist. Ace 21:12, 14 July 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). Ikip (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Main characters table edits?
I've reverted the recent changes because I don't see explanations for the following:


 * 1) Promotion of the table. It should be a subsection under the Cast of characters section.
 * 2) Removal of a character from the interns section.
 * 3) Additions of "interested in" to the specialization column, when it appears previous consensus was that only formal specializations should be listed.

I applaud the IP users for making bold edits, but edits should be explained, and it's now the time to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Main character table is supposed to represent characters in an overview fashion that shoudn't be dated, i.e. only referring to current characters. For example, the 'Past Attendings' groupings are redundant. There is no such title as 'past attendings' and it's quite obvious that they are no longer current attendings given the 'former' added in each character's respective specialty and their star-billing status. If it states a character is from 'Season 1 - 3' it's obvious that the character is no longer in that position since the show is nearing the end of the 5th season, but during that season, that charcter was an attending. Does that make sense?

This could be applied to the Interns grouping as well.

In regards to specialty, having an 'interest in' or 'running a clinic' does not count as a specialty. The writers and the show have established that no resident in their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year have specialties; they are still receiving the well-rounded training from all department heads. The show's main residents that have specialites are Callie Torres and Miranda Bailey.

In regards to Richard Webber: the writers nor the show have established Richard Webber as the Head of General Surgery. The man is Chief of Surgery, which supercedes all department heads. If you're going by original research, you can cite Season 3 Episode 9 "From a Whisper to a Scream" where Preston Burke is appointed as the new then-Chief of Surgery, but he is succeeded by Erica Hahn. She was then to become the new Head of Cardiothoracics. This showed that Burke could not be both Chief and Head of Cardio; this means that Webber can not be both Chief and Head of General Surgery. The important thing is that Webber has never been established as the Head of General Surgery by Shonda, the writers, or the show.

If this is wrong, and someone can cite an article, a commentary, an episode that this has been established, then by all means, we could stop reverting each other's edits and stick to consistentcy. -Dabrain930 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the chief situation but i believe that there should be a past attendings section because the characters should still be recognised for their previous performences and it is wrong to put them under attendings or that would imply there are three head of Cardio's so it hink there should be a section entitled past attendings. As for the Interested in i dont really have an opinion but i feel strongly about the past attending bit.

Also i dont think you should have former chief resident for Callie because she has not left the show but she isnt the chief resident any more.

Also it was made quite clear that Sadie Harris no longer works at seattle grace and as she was only in the show for a couple of episodes it is wrong to include her in the character table. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC))


 * In any case, I see no reason for "Main characters" to be a top-level heading. It should be below "Cast and characters". —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the best way around this might be by converting the whole table to prose. It would need doing anyway were the article ever to get to GA or FA, so if someone wants to take a stab at it, great, and if not I'll have a go myself when I can find a free half hour. Frickative  20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No i think it should be a table it is more clear we just need to sort it out and i agree on the heading situation. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Read some of the television show Featured Articles. They favour prose over tables, and that's the standard we should aim for. Frickative  17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No it is much clarer in a table and people ant be bothered to search through the text prose is the easy way out we need to do wha is best not what is easy table has been used for ages.(86.159.190.206 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I feel as though you're not understanding me. Prose is the standard expected of Good and Featured Articles, ergo it stands to reason that prose is 'best'. We're writing an encyclopedia, not an 'at a glance' fan site, and just because a table has been "used for ages" doesn't mean it's right. The character articles have been the way they are for ages, and they're all in a uniformly terrible state. Frickative  17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly an enclopedia which is intended to inform people which is what the table does the prose just confuses people and a table is how it should be presented. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Look, I don't even feel as though you're reading what I'm saying any more. There is nothing "confusing" about three paragraphs of text. We are not here to dumb down to people. You are steadfastly ignoring the point that if this article is ever to reach GA or FA standard, it will not do so with a table instead of prose. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, and recommend that you spend some time reading other television show articles of Good or Featured standard. Frickative  19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No you dont understand it is not presented in one block of text and if you remember back to GCSE English you will understand that it should be accessible to your target audience, and for us to do that we need to present the data in a table. It has been like this for a while and has worked fine, so who are you to change it to your personal preference. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * There are really only so many ways I can keep saying this. It is not my personal preference, it is the way it is supposed to be. For the third time, I recommend reading some Good and Featured TV show articles, which you evidently still have not done, and I would also add WP:CIVIL to that list while you're at it. Frickative  19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, seeing as you are resisting actually following through and checking the standard we're supposed to be aiming for, here are a random sample of TV show Featured Articles to make it even easier: Animaniacs - prose, rather than table. Carnivale - prose, rather than table. Degrassi - prose, rather than table. Last of the Summer Wine - prose, rather than table. Lost - prose, rather than table. Is it evident yet that the standard we're aiming for requires prose, rather than a table? Frickative  20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes i understand but every show is different, and if you want we can have both. Then people can look at the table or try to unpick the text it is upto them. Also some of those are terrible examples like Animaniacs it is a cartoon with about five characters not twenty with specific series references and specialties etc. Also none of them are medical dramas so in this case a table is appropriate and if you look at private practice it is presented in a table. So for this case it should be a table which more accessible (like i stated earlier think back to GCSE english)(86.159.190.206 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Every show might be different, but take Lost, for instance. That show has a cast even more vast than Grey's, but the article does not need to resort to a table to get its information across. Having both would serve no purpose but to convey the same information twice. The whole point of these examples is to explain that character tables are not accepted standard at FA, which is what we should be aiming towards, and including one will only hold the article back. There is absolutely no need for it, it was causing copious edit warring anyway, and the prose puts the same information across perfectly coherently. The fact that none of these shows are medical dramas has absolutely zero relevance, and the Private Practice article is neither Good nor Featured and as such is equally irrelevant because it's not of a standard we should be emulating. Frickative  20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do what is best for the readers which means that we should convey the information in the best way possible and in a table the reader can see this rather than prose. It does matter what type of show it is aswell because you need to adjust the template accordingly and if you think there is somthing wrong with private practice then why dont you focus on that because people have been happy and hand have accepted the table since season one and to compare it to a cartoon is pointless. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm going to put this as simply as possible, because no matter how many times I reword, you are absolutely not taking my point. We are writing an encyclopedia. The highest encyclopedic standard to aim for here is FA. For the article to reach FA, it requires prose, rather than a table. That's all there is to it, and arguing round in circles is not going to change that fact. I'm not going to go off and edit the article for some other TV show I have no interest in so that you can WP:OWN this article. You've well and truly overstepped the WP:3RR limit today, which you have been warned about and in fact blocked for in the recent past. Continuing to do so will potentially end with a longer block. What specifically about what I am telling you is still unclear? Frickative  20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to own this article and are dictating any other changes made by anyone else and if you dont like them they aren't accepted which is wrong it is supposed to be open for anyone to improve and if people think that this will improve the page then i think that is more important. And if you want some praise or award for getting it to be a FA thats fine but if it makes it worse then you are missing the goal. And as for WP:3RR and WP:OWN you are just as bad as anyone else maybe even worse you dont own the page.


 * Doesn't the fact that you have been reverted today by four separate editors clue you in to the fact that consensus might be against you? I will ask again: What specifically about what I am telling you is still unclear? Frickative  20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why we can't work together to make it so that everybody is happy. Also i have read your prose and half of it is a waste of time you are talking about relationships which are then talked about lower down under the specific season titles. The relationships of the charcaters has nothing to do with who they are this is presented more clearly in a table. The characters section is about who is who who portrays them what their specialty is and how long they have been involved in the show. If you want to repeat about their relationships that should be a seperate section. Finally you keep including Sadie Harris when it is clear she is no longer a character at all and was only in the show for a while so she should not be included and if you dont believe me Miranda Bailey even says "Then its a good job she doesnt work here anymore".(86.159.190.206 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the point of working together is not trying to force your own way. Given the fact that all your attempts to revert this section back to a table from it current prose-style have been undone by other users, myself included, other than Frickative only highlights that everyone is happy with the prose, and you are the only dissenting voice. The whole point of improving the Grey's Anatomy articles is to step away from in-universe style references and move towards a non-fictional perspective in regards to the fiction. Having a general overview of the character's relationships in addition to their characters as it relates non-fictionally achieves that purpose. Concentrating just on the character's specialty, rank, and title only diminishes the article to an in-universe perspective, which we are trying to move away from. - DaBrain930 3:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Frickative previously said that he didnt want anything repeated because i suggested that we have both table and text but he said he didn't wan't the information repeated but you are clearly repeating information under characters and cast which are repeated lower down and it seems like a double edged sword and it is clear of your history with Frickative. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC))


 * It's actually not a double-edged sword. The characters section should elaborate on relationships and should do more than just give an in-universe glance of what a character's specialty and title is. The problem lies in the seasons section as they should be more of a broader overview rather than specifically detail a character's progression through that season. A great example of this is Lost which, as Frickative cites, contains an in-depth non-fictional perspective on the characters and has a shorter overview of what the seasons are as whole rather than focus on a character's role in that particular season. That article has been accredited as a Featured Article; the whole goal of improving and making these adjustments is so that Grey's Anatomy can have that same recognition and thus have more substantial credibility. Now Frickative has given this reasoning time and time again, and you continue to either not understand or are running your own agenda which goes against consensus. The fact that you've been blocked several times and your changes have been undone numerous times by different writers proves that. If you're finding that a majority of writers are favoring prose, then perhaps instead of fighting it and constantly engaging in edit wars, you can provide ways to help the prose flow better. You say you want to work together, then that's great: let this be a collaborative effort. But that can't happen if you keep forcing your way as if you own the article, which by the way, was an argument you used against Frickative, when consensus agrees with the overall logic of prose. It's better to be part of the solution than part of the problem by creating obstacles. I hope this clarifies matters. Our overall goal here is to make this article better, and by better, I mean what Wikipedia's editors deem that definition to be. - DaBrain930 9:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok i would be happy to do anything i can to help and we need to sort out the season sections as i agree it is a waste of time repeating informtion (86.159.190.206 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Grey's Anatomy WikiProject
Hey! I thought I'd leave a message to let any interested parties know that we now have our own Grey's Anatomy WikiProject. If any of you would like to join in, just come on over and sign yourselves up! Hopefully we can put our heads together and start collaborating on improving Grey's Anatomy articles. It would be nice to get a few more Good Articles, and fantastic if we could manage a Featured Article or two. I hope to see some of you over at the Project soon! Frickative 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neonatal Surgery as a specialty
I was wondering if we could get a consensus about this considering, as of yet, there is no direct neonatal surgery article in Wikipedia.

Spelling
I don't know how entirely accurate this is, considering this falls under original research, but if one goes by the DVD subtitles, the captions, and by using search engines, neonatal is one word versus a hyphenated word. For example, in Grey's Anatomy season 2, episode 10 Much too Much, Addison official joins the hospital staff and signs her contract. Webber says she'll be have "the state-of-the-art neonatal surgical wing" and the DVD subtitles show it as one word versus it as "neo-natal". Even in the premiere episode of Private Practice, when Addison give her speech at the end:
 * "No wait, I do have a big finish. If I hadn't been here today, if you would've had somebody else, that girl would've died. I saved your asses today. I'm a world-class neonatal surgeon. And I'm here to say. Welcome to the new Oceanside Wellness."

Again, when the episode aired and via CC and through DVD subtitles, it showed neonatal as one non-hyphentated word.

Link
So far, in Addison's page and in the character table of Grey's Anatomy, the neonatal surgery link is redirected to obstetrics. Now is this really accurate? Considering neonatal is more closely-related to pediatric surgery as a surgical subspecialty than obstetrics? One could make the argument that because Addison is a board-certified OB/GYN, it enhances her neonatal surgical care and skill. And search engine links show that neonatal surgery hits always bring up pediatric surgery along with it.

Thoughts? Dabrain930 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

She clearly states that she is Double Board Certified Neo Natal OBGYN surgeon so it is wrong not to include this in her speciality. (86.159.190.206 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're not understanding me. I'm not saying that this shoud be excluded from her specialty, I'm saying is that if you click on the link Neonatal Surgery, it is redirected to Obstetrics. I was trying to get an consensus if the redirect should got to Pediatric Surgery instead considering Neonatal is more closely related to peds versus OB. Dabrain930 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh i see sorry erm i think that it is closer to Obstetrics because it is only neo natal when the child is just born so peadiatrics is later on (86.159.190.206 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

No you are completely right. Neonatal surgery is a subspecialty of pediatric surgery, not obstetrics. Pediatric surgery is defined by Wikipedia as the surgical treatment of surgery of fetuses, infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. The link should definitely go to pediatric surgery 71.189.186.162 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry i see now yes i agree it should be under pediatric surgery not obstetrics. Thankyou for the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.190.206 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Neonatology vs. Neonatal Surgery
Currently, there is an article for neonatology within Wikipedia. It is a subspecialty of pediatrics. This should not be confused as attaching neonatal surgery to the neonatology link as there is a difference between the two.

Such as in the case of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons where these two are distinct from each since the latter requires additional medical training (i.e. surgery) than the former, neonatologists and neonatal surgeons are not the same. The former practices the medical knowledge and advises non-surgical treatment to the patient while the latter utilizes the medical knowledge so it can be applied to the surgical-practice on the patient.

Application to Addison's Specialty
When using the link for Addison Montgomery's surgical specialty, we should attach neonatology only to encompass the neontal part and pediatric surgery if we encompass 'neonatal surgery' or its incarnations as a whole.

Here is an example
 * neonatal surgery, neonatal surgeon
 * neonatal surgery, neonatal surgeon

- DaBrain930 7:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

twitter source in opening paragraph
Why can't the story about the twitter account of shonda rhimes be moved to a reference? I think only the information itself (about the signing of the cast for more episodes) should be left in the article body. Cumulus (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Boston Legal wha?
"Initially airing as a midseason replacement for the legal drama Boston Legal..." Is this right? Boston Legal started in 2004 and went until 2008 or so, and Grey's Anatomy has gone 6 seasons. One show ran before the other and then there were some schedule changes, but Grey's Anatomy didn't replace any show.207.118.25.163 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Katherine Heigl
I deleted the Katherine Heigl-stuff from the season seven info, because she LEFT in season six. She's not mentionable in season seven unless she joins the show again, which will - most likely - not happen. I also added stuff to her departure-info in the season six-paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.45.232 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

social media in Grey's anatomy
check it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Series Status
Hi everyone. I was looking for some opinions on the status of Grey's Anatomy. I think it would be "running" yet a user has been arguing with me about that stating that it's "returning". To end the disagreement I think we should just erase the whole "status" out of the infobox. It already says the show is from March 27- present so clearly it is running/returning. Let me know if you think this is a good idea. TRLIJC18 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the discussion we were looking for. See? That's all we needed. Should the parameter be erased, a consensus would have been reached at Template talk:Infobox television, where it is currently being discussed at this moment. MegastarLV (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss but please don't act like you attempted to start a discussion. TRLIJC18 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What discussion was I even starting in the first place? Think again. MegastarLV (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we stop acting like children and move one. We're arguing about foolishness. TRLIJC18 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's all just focus on the upcoming consensus here. MegastarLV (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A one word status with no common understanding of what that one word means is the overall problem. In this case Season 7 aired its final episode May 19, 2011 and the show will be returning with the first episode of Season 8 airing on September 22, 2011. If you want a one word status to summarize that then "returning" would be a reasonable choice. Running implies to me that a season is in progress. Returning implies we are between seasons and that a new season is confirmed. We really need some standardization on this overall. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay but don't you think it would just be more logical to just delete "status" due to to the fact that it already says in the infobox that it is airing from March 2005- present? TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems as if the status parameter has caused temptation among several people (not just me and those who are in this discussion). I think it should just be removed from the infobox system (as I mentioned on Template talk:Infobox television). Those who agree should voice their opinion on the aforementioned page. MegastarLV (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree MegastarLV. The status parameter should be deleted. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I dislike the idea of deleting the status field in the infobox as it is, for now, a valid expected parameter. I also think it is useful to have a summary status. I just wish the infobox docs would give a list of valid values for this parameter with some definition. As a compromise, in this situation, and until the discussion at the infobox template talk page is finalized, deleting the parameter is probably the best for now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel though that since it already says 2005- present, it is clear of what the status is. But I see your point and agree it should be deleted until things are sorted out. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Attending Character Titles
Hello everyone. The characters who are attending surgeons in the show have certain titles ("Head" of their department) Although I.P. 71.194.42.93 feels that all their titles are "chief" of their department. The only time the title "chief" of a department has been used is when "Shadow-Shepherd" said that he was the interim chief of neuro until Derek came. That is not even using the title to describe Derek. No other character has been referred to as "chief" of their department. When Sloan introduced himself he said "Mark Sloan, head of plastics". Also he has been referred as "head of plastics" several other times and never "chief of plastics". The same goes for Derek. In the season 6 finale, Teddy said to Owen, "I'm going too, I am the head of cardiothoracic surgery"'. The past characters have also been referred as 'head" for example Burke. When Owen was introduced, the chief said to Mark and Derek, "Gentlemen, I want you to meet the new head of Trauma at Seattle Grace, Major Owen Hunt...". I think this is proof enough that their titles are "'Head' of their departments".  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the user cited episodes when the "chief" title was used more than once, and in the most current season (7). After reviewing those episodes, the user was correct that the show has used the "chief" title in more formal settings. Honestly, head/chief titles are interchangable and are the exact same thing. The former is used more colloquially, and the latter is used more formally. In those episodes cited, especially 7x06 (These Arms of Mine), documentary titles appear when Derek and Mark appear on-screen, showing "Chief of Neurosurgery" and "Chief of Plastic Surgery" respectively. In 7x08 (Something's Gotta Give), Webber introduces Altman and Hunt to the foreign dignitaries as "these are the chiefs of my cardiothoracic and trauma departments." In 7x19 (A Long Way Back), Karev addresses Stark as the "Chief of Peds Surgery". I also recall in 4x15 (Losing My Mind), Webber introducing Hahn to Tapley as his "chief cardiothoracic surgeon". It's not that the user was wrong as you were stating. The user cited several sources to back up their claim and your statement above is actually quite wrong that the show has never addressed the attendings as chief of their respective departments. So it's moreso now a question of which do we use as both titles are correct. IMO, I think we should use "Chief of" vs "Head of" as nearly all hospital websites show their staff as chief as opposed to head. And there it's more formal. Ace(talk) 20:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And to point out another error, I just watched 7x21, and Teddy's words were, "I'm coming. I'm a cardiothoracic surgeon. He has a penetrating injury to his chest. You don't get a vote this time, I'm coming, let's go." This is 31:55 into the episode. I believe your points would be better supported if they were a bit more accurate. Ace(T•CON) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see your point but you are listing a few areas where "chief" is used but seem to be forgetting the fact that "head" is used significantly more times. Another quote with the use of "head" is on episode 6x12 from Derek: "I'm the head of neurosurgery, I have a responsibility to this hospital." With Meredith then responding, "..I told my secret about my friend to my husband, not the head of neurosurgery..." Also, apologies for the quotation error, but please acknowledge that it was my only error in quoting I believe. Also, here is a webpage from Buddy TV which says "Dr. Derek Shepherd is the head of neurosurgery at Seattle Grace Hospital..." as the first sentence: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/greys-anatomy/character/derek-shepherd.aspx. Also on that website is Owen's article where it states "...Owen comes back to Seattle Grace as the head of the trauma department...". IMO, I think since "head" is used many more times as well as in most articles, that is what should be used. And to point out an error, the episode was 6x23 (Sanctuary- Season 6 Finale Part 1) where Teddy said that. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is used more colloquially. I was not in dispute that "head of" is incorrect or that it used more as the characters are well versed with each other intimately. As I've stated earlier, "head of" and "chief of" mean the same thing: both are interchangable. In more formal settings, the show has used "chief of" and in more colloquially settings, they use "head of". The latter is used more often as formal settings in the show aren't as frequent. I was rebutting your claim that the show has never referenced the "chief of" title and that your claim that the title is incorrect. I still believe "Chief of" should be in the infor box as the characters' title as it is more formal than "Head of". I don't believe frequency of use should determine what should be in there. I did bring this up before on the Grey's Anatomy wiki project back in season 4, and we agreed that "head of" should be used for consistency. Back then, the argument held true, but as seasons progressed, especially in season 6 and 7, the show has shown to use "Chief" more consistently with other specialities than cardio and neuro. The show has now used "chief of" with every active surgical speciality that currently has a lead attending (neuro, cardio, trauma, peds). Does anyone else want to weigh in? Ace(T•CON) 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Yes, you are correct, I entered the wrong episode. I was watching season 6 and 7 back to back, and I had written the penultimate episode of season 7 when Teddy's quote was in the penultimate episode of season 6. Ace(T•CON) 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge your points Ace although I still feel we should use what is colloquially used, as what was previously agreed on. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 22:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hopefully another contributor will weigh in. There was a consensus at one point due to a lack of consistency back in seasons 1-4; as the show has progressed an additional 3, and now 4, years from that point, the show has now shown consistency among the use of "chief of" during more formal situations, and "head of" during more of informal situations for the lead attendings. What was true in season 4 does not necessarily hold true to seasons 7-8. Perhaps another POV will push one way or the other. Ace(T•CON) 22:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully. Also, I believe the title "chief" was only used once for Teddy, Owen, and Mark. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as cited above. And all were used in formal situations or addressing another character formally. Ace(T•CON) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace, since no one has weighed in yet, do you think we should put the titles back to how they were formerly agreed on, "head" until a new consensus is reached? Because I don't think they should say "chief" until new consensus is reached. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop stating that "chief" is not referenced in the title changes of the attending characters when the other user and I have cited direct sources that it has been stated. The consensus was reached due to inconsistency, which has now changed, as explained earlier. If you're going to change, please be at least correct when listing reasons. Additionally, it would have been appreciated if you had waited for my response prior to changing all the characters; it serves no purpose to solicit my thoughts and then simply move regardless of them. Ace(T•CON) 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

By referenced, I meant actually a web reference which I mistakenly posted for Teddy and Mark but Derek and Owen have web refs on their pages. And regardless that it was due to inconsistencies, new consensus has not been reached anyways. I was correct in my statements for changing minus Teddy and Marks' web references. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:CCC. Previous consenus was reached due to a lack of consistency, this has since changed with the citations provided. Policy confirms that prior consensus is not binding. Furthermore, as stated, it is a courtesy when you solicit another contributor's thoughts to wait for their response prior to changing. The argument of consistency is valid due to the fact that prior consensus was reached on that basis. That basis no longer applies as consistency has now been applied to the other characters. Previous consensus has now changed. Ace(T•CON) 16:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are stating some true info but forgetting that new consensus has not been reached therefore, it should stay "head" as it was until another user gives their opinion. Nothing states that you get to decide what it stays under while discussion is undergoing. So please, leave it as it was which everyone agreed on until other users give their opinions. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Prior consensus is not binding. Please refer to WP:CCC. Please stop distorting citations as "some truth" as if some part is false; this is a fallacy. What I cite is completely true. In formal settings, the "Chief of" title has always been used. Given that the prior consensus was reached because another contributor had stated consistency was not used; that reasoning allowed for the prior consensus. This has now changed. That same user, Frickative, has given his response below in support of 'Chief of'.Ace(T•CON) 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the character of Robert Stark has not been referred to as 'Head of Pediatric Surgery'; thus far, his title was ambigious as Robbins reffered to him as her boss, and Webber stated that Robbins would have to work under him. The only reference of his title was given above to further show consistency with that of the "Chief of" title (7x19). If an article page is generated for the character, the title of "Head" would be inappropriate as it has never been stated by the show. Ace(T•CON) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the documentary the only time we've seen the titles written down? If so, I'd be inclined to go with 'Chief of', because it does away with the ambiguity of analysing the context of conversations to discern whether particular titles are being used formally or colloquially. Frickative  22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the documentary has been the only time, thus far, we've seen the titles written down, and not used in conversation or colloquially. As per our discussion years ago, we came to the consensus due a lack of consistency; the show has progressed since then to present that consistency across the board to those lead attendings. Ace(T•CON) 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are the contributor that feels that your version is the only one that should be applied, given that now there are three contributors that see "Chief" as the correct titles for these characters. Please do not discount me because I haven't created an account; this does not disqualify me as a contributor nor does it lessen my contributions for making WP:BOLD edits. The reasoning at the start of this was flawed to begin with. Every attempt that user Ace has shown you've blantantly ignored, just as you've blantantly ignored edits I've made on Callie Torres' page regarding her title. Although majority does not auotmatically grant consensus, you must see that three users view that "Chief of" would be the better solution. And User Ace brings up WP:CCC that prior consensus does not constitute binding reason for reverting the edits, policy which you seem to ignore. You are the only dissenting voice, and given the multiple blocks you've received thus far for edit waring on the multiple GA pages you've edited, perhaps the problem lies with your approach. When trying to persuade others with your arguments, you use more of your own thoughts and conjecture vs WP:policy to support claims. User Frickative and User Ace have valid points and seem to support my previous bold edits to the respective articles.  71.194.42.93 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I see your point now. I wasn't taking into consideration that "chief" was the only term used when a title was written down. Because of this, I feel that it should say "Chief". I'll change it on the list of GA characters and I'm disregarding the comments of 71.194.42.93 as they seem to be talking about me (the editor) and not the edit. And Frickative, thanks for your input. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 23:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Starring Billing
How was this list made? It has no particular order other than being a bit arbitrary. The listing should represent how the show itself lists the actors; additionally, the list should be inclusive of all cast members that had star billing regardless if they are no longer on the show.

The aggragated list is what should be on the show's info box as this is non-bias, verifiable, and is not OR. Ace(T•CON) 22:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So would you like the "aggragated" section to be what is used in the "starring" parameter of the infobox?  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 23:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm doing that now.Ace(T•CON) 23:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Critical Review Section and Tenses Adjustment
Hi everyone. I have been doing major edits to Grey's Anatomy recently to get it closer to GA status. I had previously nominated it where it was quick failed. I have corrected all but two issues listed on the GA review page. I have shifted the whole page from the usage of last names to first names. I have fixed the lead paragraphs to display the WP:LEAD standards in length. I have further cited the page. I have fixed the dead links. I fixed the infobox to reflect Template:Infobox television. I removed tons of unnecessary details from the "cast and characters" and "series overview" sections. So really all that needs to be done is to adjust the tenses so if someone could work on that, it would be great. Also, I created and basically completed a "Critical reception" section but it could use a tad of expansion if someone wants to take a spin at it. After that is done I will renominate this article for Good Article status. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)