Talk:List of Scrubs episodes/Archive 3

My Own Worst Enemy
The episode was brought back and given citations from a couple of reviews. While reviews are good, these don't really provide any true context to the episode. I don't really feel that those necessitate bringing it back. TTN (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What, in your opinion, would provides true context to the episode? --Pixelface (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Either detailed production notes (more than a couple of trivial bits) or reception comparable to My Musical would be suitable. TTN (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think the format of Bart the General would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you please drop the Simpsons? Using it to try to prove a point is pointless as you have been told by at least ten different editors at ten different points. TTN (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry. I think the format of Love and Rocket would be acceptable then. --Pixelface (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Futurama wikiproject (or at least the one editor that cares) is getting ready to start an episode by episode review of the series, so that is also irrelevant. TTN (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, then I think the format of Jaynestown would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You really don't know when to give up on WP:WAX, do you? All articles that do not assert notability or the possiblity to become notable will be redirected, deleted, merged, or transwikied eventually. Some will just take longer than others. TTN (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry. Is this a deletion discussion? Is that essay a policy now? Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. It's your opinion that these articles are about non-notable episodes. Did you pull out a crystal ball to determine that The Simpsons episode articles have the possibility to establish notablity but these these articles don't? You're working against current practice. When articles are split according to summary style, the sub-articles do not each have to establish notability. There is no consensus on this talk page that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the number of episodes currently in existence is nothing more than a very large oversight, "current practice" is not the correct term. And again, just because one side has a large number of people, it does not mean that they "win" over our longstanding policies and guidelines. The Simpsons currently have probably close to one hundred GAs and five FAs at this point. While that does not mean that every single episode will become good in the future, it provides a standard that we can obviously predict. Scrubs on the other hand, only has one GA, and that seems to be a special case. Summary style does not apply to this kind of thing, as the information being "split" is not valid information. TTN (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of television episode articles is a very large oversight? Oversight of what? One of Wikipedia's policies? We can talk about longstanding policies and guidelines if you want. We can talk about longstanding articles if you want. The article Bart the General has existed since May 8, 2003. The first reference to outside sources was added...today. The article went 4 1/2 years with zero mentions of outside sources. Now, seeing as how long that article has been allowed to develop, why should Scrubs episode articles be redirected? You mention that The Simpsons has several GAs and FAs. Are you saying that the notability of a few episodes make the other episode notable? I don't see how you can say the information in the Scrubs episode articles is not valid information. The information is as valid as the information in Duffless. Much of the information in television episode articles is verifiable by watching the episode. The episode is the primary source. WP:SUMMARY says nothing about sub-articles having to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) As I am not responding to this "I'll compare everything to The Simpsons" wikilawyering route of discussion, I'll only reply to the last two sentences. As policies and guidelines document, primary sources are fine in articles, but they cannot be the only sources available, and again, these are not summary style split off articles, so stop trying to bring it up. TTN (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the only source available in the Bart the General article for 4 1/2 years was the episode itself. If you don't like hearing about The Simpsons episode articles, the article Chickenlover has existed since September 2, 2005. There is no policy basis for redirecting episode articles as fast as possible. If an editor had actually merged the Scrubs episode articles into List of Scrubs episodes, the article would be too big per WP:SIZE and would need to be split again into sub-articles per WP:SS. The articles were conveniently turned into redirects instead. That is not a merge. Sub-articles do not have to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does pass the general notability guideline (I'm not bringing up FICT/EPISODE while they're disputed). Reviews are significant coverage. TWP and IGN are reliable. Neither is affiliated with ABC or NBC. Not all shows can hope to have reception sections as in depth as My Musical, Doomsday, Through the Looking Glass, but that doesn't mean that it should be redirected under a pretense of non-notability. Will (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While the definition significant coverage varies from editor to editor, it's certainly more than two reviews that provide nothing more than a rating and a quote each. Significant would mean having multiple reviews that tie together to give a general view of what people feel in both positive and negative lights. When I said comparable, I meant to add in the general view of the sections, not in length. It has to do more with providing a real feel for things rather than listing them. TTN (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the general notability guideline, I'd say the topic is just about notable. The guideline specifically defines notable as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." It does not mention the quantity of sources. ●BillPP (talk 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. TTN is just making ridiculous demands for shrubberies. Catchpole (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the relevant quote would be "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." The current sources do not provide anything that really makes this article its own topic. Note that I would be fine if more sources are found. It's just that letting an article stand because of two sources that don't really bind into anything seems rather pointless. TTN (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN is right here. No notability has been asserted for this episode. Did it win an episode-specific award? Did it feature an unusual feature of writing/camera-work/narrative, etc...? Did it boast a notable ratings achievement? Insofar as it was a broadcast episode it has left a real-world residue, but there is nothing here that per our own guidelines suggests this deserves its own article. The current debate at WP:FICT still requires such notability as a basis for a standalone article, so I think citing the guideline germane. I think interested editors need to work on changing our core notability guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what WP:FICT says if it doesn't describe current practice. Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to assert individual notability. They are considered sub-articles of a larger topic. WP:FICT needs to be rewritten to describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More shrubberies. WP:FICT says "For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise." We got audience figures and coverage of the reception from two sources. Of course the whole mentality behind the popular misuse of notability guidelines has been debunked in the mailing list and at the RFC at WT:EPISODE. Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FICT is a guideline. WP:NOT, however, is policy, and says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance".  This is policy.  I wonder how many times this has to be repeated before it sinks in? As for the article in question, a couple of reviews is a start, at least.  BLACK KITE  21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:PLOT is from a list of things Wikipedia is not. WP:PLOT says articles are not simply plot summaries. If an article has an infobox, it's not simply a plot summary. Now tell me what the word "should" means in WP:PLOT. Does it mean "must" or is it a recommendation? --Pixelface (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the infobox argument a bit weak to be honest. IMO, it's like saying episodes of Battlestar Galactica aren't simply live-action because of the little post-credits skit. Will (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, an infobox means an article does not violate WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. An infobox, in my mind, doesn't quality as "content." The article must have "content" beyond a plot summary.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An infobox is content. I see you think the word "should" at WP:PLOT means "must", but it doesn't say "must", it says "should." And why a list of things Wikipedia is not is saying articles must have certain things is beyond me. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with that. An article needs more than a plot section and an infobox. ●BillPP (talk 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I think mentioning Battlestar Galactica is appropriate. That's another series where current practice is that individual episodes do not have to establish individual notability. --Pixelface (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BSG episodes are actually on my todo list. I'll get a start on it right away, working backwards. Will (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion was originally about notability so I didn't bring it up, but this show brings out DVDs with commentary which would provide production information. The DVD with this episode is not out yet but it will be at some point soon. I'm in support of WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT but I don't think it would be a crime to be lenient so to wait until the DVDs come out with the information. ●BillPP (talk 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pixelface that infoboxes make the articles pass WP:NOT. If it still bothers Nmajdan, then we could write out the information in the infobox into the article, and it would seem to be very much information. For example (although I wrote it awkwardly) the infobox in this article could be summarized as:
 * "My Day Off" is the ninth episode of Season 1 in the American situation comedy Scrubs. "My Day Off" was written by Janae Bakken and directed by Elodie Keene. Charles Chun, who played Dr. Wen, Paul Collins, as Dr. Benson, Michael McDonald as Mike Davis, Trevor Davis as Tommy, Amelinda Embry as Jennifer, Angee Hughes as the admitting nurse, Dylan Wagner as Tommy's brother, and Drew Wicks, who played as Patient #1, all were guest stars. The original airdate was November 20, 2001. "My Day Off" followed the eighth episode "My Fifteen Minutes" and preceded "My Nickname."
 * ...which is all information from the infobox, and that wouldn't include the trivia and "cultural references" sections. I don't think we actually should do that, but I think it shows that information in infoboxes can be substantial. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I try again?

 * It obviously didn't work the first time. WP:NOT is policy and is not negotiable. Here - "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". You can take it that the "should" is not negotiable either.
 * If your article's a plot summary and an infobox, or a plot summary and two pieces of trivia, it doesn't get a free pass because "it's got something else apart from plot summary". Not correct.  It still hasn't got real-world context or analysis.
 * It doesn't matter about any other article. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
 * It doesn't matter if some editors on a talk page think that the articles don't have to meet certain policies of their choosing. They do.
 * ...and most importantly - why not improve the articles so they meet policies? Some have already -  why not spend the time that's being wasted here and elsewhere on arguing and reverting on actually fixing the articles so we don't have to have this argument again??  BLACK KITE  00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. ●BillPP (talk 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all very well and good Black Kite, but are you saying the word "should" at WP:PLOT means "must"? It says should, not must. If must was the consensus, it would say must. WP:NOT is a list of things Wikipedis is not. It says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Okay, that's fine. Then plot summaries are listed under that. It says articles are not simply plot summaries. An article with an infobox is not simply a plot summary.


 * And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is from a essay and means absolutely nothing, especially since this isn't even a deletion discussion (which, by the way, has already happened for several articles of this series, see Articles_for_deletion/My_Mirror_Image, and there was no consensus to delete them). I don't know anybody who has said the articles don't have to meet policies. The articles already do meet policies. I agree, why not improve the articles? How does a redirect help editors improve the articles? Why don't you go start WikiProject Scrubs if you're so concerned these articles need to be improved? Sweeping the articles under a rug by redirecting them does not improve them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that this still is a terrible choice. Everytime I look for information on a Scrubs episode, I feel very sad because I can't do this anymore. I don't see how this helps or improves wikipedia at all. Laynethebangs (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laynethebangs, Pixelface, et al. Removing the individual episode articles is a ridiculous effort.  Those of you forcing the issue are wasting energy due to losing sight of one thing.  The goal is to provide information to the end user.  I like Wikipedia as a source of information - saying that "you can find the information on another site" is a ridiculous argument, and killing these articles is stifling their chance to grow and become what you would call a worthwhile article. ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not me that's saying this - it's Wikipedia policy. And yes, it might seem like a pain, but as I said (and see WP:SOFIXIT) - those pages are available to be improved. Why not have a go?  BLACK KITE  08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles violate no policies. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. How is an editor supposed to improve an article while it's a redirect? --Pixelface (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I diasgree with your interpretation of this policy. ::Surely the real world context is covered in the lede where we state that the article is about an episode of a TV show that is broadcast on X channel. An infobox is just a handy way of presenting content in a way that aids navigation and consistency between articles. I also find that having separate articles is a much clearer way to present information than in a list of episodes. The idea that an infobox is not content is absurd. Real world information that is routinely included in an article about Scrubs episode includes airdates, viewing figures, details of cast and crew including guest stars. In no other area of Wikipedia have I come across this incessant desire to remove content rather than improve it. Catchpole (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is you that's saying this. Don't hide behind the policy.  You're the one who sat at the keyboard and typed that message - not the policy.  And I'd love to spend half my time sitting here working on articles - unfortunately I don't have that time to invest right now.  I have enough time to occasionally pop in and leave a message, or fix some typos in an article.  Additionally, you say that those articles are available to be improved, but by forcing this issue you are simply making the process more difficult.  There is no reason for it.  ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck the rules, if people want it back, bring it back. Wikipedia will be gone within two years if you admins and mods don't stop acting like pathetic children. --The monkeyhate (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous deletion discussion
I just stumbled across this discussion, Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image where the outcome was to keep the number of episodes discussed. I note since then that TTN et al have gone against this consensus and redirected many of the episodes discussed. Does this give a mandate to restore these articles to their prior status? Catchpole (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. The articles existed, went up on AfD, and there was no consensus in deletion so they remained. If they are restored, then, of course, that opens up the possibility for another AfD. But, given the outcome of that AfD a mere four months ago, you have reason to call for restoration.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Newer discussions can take precedence over older ones. Using that to restore them would be rather pointy anyways. TTN (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the articles went up against a non-biased party, there was no consensus, and the articles were kept. Bear in mind that this policy, while I do agree with it, isn't set in stone. This policy was not handed down by the Foundation. It was set by a consensus among Wikipedia editors and consensus can change. This AfD clearly shows that many people equally agree and disagree with this policy. Maybe the policy in general needs another look. If the articles are restored, I'm sure they'd go up again on AfD. I would be highly interested in the outcome of that. (And, I would vote delete/redirect to Scrubs articles.)↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right TTN. Newer discussion can take precedence over older ones. It's great that you came to a consensus among a handful of editors that the episode articles should be redirects, but consensus changed. Restoring the redirects that have no consensus would be quite disruptive indeed. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've counted the people who've voiced their opinion against the deletion of the episodes during the original discussion and also since the deletion took place and it calls for the episodes to be reinstated. Laynethebangs (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have any of the arguments changed? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 16 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) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is quite clear, and all those against the consensus are self-righteous dolts that are too proud to admit they're wrong. (This is my opinion and is hardly uncivilized. Far worse words could have been used.)69.117.172.143 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way is referring to someone as a selfrighteous dolt in any way civilised? Whether you think it is justified is irrelevant, it is still wrong to refer to well meaning contributors in such a fashion.Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you really consider them contributors? They seem more like reapers to me.69.117.172.143 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some concepts to be taken into account
I want to repeat here what I'm saying in the Centralized TV Episode Discussion about the value of the works we are talking about here. I'm a journalist and writer from Italy, I'm specialised in cinema and visual media. I'm not a "fan" of Scrubs, I'm writing a book on Scrubs. That means I need all the info I can find about Scrubs and Scrubs episodes, even mere plot synopsis are very useful to me, as I can recollect memories from each single episode through them, while I make connections, compare narratives and summarise styles and visual ideas. What can ben inferred from this? It's very simple: an episode overlook of ANY sort is not a mere fan service, as it can be very useful to researchers. And damn it, academic researches about pop art and popular media are common ground today! And more and more will be tomorrow! It's very very very very stupid to think a "serious" encyclopedia should not treat these matters, because that will turn it into a old-fashioned dumb encyclopedia. And Wikipedia can't be so.

But there are some other things to be noted. From an expressive point of view, some Scrubs' (or other series') episodes are far superior to most movies (and NOT necessarily the awarded episodes, nor the most appreciated ones by fans over the web, a very stupid way of selection for a "fan-less" encyclopedia indeed). The worst movies in film history are covered in great details here on Wikipedia. What makes some teen ninja movie a better subject for a Wiki page instead of a complex-structured, experimental episode of Scrubs?

And we can deep further in this area of hypocrisy showed by the "deletionists": actually Wikipedia is a place where I can find the very important information "[Amanda] Bynes, who has a dog named Midge and drives a white Lexus SC430", or "[Paris] Hilton is known for her love of small dogs, including a Yorkshire Terrier and a female Chihuahua named Tinkerbell". After reading that, it looks very silly indeed to call for an encyclopedia without fan content. I can know all about every American starlette, but I can't have a page about an episode of Scrubs, because the latter is "for fans only". It asks for some serious meditation. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record...
I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY THE EPISODE PAGES ARE BACK!! THIS MAKES ME REALLY HAPPY! THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO BROUGHT THEM BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the above opinion (but in lowercase letters). Thank you Pixelface and Tim Q. Wells! You guys are fighting the good fight. Mwlin1 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IN LOWER CASE LETTERS?!?! YOU'RE NOT A REAL FAN! just kidding. I was really excited when I wrote that though, it required some larger letters. Laynethebangs (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These will be redirected again soon
Per the original discussion to only leave the episodes that assert notability, I will be redirecting these again pretty soon. Remember that consensus is based upon arguments rather than numbers, so fans coming to complain have no impact on it. The people here can either continue to whine, wikilawyer, and edit war, or you can actually try to work on the episodes or just utilize one of the many sites that contain plot summaries and trivia for television shows. I recommend that the people complaining go comment over at the relevant guidelines (WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT) to try to change them if they really want to continue with this. TTN (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can help myself from reverting your edits pretty soon since I see no consensus in the "original discussion" as an reasonable explanation for redirection.  Ga lad ree-el  17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate is on-going and as determined by my objective observation, no consensus has been driven yet. Any further actions that are mostly based on an intensely disputed guideline are completely depreciated and should be restrained to a rational limitation. At the same time, please pay certain respect to your fellow collaborators and it is not a wise comment to synchronize every editor as "fans". Lastly, before suggesting people to take part in the discussion, please pay a visit there on your own first and state your opinion. Defend your actions instead of waiting for others to do it for you.  Ga lad ree-el  17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is the 166th most viewed article on all of Wikipedia. It's viewed 124,235 times per day. You said yourself, "Newer discussions can take precedence over older ones." It's nice that you and Eusebeus and Sceptre could agree on something at the end of November, but consensus changed. I recommend you base your arguments on policy instead of two disputed guidelines. --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said discussions, not votes. The people wanting to keep these have not discussed; they have whined, wikilawyered, and edit warred to keep their precious articles or establish their point in your case. If they had discussed anything, we would be setting up a plan to improve these or going over each one to find notability (something I'd be fine with). My arguments are based off of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS (also WP:NOT and others), which require articles to establish notability with reliable sources. EPISODE and FICT are used because they expand upon the principals set up in those. TTN (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call 3 or 4 editors talking for 5 day at the end of November a "discussion." WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:N does not say if an article lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that means it's non notable. WP:N says "look for sources yourself". Have you done that? The information in the episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes themselves. I certainly think the articles could be improved by citing reliable, third-party, published sources per WP:RS, but that's a little harder to do when the articles are redirects. The episode articles are not solely a detailed summary of the episode's plot, so WP:NOT does not apply. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So now you're going to wikilawyer over words; that's great. Unless it states that articles can be notable without sources (which would go against everything else), it is fine to assume that an article isn't notable without them. I have already pointed out to you that WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Editors can create sandboxes, find references before bringing back the an article, discuss here before bringing back an article, bring back the article and place one of the work in progress tags, or anything like that, so it is quite easy work as they are redirects. Again, don't wikilawyer over words. If the article only contains a plot summary, original research, bad trivia, quotes, and other junk, it is still just a plot summary with some filler. TTN (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it seems to me that you're trying to follow WP:N and WP:PLOT to the letter while ignoring the spirit. The episodes are notable. And Scrubs is the topic. The episodes are sub-topics. You're free to place cleanup tags on the articles to point out any issues you think need to be addressed. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The spirit of N is that topics need to assert notability by establishing themselves in the real world, and PLOT's is that articles cannot primarily be plot summaries, thus they need real world context. These are not split off articles. Split off articles are lists like this one or sections of an article that become too long, while still staying encyclopedic. These are summaries that do not need to exist on their own, as they can be contained within a much smaller space very easily. The point of placing tags has passed (that would have been for before the redirects), and it has been shown that most of these do not have potential anyways. TTN (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the spirit of the notability guideline is that topic of an article should be notable. These episodes are notable. Have you asked the articles' creators for advice on where to look for sources like WP:N advises? WP:N does not say that if an article currently lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" that means a topic is not notable. Such sources only suggest notability. The articles do have real world context. And go read the summary style guideline. You can't show that the articles do not have potential unless you've actually looked for sources. Have you? If you want to merge the cast information and music information and production information from each episode to List of Scrubs episodes, be my guest. But redirecting the articles because they are not notable in your opinion is simply unacceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all articles should be notable, but as Notability and Notability show, that is not always the case. Again, it does not have to state the negative for the negative to be true; stop wikilawyering. Also, stop going around in circles involving establishing notability. The articles are currently not notable and nothing shows that more than the five or six that were kept are going to become notable. It's up to the editors asserting that they're notable to provide sources.


 * I suggest that you read SUMMARY, as it clearly talks about sections of an article that are viable encyclopedic topics being split off for size reasons (see the WWII example there), not the sections of a list. And again, the summaries fit in the this list just fine, so they are not long enough to be split anyways. Important cast information is either covered within other articles (main characters) or the summary (important guest characters), music is generally not included within episode lists unless there is something special about it, and if these have relevant production information, the article should already be asserting notability. TTN (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:N says significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable. That is speculation, which violates the no original research policy. Objective evidence would be a reliable source explicitly saying that something is "notable." I'm not wikilawyering. You're taking the lack of sources as an indicator that something is not notable. The episodes are notable. Millions of people have seen them and thousands of people visit this article every day. Scrubs is definitely notable for more than 5 or 6 episodes. The episode articles are sub-articles and sub-topics per WP:SUMMARY. Either merge in the information from the episode articles into this list or leave the articles as they are so they can develop. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're trying to bend words that were specifically left vague in order to prove a point, so that is wikilawyering. Just because they are vague does not mean that they can be bent backwards. Before claiming that episodes are notable because people watch them, read over the section about objective evidence that you just quoted. Again, they are not sub-topics. Otherwise, characters, chapters of a book, locations in a fictional work, ect are all viable sub-topics because they appear in the pieces of media that are viewed by millions of people, so they are viewed every day by millions of people. All relevant information is already covered here. TTN (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not bending words. I agree that significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable. But I hardly think that's the only way of suggesting a topic is notable. The fact that 9% of all televisions in use in the United States (over 7 1/2 million viewers) were watching Scrubs indicates the episodes are notable. The fact that the article List of Scrubs episodes is the 166th most viewed article on all of Wikipedia and viewed over 120,000 times per day indicates the episode are notable. The fact that were was such an outcry after the articles were redirected indicates the episodes are notable.


 * Fictional characters and locations in a fictional work are viable sub-topics, see Category:Lists of television characters, Category:Lists of characters in written fiction, Category:Fictional characters, Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings, Category:Fictional locations, etc. I don't think Wikipedia is improved by redirecting these episode articles. --Pixelface (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is subjective notability, which does not help here. You can talk about the significance of numbers all day, but it still doesn't change anything. When speaking of characters and locations, I meant ones confined to lists or single topics. It's like saying any minor character that millions upon millions of people have seen in various episodes is automatically notable, or any random patient used for a joke in this show is notable because seven million people saw the character and possibly talked about the joke. If you want these to be automatically notable, make sure the policies and guidelines support them before trying to wikilawyer your view into this. As of now, all topics need to assert notability in order to stand; work on getting that changed. TTN (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These episodes are not notable, and unlike Pixelface who simply asserts they are, I have a raft of policies and practices that back up my assertion. I therefore concur that the episode articles will be redirected unless efforts are made to demonstrate notability per our standards. I see lots of grandstanding and wikilawyering, but no actual efforts to improve the articles to permit retention. We made these points last November and no-one provided any evidence to indicate that Scrubs episodes were generally notable. We don't need to argue this again. The consensus for the redirection of unnotable articles remains unchanged. Scrubs is no exception. Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So cite the policies that back up your assertion. The articles Homer's Odyssey, Mind War, Pinkeye (South Park episode), M*A*S*H the Pilot, Our Mrs. Reynolds, and Colonial Day all existed before WP:N was even a guideline. That is common practice and WP:N does not accurately describe common practice. You know that Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) is notable but that article cites no secondary sources. Care to explain that? --Pixelface (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pixfelface, you know perfectly well that this discussion is about the List of Scrubs episodes, not other stuff. I'll ask you this: What notable episode didn't survive the merger and how did that article stack up against notable episodes that were left up such as My Musical and My Screw Up?Notthegoatseguy (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN really has a problem with wikilawyering apparently. Laynethebangs (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think TTN and Eusebeus are right about this issue, and that the arguments made before still stand. However, I strongly urge everyone to stop reverting each other. While many shows and episodes don't require much time to assess them, and we don't want to have to repeat the same arguments for every show, we have here a situation where it will be better to convince other users of these rationales rather than just forcing the issue. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were possible to convince them, I wouldn't mind taking some time to do it. But we're facing the bad type of inclusionism, so it cannot really be done. As I said, I wouldn't mind an episode by episode review or something, as long as it actually will get the job done. TTN (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. I just went through each episode article for the first three seasons.. These articles are in horrible shape. Some of them can be nicely merged into the LOE, but many of them do need to be re redirected. Most of them don't even have any real content. No worries, TTN, establishing a firm solid consensus to merge/redirect these articles will be a walk in the park. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys honestly can't let this go. I've been so happy that the last few days I could watch Scrubs and get information on the episode, and you're going to take this away from me. Obviously, you guys aren't even fans of the show or else you'd enjoy having the episode pages. I mean, I just really can't believe you guys. You can't let a few hundred people be happy just to let one rule slip. And in a hundred years, I'm sure that people will be looking back on your great accomplishments here by enforcing wikipedia rules instead of making a few people happier with their lives. If it has to be done then I guess it has to be done, I just wish people like TTN would be nicer about it. Instead of being a robot, try comprising. We're all just people trying to get by, man. Do whatever makes you feel right, though. This whole thing has made me sad and is leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth about wikipedia. Laynethebangs (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be downhearted. Your tormentors are like the Janitor rather Doctor Kelso.  They don't outrank you because you are an editor too and so your actions and opinion are as good as theirs provided that you act in good faith.  They act officiously but seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
 * Scrubs may be being picked upon because it seems to be a soft target. The answer then is to get organised.  Perhaps we should start a Scrubs project or task force?  You can read all about this here:  WP:PROJECT.  There is some bureaucracy associated with this too but the basic idea is to work together in a communal way rather than individually.  The mechanics of the wiki mean that there is strength in numbers.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as another show has it.  :)Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually a big fan of Scrubs. I do have an idea for a compromise, though. Season pages. They're a step between the LOE and individual episode articles. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. With all due respect, you sure have a funny way of showing that you're a fan of the show. To provide an initial reaction to your proposal, I think season pages -a seemingly reasonable compromise- are not likely going to work as a substitute for all the individual episode articles. I obviously can't speak for all users and their needs, but people go to individual episode pages for a reason. Mwlin1 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do try to be objective, regardless of my own personal likes or dislikes. I'll see if I can find some good examples of season pages to show you guys. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I have no problem with this, being helpful and human and trying to help the situation. Also, I'm trying to get the Scrubs dvds, after which I'd be able to listen to commentaries and expand the articles, I'm hoping. Laynethebangs (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion on these new reverts?
Or is someone just going against the new cease fire I thought we'd drawn up. Laynethebangs (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No discussion I can see. As per above there is no consensus for these latest redirections by Eusebeus. Catchpole (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user for 24 hours for disruption. Lack of discussion anywhere, lack of edit summary further than 'rv'.  Cowman109 Talk 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A):No cease-fire is in place.
 * I didn't mean a cease-fire was literally in place. I meant that we'd seemed to have found some peace. I mean, I usually sit for hours at home drawing up cease-fires just in case something like this happens but we didn't actually formulate one here.
 * B):Plenty of discussion on this topic by Eusebus, on this talk page.
 * C):A random check of the Scrubs episode articles show that no one has taken any time to improve them, and they still fail WP:N and WP:V. The redirect was completely justified.Kww (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have no issue if another administrator wishes to unblock him, but glancing at his contributions, he hasn't engaged in any discussion in a week and his last edit related to this was a post on User:TTN's talk page apparently accusing others of bad faith. When he comes out of nowhere after 7 days and blindly reverts with essentially no edit summary of explanation and doesn't explain what he did anywhere, I find that clearly disruptive. There is an arbitration case ongoing to address such issues. But, like I said, if any other administrator wishes to unblock go ahead. Cowman109 Talk 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record, going about blindly reverting all of Eusebeus' edits can be viewed as just as equally disruptive, so I would suggest you just leave things however they are and continue discussion. Perhaps looking at articles on an individual basis in the meantime may be more productive rather than the entire series as a whole, at least until some sort of consensus is drawn up? Cowman109 Talk 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kww's points above. I restored the redirects since last I checked WP:NOT still pertains and these articles remain simply a goulash of plot summaries and trivia, both of which are strongly discouraged. As a result, our policies are clear: these articles fail to assert the required notability and redirection is thus the best solution. I understand that some editors disagree, but we have provided plenty of explanation for such actions and have clearly, patiently and repeatedly noted why the individual episode pages fall foul of our notability policies. Moreover, the extent of this discussion easily passes whatever burden should be imposed for providing a clear rationale for such actions and have also noted the existence of the Scrubs wikia where such content would be better placed. What more can be asked? Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole process is getting pretty tired. Not one person that wants to keep all of the articles has tried to improve them. Not one. If you want summaries, TV.com is --> over here. The purpose of this site is to discuss the episodes encyclopedically, which requires real world information. We have kept the episodes that show the most potential for that. TTN (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I had final exams for the past two weeks. Before that, we had just reverted the articles. I honestly couldn't clear anytime to work on the Scrubs pages. Now, I have time and you've taken away that chance. Plus, I've seen alot of articles with more information added to them. Is this just me? Laynethebangs (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just you - there are a lot of people who feel as you do, and this difference of opinion is causing clashes across the TV project. However, that aside, you can still work on the articles if you have material; just copy the text out of the article history (ask if you want help) and edit it in your user space. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not the only person available, so that's rather irrelevant. As Ckatz said, the chance is not taken away anyways (see User page). If anything has been added, it's not relevant to improving them; it's most likely just more cruft (feel free to provide diffs to show otherwise. TTN (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a citation that's it's "cruft." --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I note further that recent efforts to overthrow the plot summary prescription at WP:NOT were roundly dismissed, so there is simply no rationale or justification for retaining these episodes, especially after such a lengthy discussion has resulted in NO improvement whatsoever. Thus, unless someone can demonstrate why it should be otherwise, I propose that we redirect the remaining articles per the lengthy back and forth above. I think the basis for this action is crystal clear and  efforts to forestall are wikilawyerish, pointy and gaming the system. Eusebeus (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to hold your horses until the arbitration case is decided. Catchpole (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not be to enforced by "wikipolice." --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to all editors here: all Scrubs articles are to stay in the form the are currently, regardless of what it is. No one is permitted to redirect/unredirect. See here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is limited to the involved parties of the case, but it would be wise advice for everyone else as well. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not. The injunction prevents editors from doing this, not just parties to the case. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the case. I will repost the injunction below, although editors need to be warned of the injunction on their talk pages if they perform such actions. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction on television episode/character articles
1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

In this ongoing arbitration case, the arbitration committee enacted the above temporary injunction which applies to all editors. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Episode #
Why is scrubs one of the few TV shows without an episode number? Juice10 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do all the episode links in season 2 redirect to the list of episodes
86.27.55.60 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)It seems unlike the rest of the episodes season 2 redirects straight back the list of episodes? i though all the episode articles were back? 86.27.55.60 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Going Forward with Episode Redirects/Establishing Notability
Ok, the arbcom case is about to close and with it the injunction will presumably be lifted, so let's get the ball rolling here to restore a semblance of encyclopedic order to the world of Scrubs. To quickly summarise, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:FICT) the problematic areas are the following: It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact that individual episodes and characters have. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced. Now, it is the contention of a number of editors, myself included, after having looked for material about Scrubs episodes and characters that would satisfy our notability and fiction criteria that for the vast majority of Scrubs episodes and characters, demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion. Per the now almost-completed arbcom ruling, which exhorts: "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." editors are invited to contribute to this question. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is: Because of the prior contentiousness that has surrounded this, it would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable. Finally, if we still cannot come to an agreement, we'll trundle this off to mediation. I was dismayed that, despite lengthy discussion, earlier redirects were reverted in violation of our consensus policies. However, in the spirit of the arbcom ruling, I would suggest that no action be taken on any Scrubs episode or character until we have achieved some kind of agreement via the above or a mediation ruling has been handed down. This has been under discussion for a long time, so in the interest of moving forward, I suggest a further one week of debate and then, should it be necessary (and hopefully not), we can file for mediation. Eusebeus (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most (not all) episodes are written from an in-universe perspective and fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent third party reliable sources.
 * Individual character articles which also do not aspire to the above criteria and are similarly dominated by an in-universe perspective.
 * agreement to merge and redirect, or
 * clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case episode and character articles should be retained.


 * I appreciate your reasoned approach here. I greatly encourage editors interested in these articles to find sources that demonstrate "real-world" impact.  I greatly encourage deletion-minded editors to accept these sources, even if they seem somewhat tenuous.  The consensus/compromise appears to be that when episode articles are unable to hurdle the notability bar, we will merge the information into a list (by season if necessary) with a generous plot summary of up to five paragraphs per episode.  There also appears to be a good deal of support for the editor proposing the clean-up to be responsible for merging the information into a list (remembering to "lose" as little information as possible).  Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also going to post this at Fiction/Noticeboard to garner greater participation. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Ursasapien's view as a reasonable middle ground, but I'd like to add that I don't regard one or two (and maybe even three) sentences for production and/or reception as enough significant real-world information to justify a separate article. See also the current discussions at WT:EPISODE. Most plot summaries of Scrubs episodes are reasonably short to be merged in full if season articles are started. If the Scrubs episode editors can agree with this also, the work here can start (I guess in about two weeks) even though the discussions at WT:EPISODE haven't concluded yet. – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sgeureka above about the production issue (which needs to assert impact, not existence). If we are going to have 5 paragraphs of plot summary per episode, that is in effect an argument for retaining individual episodes. I think summaries should be much shorter - i.e. 1-2 paragraphs, per the recc'ied standard discussed at WP:NOT & in subsidiary discussion @ WP:FICT. Five para plot summaries belong on wikia, not here. Concision is our goal here. Eusebeus (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare these three Scrubs plot paragraphs with these two Simpsons plot paragraphs. There shouldn't be so much of a focus on paragraphs, but a general number of lines (which isn't so huge for most Scrubs episodes anyway). I also like Ned's proposal below, having considered a similar option myself before. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Eusebeus (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't read all of the suggestions yet, but here's my thoughts for a next step (it might not be a final step, but just a possible next one): Season pages with one to two paragraph summaries, as well as non-summary information like special cast changes and so on. It's more "breathing room" than a normal LOE, and is a lot less drastic. I'm not sure if that much summary is a good or bad thing (personally, I wouldn't be bothered by that much summary. Format and organization has a lot to do with my feelings on episode articles as well as WP:PLOT), but it would be a starting point. Episodes that should have full articles would still have them.

Each entry on the season page would have a ShortSummary and a LongSummary parameter. The table portion of the season pages would then be transcluded on the main LOE, reducing redundant editing, and would display the ShortSummary instead of the LongSummary on the main LOE.

That's my suggestion. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that individual episodes of a show like scrubs can have their notability satisfied. I've seen it done with various shows, including lots of GAs.  I guess the question is whether we require them to show their notability now, or if potential is enough.  If potential is enough, then let them all live.  It's going to be the rare (or nonexistant) scrubs ep that can't come up 10 refs given enought digging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If Scrubs episodes are not notable then how does aggregating them into a list improve matters? It seems to me that this is really a matter of style, taste or presentation.  I much prefer the individual episode format with a list purely being used for navigation and so oppose a TTN-style of merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) If they are truly non-notable, seven bad articles are better than 150 bad articles. Or Eusebeus suggested to go with just one article (this LoE), if that's what you prefer. (2) Per WP:FICT, In other cases, notability of fictional topics is better demonstrated for a common group than in individual articles for each topic. (3) If individual Scrubs episodes are in fact notable, there has been no progress to prove this. – sgeureka t•c 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend ignoring notability for the time, it really is a big distraction to the issues. We should focus on what is the best way for Scrubs to be covered in Wikipedia. I think everyone agrees that information regarding individual episodes of Scrubs should be available here. The argument is over the way this information is presented. In my view we should make use of the fact that Wikipedia is not paper. Hyper-links exist to make information accessible and I think that having a series of small articles rather than a big long list of information is of benefit to our readers. Catchpole (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Seeking to ensure content complies with our core policies is a red herring? No, I don't think so. We need to cover those episodes of Scrubs that have demonstrable real-world impact, certainly, and from an out-of-universe perspective. Episodes that cannot demonstrate this notability should be redirected per one of the suggestions above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a core policy. It's not even a policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Single pages encourage pointless trivia and blow-by-blow plot summary. Again, I strongly suggest a per-season approach. I do not think they would be too large, and would likely be better maintained in this way as well. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you end up redirecting or whatever these articles, be aware you are redirecting noteable articles. I'm not going to bother establishing noteablity for 100+ articles, but it can and will be done. An imprecise google news archive search turns up over 5,000 hits like this NYT one. Google news searches turn up a small fraction of all newspaper articles that were written. Most were subsequently put into a subscription only/pay area. Just like the simpsons are slowly turning all their ep pages into GAs, scrubs has that potential. I'm not going to edit war over this, like TTN used to, but don't make this decision saying that NOTE or FICT has your back. If you think that season pages are a better way to organize this info until the time someone adds refs, that's fine. But don't think that refs don't exist for these episodes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the same search for Carnivàle episode where I know that /(almost) no episode would be able to support its own article. I got over 700 google news hits for 24 episodes, and if I scale that for the Scrubs episodes, I would pretty much come to the same conclusion: Not all (by far) episodes of Scrubs are notable enough / have enough real-world content for their own article. As before, editors are strongly encouraged to demonstrate this notability for all articles they think have notability. For the rest, WP:FICT suggests that (in this case) season articles are a fine solution. But I see this thread will not come to agreement, so it will head for dispute resolution in the long run. This is unfortunate. – sgeureka t•c 11:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since multiple episodes of Carnivàle won Emmy awards, your contention that they could not support separate articles seems absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I spent six months finding and reading every last bit of information I could find on Carnivàle, in order to make the topic a Featured Topic, I would consider it absurd that someone disagrees with me without spending the same amount of time with the topic and proving me wrong. – sgeureka t•c 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, without having even heard of Carnivàle before now, I still disagree. The explanation seems to be our understanding of the word support.  Your view seems to be of what is required to support good article status.  Mine is of what is required for an article to survive AFD.  The latter is, of course, minimalist but seems the stronger practical consideration.  Anyway, there need be no clash between the two.  Having individual episode articles for Carnivàle would not have stopped the main article from being featured, would it? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Carnivàle would not have been able to become a Feature Topic with individual episode articles. And of what use are articles that do nothing other than say "PLOT PLOT PLOT PLOT (TRIVIA ORIGINAL_RESEARCH TRIVIA) PLOT PLOT. And oh yeah, this episode was nominated for best hair style." LoEs (or season articles for that matter) achieve exactly the same. But this is getting into personal wikiphilosophies again, and I am not in the mood to get into another long discussion why Scrubs episodes defy the standards set by policies and guidelines. If nothing else works to come to agreement here, I support the step to go to dispute resolution. – sgeureka t•c 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are only 35 featured topics, this concept seems too perfectionist. Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To achieve perfectionistm, you have to go from bad to good first. And the Scrubs episode articles haven't even achieved a good state yet (as in, they satisfy basic policies and guidelines) and currenly make no motion to ever do so as individual articles, so any claims about (my) perfectionistic views are besides the point. I found arbcom's 2nd proposed finding quite helpful about wikipedia's mission, and I'll leave at that. – sgeureka t•c 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The programme outlined above by you and others seems to be a continuation of the mass changes for which TTN is being reproved by arbcom. Arbcom specifically enjoin us not to engage in disputatious edits and to engage in constructive discussion.  You indicate that you prefer to force the issue and don't want to discuss it.  My impression is that Wikipedia would be better served if you were to withdraw from this topic and work on improving another topic such as Haydn, which seems in need of much improvement.  It is generally easier to work on a mature topic such as Haydn because there are more abundant sources and the scholarship is more settled.  Scrubs has yet to finish its primary run and so is not a good topic for a perfectionist approach.  Why exactly are you so intent on attacking this particular topic at this time?  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You did a good job on the Carnivale (C) articles; maybe it will lay the foundation for Carnivale episode articles. The difference between Scrubs (S) and C articles is the number of episodes and the time period they were discussed.  Those 5000 S hits are going to be mostly about the past year, and don't count the 5,000 hits each year should have.  Take a look at a google news search for scrubs episodes.  At the time of this post, it returned 98 hits, most about the recent possible shift to ABC.  Compare it to a google news search for carnivale episode which returns 12 hits, none of which are about a C episode.  The reason is that this information is time sensitive, not that it doesn't exist.  If you have a LexisNexis account, you can establish notability even for obscure middle schools.  Episode articles on network programs are much easier.  Unfortuanately, S hasn't had an ep for a while, so the articles are behind pay to view barriers now.  Looking at an ep that aired more recently, "What he Beheld" from the new terminator show turns up 9 hits, which will soon dwindle.  One of the hits is the New York Post.  Searching for "scrubs episode" in their archives turns up nothing, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's now pay per view only.  With a three thousand dollar LexisNexis account, I could assert notability for almost all these episodes, and would also be able to determine which ones truly aren't notable.  Basically, you can establish notability for this weeks episode of most shows, and if you don't, you never will again.  This flies in the face of our "notability is permanent" rule, and needs to be considered. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge all of the articles per WP:N except for the ones in Scrubs and (e.g. like my previous !vote, but with the now notable MOWE added in). Although Ned's proposal sounds good.  Will (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Close & Redirect We seem to have general consensus that the articles here, with the exceptions noted above by Will, fail to assert real world impact. As a result, redirection is the best course of action. If we cannot agree on this course, I suggest we move to mediation forthwith, since no demonstrable evidence of real-world impact has been shown and that remains, per WP:FICT the prevailing standard. The back and forth above does not address that core problem and as a result suggests that further movement is unlikely. Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again "real world impact" is a complete red herring. The issue is how best to present information about individual episodes, which in my view is best accomplished by having standalone articles on each episode and making use of the navigational benefits of the hyperlink to present information in a more elegant manner than as a mere list. However I believe that having an article for each season may go some way to alleviating the (imo needless) concerns expressed above and establish a compromise which all editors here can accept. Catchpole (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus that redirection is the best course of action - not even close. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve them, if we're !voting. If someone with a LexisNexis account were to improve some random ep then tell me they can't improve the others, I'll beleive sources don't exist.  I'm certain they do, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in what you say about LexisNexis and will look into obtaining such an account. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LexisNexis costs about $3000 a year, I think. Some students can access it for free, at least law students.  Local libraries might have access to it as well, I don't know.  I'm a wikiproject Oregon participant sometimes, and we have a law student who helps out.  Whenever someone nominates an Oregon high school or something supposedly not notable like that for deletion, he slaps five to ten refs on it and the AfD is over.
 * Most episode article sources are from a time period of about 1 month before it airs to about one week after it airs. Magazines and newspapers only allow you to access their articles for about 2 weeks to a month, then their gone.  As a thought experiment, try finding sources for an episode that just aired, then try finding them for an episode from the previous season.  For a show as big as Scrubs, you'll find 10 for the new one and zero for the old one.  Repeat a year later and again you'll find 10 for the new one, and none for the one that you used to be able to find 10 for.
 * TV Squad has reviewed a lot the later episodes and they don't pull their content. Same with IGN.  Buddy TV does recaps that include a small amount of commentary.  There's also tons of season reviews that will comment on individual episodes.  I would include some newspaper reviews, but the one month window has passed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that I have access to News UK through my local library. This may help, especially with the UK shows.
 * This explains why a fresh episode of Lost can have zillions of references while articles on older works suffer. It is a good example of systemic bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, good luck with that. It's too bad one has to be a university student with a good amount of eperience in researching just to prove a tv episode is notable but that's how it is right now, at least until magazine and newspaper archives become add supported. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty
You guys are free to keep arguing, but once I get some time I'm going to start formatting season articles similar to ones used on List of Lost episodes. Don't worry, this format doesn't take any side in the debate, so doing that alone should be non-controversial. However, once done it will be very easy to show how easily most of these articles can live in a parent article (and be better presented that way). -- Ned Scott 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects will be undone, that's the will of the fan base
The admins are definitely abusing the fact that Scrubs has a smaller fanbase than a lot of shows. For example, where's the effort to redirect the individual episode articles for Family Guy? 68.101.73.64 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively the admins are going on consensus that has been proven time and again that there isn't sufficient notability for most articles? I'd love to see every Scrubs article GA class or better, that would be fantastic, but let's face it it will not happen as the outside world doesn't care enough about the episodes to talk about them much - and that means they fail WP:N thus cannot stay. I'm inclusionist so I say that very very begrudgingly but it's a fact. This debate has gone on a long time, long enough for people to add sources if found. No one has and time is up! Put the articles back when sources are found, that's fine they exist in the redirect page history, but not before. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any admins have anything to do with this. User:TTN did it a while ago and has since been barred from doing things like this by the arbitration committee at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re-redirection
User:Eusebeus is restoring the redirects ("rv to loe per fict"), again, despite the fact that there has no been no further discussion, nor has the WP:FICT discussion come to any final decision. Although i have tried to distance myself from these discussions in recent months, I feel that this in violation of the recent arbcom dicussion, and believe Eusebeus should be reported to the arbcom enforcement board. Comments? --Jac16888 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 3.1) Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.
 * I'm for reporting to an arbcom board Runciman81.109.247.173 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WT:FICT makes it abundantly clear that pure plot synopses are not acceptable encyclopedic content - no-one has made any attempt to improve the content here. Point me to that part of the ongoing discussion that deems this content acceptable. The arbcom decision is not a blank cheque to allow unencyclopedic content to persist, despite whatever personal enthusiasms you may have for such fan-driven material. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out the following mailing list thread - . Catchpole (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the point of that is. The fact is that this remains fundamentally a content issue. Enough wikilawyering: when editors can provide sourced material with a real-world focus, then we should have individual episode articles. Otherwise, these articles will be redirected per the long-established and now renewed consensus at the Fiction guideline: articles that are simply vehicles for plot summary are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to keep checking back here to make sure no one's trying to get rid of the episodes again. Just stop. The fan base is strong enough, and this show is no different then all the other shows that have individual episode articles. 75.69.196.36 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out one of the outcomes of the arbcom decision which supports the many of us that want episode articles, "[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) " Eusebeus is ignoring this and does need to be reported to arbcom for his constant redirecting and ignorance of other editors of this wiki entry. 86.27.66.246 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)