Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Grey's Anatomy task force

Welcome to everyone!
I was planing to put this section here when we are going to be more users, but I think that until we wait for that we are going to lose a lot of time, time that we can use to improve the articles. So, when I new user will join the project could read this and will know what's the project about.

Ok a little info about the project! I am a user from another wikipedia who edits articles conected to Grey's, but when I see that on this wikipedia the articles are in mess I decided to join. Than I meet the user Frickative, user with lot of experience and knowledge about Wikipedia and about Grey's too. So at the beginning we had a few arguments but than we realised that is better to cooporate and improve the articles together. After a while she decided to make this project and by now we are only two users. But I hope a lot of you will join us and help us soon.

So I wish everyone a warm welcome and I hope soon that we are going to be more and more. I think that there is nothing more to be said, so I would recommend everyone to read the upper section and the section below this one and than you will know what can do to improve the articles and how to do that. I wish everyone a welcome again and if you have any questions about the project or something else to ask simply ask me or Frickative. Best wishes to everyone. ---Max(talk) 15:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Guide:How to edit the character's articles.
All of us would want to improve the articles but we often don't know how. (how to begin, what to improve, on what way etc.) So, because of that I made this guide for all of you who don't know where to start. So, simply look this guide and you will get the point.

First of all, the style of the article. The article should be from neutral point of view like every Wikipedia article. So please DO NOT show favoritism to any of the characters or opposite, a dislike. So if you really don't like some of the characters simply don't edit about them and that's it. And if you really like some of the characters then write only real things about them and don't make them like they are some kind of gods. Next, always add references to the articles. You shouldn't write a very big and detailed plot, just the most important stuff. (4-6 paragraphs max) Simply, obey the rules and everything will be fine. I know that these stuff are a bit boring but I had to mentioned them.

At the beginning the articles about the characters had the following structure:

1. The introduction was like this: The Character name is the name of a fictional character on the ABC television series Grey's Anatomy''. The character is portrayed by actor/actress Name of The Portrayer. Name of The Portrayer has since been nominated for The Name of the Award in a Drama Series at the The name of the Ceremony.'' The last sentence in some cases was changed with some interesting information about the character if only the character hasn't been nominated for any kind of award.

The new kind of the intorduction should look like this:


 * The previous look of the intorduction is not wrong in any case, but the new look is simply better, and we recommended to use this one, because is more practical. The new intorduction should begin on similar way like the previous one, to be more exact with the following sentence: The character name is a fictional character from the medical drama television series Grey's Anatomy, which airs on ABC in the United States. The character was created by series' producer Shonda Rhimes, and is portrayed by actor "Actor".

Then there should be some details about that when this character first appear in the show, is it protagonist (in Meredith Grey case only), is it recurring, or it was a recurring and now become a series regular. Then you can start a second paragraph (the intorduction should have minimum one and maximum three paragraphs) that will consist details about how the character developed through the years and what the actor thinks about the character, and maybe what Shonda thinks about it. But all of this things should be very short and clear, larger information about the character could be find in the appropiate section. Than in the third paragraph you can wirte information about the awards the actor get for playing the role and about the speculations that he or she might leave or have already left (because we all know that Grey's Anatomy is show very well known for the statements that the actors gave about leaving the show).

2. The infoboxes are very important part of the article: The infoboxes should be short and clear and please do not put so many nicknames or stuff like that in the infobox (but of course you must put the nicknames like McDreamy, McSteamy, 007 etc.). After a good discussion we concluded that the infoboxes should look like this (e.g. of Meredith Grey's infobox):

So, do the exact same thing with the rest of the characters. This is the right look. If you have any complain about the look of the infobox simply say your suggestion and we'll consider it.

3. Almost all of the articles had previously have this kind of section structure:

Season Second
and so on with the seasons.


 * In the background section there were information about the past of the characters, with one word about their "life" pre-show. In the overview section there were information about the character's presonality, theirs dislikes and likes etc. Then in the last section there were information about the character through the seasons. The previous section structure should not be used, because if it stays like that it would be in in-universe style. Now we are using the following section structure:

Reception

 * We come to the storylines section, in this section you must write about character's storylines. This section is same as character history section, except in this one you don't separate the storyline in subsections like Season 1, Season 2 etc. E.g. Miranda Bailey and Richard Webber don't have a very big storyline, so its understandable that they would have a small storylines, but Meredith's storyline is much bigger so it has to be big. But never TOO big. Just important stuff. And be careful not to write too much information about some other character.


 * In the development section you shouldn't write anything, the things you think should be here put them in the appropriate sub-section. In the Casting and creation section you should write about how the character was created and for what reason. If the character is from the beginning in the show than you should write how the actor got the role. If the character isn't from the beginning then you should write about how his status developed through the episodes (recurring, minor, main), how he got the role etc. Basically what the people think about the character, what the actor thinks about his character, what Shonda thinks etc. Also, include info on contracts and character departures. In the characterization sub-section you should write about the character personality, with actor and writer input: this sub-section is actually same as the overview section in the previous structure.


 * Finally the reception section, in this section write about how the character is accepted by the media and by the audience. Also, include all awards the character's actor/ess was nominated for. Write about some reviews that some magazine gave for the characters and similar stuff. Just keep on mind that you should write only important stuff not every single review you can find.

So, that was the guide I made for all of us! I hope that it helped you. If you have any kind of questions you can simply ask me. Made by: SmartM&M/Max, Updated by: TRLIJC19 (June 19, 2012)

General Discussion Point: Info Boxes
I know we've have an established template for the character infoboxes, but I would like to revisit some small details regarding them. I've noticed that in character articles of Lost, and Degrassi: The Next Generation, episode-format is usually under quotations. Considering these currently hold Featured Article status, I was wondering if we should mirror the formating within the infoboxes.

The character images seem to vary between 220px and 250px for the x-axis; should there be a variance, or should we uniform the images across the board?

If this is alright with everyone, I can start updating all the character infoboxes. I've added/updated images for Arizona Robbins and Callie Torres; I've adjusted Owen Hunt's to conform to the established GA-template for the character infoboxes. I've noticed Preston's is still using the old infobox and I'll update that as I go along adjusting the episode formats. I'd like a consensus from the group prior to me updating anymore articles.

Residents
Instead of the infobox above, it varies only slightly with this one.

Also, do we want to date the resident's years as part of their occupation? When the show moves the in-universe timeline to year 3, we're going to have to re-update all the residents' ranks from "Second-year" to "Third-year". Are the years necessary?

Attendings
In regards to the attendings, so far for their occupation it currently reads as "Attending Specialty-surgeon and Head of Surgical Specialty Department". Should the "head" be transferred down to the Title section and it read as "Chief of Surgical Specialty Department". The show has been shown to refer Hahn and Shepherd as the Chiefs of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Neurosurgery, respectively, though for Sloan, Hunt, and Robbins, the show has yet to refer to them as Chiefs for their respective surgical departments. I don't know if that would fall under original research. Since Frickative  seems to know the rules and guidelines more thoroughly than I, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

Misc
In regards to the attendings, so far for their occupation it currently reads as "Attending Specialty-surgeon and Head of Surgical Specialty Department". Should the "head" be transferred down to the Title section and it read as "Chief of Surgical Specialty Department". The show has been shown to refer Hahn and Shepherd as the Chiefs of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Neurosurgery, respectively, though for Sloan, Hunt, and Robbins, the show has yet to refer to them as Chiefs for their respective surgical departments. I don't know if that would fall under original research. Since Frickative  seems to know the rules and guidelines more thoroughly than I, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

On an unrelated note, I'm still gathering reference-materials to bring Arizona Robbins to a more decent class-grade in regard to article-quality. I've also been researching Miranda Bailey as well and hopefully I can match, or at least come close to matching, what Frickative  has done to Izzie Stevens and Erica Hahn. I may not get Great Article status, but at least the effort is there, right?

And I've been monitoring Derek Shepherd and Meredith Grey closely as there have been numerous edits changing Grey's surname. I know at least Frickative  had some issues with another editor moving the page from Grey to Grey-Shepherd. Thankfully a MOD stepped in, but it seems as soon as the lock was lifted, it was back again to the article-moves. Hopefully, it'll stop.

Anyway, with Season 5 wrapped up, I think we'll have plenty of time to get the articles to where they need to be as no new in-universe information, baring any breaking news in regards to the show, will be revealed until late September.

See ya guys around, Ace 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'll try and take this point by point and hope I don't miss anything. You're right, episodes should always be inside quotations, the same way the show name should be in italics, which I think is broken in some of the infoboxes at the moment because I used too many apostrophes. Oops. My bad. Image size I don't think it hugely important, but I think most projects pick either 200px or 250px and stick with it, so if we're standardizing everything I'd say 250px is the best bet. The residency years aren't necessary, because the ibox should really be applicable to the show as a whole, so it should be just as relevant to anyone who's only seen, say, the third season, as anyone who's watched all the way through. I think you're right on moving the Chief of Department info into the title parameter, although I wasn't actually aware the show hadn't established Hunt, Robbins and Sloan as heads of departments. Shows how much attention to detail I pay... but of course you're right, if the show hasn't said they are, it would be synthesis for us to refer to them that way. I look forward to seeing your work on Arizona and Bailey, it would be great if we could get a few more GAs over the summer break :) Frickative  18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for getting back to me so quick! I'll start updating the infoboxes then so every pic is standardized across the board using 250px as part of the template. I'll remove the years from the residents' infoboxes. In regards to the attendings' title, the show has only said, as of yet, that Hahn and Shepherd as Chief of Departments. Sloan, Hunt, and Robbins have only been stated as Head of Departments.
 * In "Losing My Mind" (4x15), Hahn is introduced as "our Chief of Cardiothoracics" to Tapley by Webber, and later in that episode, Tapley says, "If you can't get the head of cardiothoracics to do a simple valve replacement, then maybe you're not the Chief I thought you were and maybe this isn't the hospital I thought this was. Maybe it's best I get cut open someplace else."
 * In this instance, the writers use "Chief of" and "Head of" interchangeably.
 * If we applied "Chief of" to the other department heads, would this be considered original research?
 * In "I Will Follow You Into the Dark" (5x17), Shadow Shepherd aka Dr. Jim Nelson says, "I was the interim Chief of Neuro before Shepherd and his red cape swooped in from New York."
 * The writers indirectly have titled Shepherd as Chief of Neuro despite directly titling Nelson as the interim Chief of Neuro. I'm positive this doesn't fall under original research but then again, I could be wrong, heh.
 * Throughout season 2, numerous episodes cite Shepherd introducing himself or others introducing him as the Head of Neuro.
 * In "What I Am" (3x04), Sloan is introduced as the Head of Plastics, and numerous other episodes from then on.
 * Most notably, at least to me, of use of Sloan's title is "Forever Young" (4x08) when Molly (the Pom-girl) is rushed into the ER on a gurney saying, "...no one is touching my face until I see the Head of Plastic Surgery!" The next scene shows Mark assessing the facial-laceration.
 * In "Life During Wartime" (5x05), Hunt is introduced to Shepherd and Sloan as the new Head of Trauma by Webber and thereby reclassifying SGH to a Level 1 Trauma Center.
 * In "Wish You Were Here" (5x11), Webber hires Robbins to replace Kenley, who was the head/chief of Pediatric Surgery.
 * BuddyTV, in an article regarding Capshaw's new contract to be featured as a recurring star for the remainder of the Season 5, describe Robbins as the Head of Pediatric Surgery.
 * I'm not sure how relevant that reference is considering other articles, namely by Ausielo, refer Robbins as a pediatrician, which is inaccurate as in that very same episode, Bailey herself, and thereby the writers by extension, referred to Robbins as, "you're the peds surgeon?"
 * This might fall under original research but in the season 5 finale, "Now or Never" (5x24), Robbins states, "on behalf of the Department of Pediatric Surgery, I'd like to welcome you to the fellowship program, you're in! We're going to get you a pair of wheelie sneaks." Wouldn't normally the head of the department welcome a new candidate into the program?
 * Anyway, I'd like your more knowledgeable opinion on whether the attendings' title be "Chief of" or "Head of" should be used for Sloan, Hunt, and Robbins. For Burke and Hahn, should these be attached to the title as well, considering at one point both characters held the title of Chief of Cardiothoracics, however, as mentioned, Burke was only referred to as "Head of Cardio" during Washington's term from seasons 1 through 3. If you note the occupation at Hahn's, I didn't note "former" due to the same reasoning we avoid the years in the residents' occupation.


 * Also, I've noticed in Stevens' First Appearance section, the formatting was "episode title" (seasonxepisode) and airdate. Should this be applied throughout or should the episode title be enough?
 * Ace 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, apologies for misunderstanding on the Chief/Head issue before :) Based on the above (and I commend you for having such an in-depth memory of such matters, by the way!) I think it would definitely be original research to extrapolate that Hunt, Sloan etc can be referred to as 'Chief's of their respective departments. Given that Hahn & Shepherd have been referred to as both 'Chief' and 'Head' I'm inclined to say that we should just use Head across the board for all of them, for the sake of constancy between articles. Wrt the formatting of Izzie's first appearance - my personal preference is to lay it out that way, because it establishes the episode in the chronology of the show itself, and in a real-world timeframe at a glance, in a way that episode titles alone can't. But as I say, that's just my own preference when it comes to article writing, and if you (or anyone else involved in the project for that matter!) would prefer to go with just the episode title, then I've no real opposition to that :) Frickative  21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a stickler for details as you can tell from the various edits(re-edits) I've done, hehe. I think it's advantageous to the group! Thank you for the compliment! ^_^
 * I had an inkling that extrapolating the "Chief" title would fall into WP:OR, but I wanted to be sure, so thank you for the confirmation. I'll just go have the attendings' titles be "Head of" since it is more across the board and the show has been keen in utilizing this title on an aggregate scale that include Hunt, Sloan, and Robbins. I actually do prefer the chronological-citation as well. I'll begin formatting the infoboxes to what was agreed to here, but I'll leave the appearance-format as is until I get consensus from either Max or Tommy. Ace 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, guys! Sorry for not answering on this anytime soon. But I was PRETTY busy and I couldn't focus on Wikipedia. But, no matter I am here now. Ok so first of all YES the summer is HERE and the show's return is in september and until than we'll have to update the articles and make them excelent make them GA! And from now on if a new character is intorduced we'll all have to update his/her article as fast as we can. Because these messy article we have are prove that after a weeks of introducing a new character we made an article and we make it pretty messy. But (off topic sorry :) I didn't know that there is a difference between A Chief of a department and a Head of a department, so I think that is a little stupid that only Bailey's interns had worked with the Head of Departments. And always when a doctor needs surgical consul they go the Head. So my point here is that Erica, Sloan, Arizona, Derek, Preston, Owen are or were a Head/Chief of a department. I also agree with the first appearance thig! Yes! Its good with the date and everything. Ok so I am really happy that we are planning to expand the articles but at the moment I am searching information useful to re-open the seasons' articles. Byeeee! ---Max(talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Max! Yea, Chief/Head is the same thing as the former is a more formal title and the latter is more for colliquial-use. The writers have shown to use the titles interchangably, but only towards Hahn and Shepherd. Although the writers did set precedence for those two characters, at no other time have the other attendings have been referred to as chiefs of their respective surgical-departments; they've only been referred to as heads of their respective surgical department. Until otherwise stated, we can't assume that the other attendings will be referred to as "Chief of Trauma" or "Chief of Plastics" or "Chief of Peds" as that would be regarded as extrapolation and deemed synthesis. And it should be uniform anyway, so looking at Hahn's and Shepherd's infoboxes and see "Chief of..." and see the rest of the attendings' as "Head of..." would compromise the continuity. Ace 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I forgot to mention some things in the previous entry. So... Ok what about the caption under the image? The name of the actor and then Dr. Name or just Name. Then at the top of the Ibox the full name of the character or the shorten name or the name with Dr. or... there are milions of combinations let's pick one. Then what about the nicknames? We agreed to put only the important one like McDreamy, McSteamy, O77 etc. But should we put the person who gave that nickname in brackets? What about the relationship thing? Should we put the relationship in brackets for example (mother, father, one-night stand, love interes, brother in law etc.) And if we put these stuff should we also put the ";descased)" if the character is dead? Also like for example Izzie's mom had a little role before her real appearance in season 5 and we writed her in Izzie's infobox as Mister Stevens and with bolded letters. We did the same with all parents or other relatives which have a role but never actually appeared or there name wasn't revealed. Next thing I can remeber is the character's age. I think that we should put a reference if we think that there age was revealed. Ok that's it! If I thought on somethig else I'd let you know. ---Max(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is an effort to uniform the boxes, I think the character's full name should be the header of the info box and the caption should be state what the character is most commonly referred to by the other characters. An example would be Izzie's as her header reads "Isobel Katherine Stevens" but the caption has "Dr. Izzie Stevens". The same thing with Lexie's as her header reads "Alexandra Caroline Grey" but the caption has "Dr. Lexie Grey". To be honest, I don't believe it's perninent information on the infox box to have who coined the initial nickname. The characters nor the writers don't acknowledge that, "Hey Alex is the one who gave Lexie 'Lexipedia', let's give him credit." I think having a notable nickname is fine for an overview and is more real-world relevant than noting which in-universe character came up with it. Also, should it be "nicknames" or "alias"? In terms of the relationship section, I'm slightly confused as some have Romances and some have spouse. Meredith for example has her past romances in the Releationship section, but in the Information section, it has spouse. Should we move spouse to the romance section and have it read, Derek Shepherd (husband) . In terms of age, I don't think it should be noted because "age" in a series isn't predefined. Although Grey's Anatomy has been on for five years (coming on six), the in-universe timeline has only shifted 1.5 years since the series premiere. The in-universe time for year one was three whole seasons. If we have the age, then it should be referenced so it doesn't violate original research guidelines, but my preference is to not have it at all. What do you guys think??? Ace 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome Acronym
This is something completely unreleated, but I thought I'd point it out here. Did you guys know that the original five characters of Grey's Anatomy are magic? Seriously, they are MAGIC: M.A.G.I.C.

M eredith A lex G eorge I zzie C ristina

Someone had used this acronym in a Grey's Anatomy Insider board comment and I thought it was something to note! Ace 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! OK listen this... I entered my Wikipedia account and I saw a message left for me to join the Grey's Anatomy Wiki I entered the Wiki and then I saw this MAGIC thing in the trivia, next thing I knew I open this discussion page and I saw this. Yeah its great, hahahah, I can't bellived. ---Max(talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Private Practice
Hey, I just realised I never finished tagging all the Grey's article talk pages with the Project template, so before finishing that off, I wondered whether we want to include Private Practice articles in the scope of this Project? As far as I can see there are about two dozen Practice related articles, though most of the episode ones should probably be merged for non-notability, which would cut the amount down to about 12 in all. I've only seen 4ish episodes of Practice, but I gave the Naomi Bennett article a little TLC this week, and the others could really use some too. So, yay or nay on including them in our remit? Frickative 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically... since Private Practice is its own show, shouldn't it have its own WikiProject? Otherwise I'm fine with improving the PP-acticles as well under this project-group. Ace  04:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and Melissa, I'll spruce up the PP-infoboxes as well so they're all uniform. I took a look at Naomi Bennett and as always, awesome job. I'll fine-tune some things as I find them. I did some edits to all the GA-articles so I'll include the PP-article as well. Ace  04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we should use the character pics provided by ABC on the website. That way, all the non-free images will be uniform for all the PP-articles. What do you guys think? Ace  04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that PP is a different show and I personally have watched only 5 episode of it. It really boring and I don't really like it I tried to watch it but its has just nothing to do with Grey's, so... I don't mind if we conclude those articles here and I'll be glad to help as much as I can but I also think that its better to concentrate on Grey's articles because we have many of them, and let's face it we only have one month and a half left until the beginning of the show's season six, we should really start improving Grey's articles and then if we have time and we like we can improve PP articles as well. ---Max(talk) 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my thinking was with just a dozen or so articles, there'd be little point in anyone setting up a dedicated Private Practice WikiProject, and I know that for instance the Doctor Who WikiProject also incorporates Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures articles. I agree that Grey's Anatomy articles should definitely have priority though. Thanks for offering to take care of the PP-infoboxes, Ace :) The only reason I used a screenshot rather than a promo pic in the Naomi article was because I've seen some promotional photos deleted recently for not actually being "in character". Obviously with our Grey's images they're all in costume so should, I think, be fine, but with the Private Practice photos in the bios on the ABC site, it could be argued that they're just photos of Audra McDonald, Amy Brenneman etc, and so shouldn't be used in the character articles. I don't know, copyright & deletion intricacies are a bit beyond me sometimes, so if I'm wrong then I'm wrong & I don't mind using them! Frickative  13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Melissa, you bring up an excellent point. When I posted a new pic of Owen Hunt, there was this huge back and forth between me and another editor about the validity of the photo and how it should be replace with a free-image of the actor. The basis of my argument was that the free-image of the actor was not relevant to the Owen Hunt article and, anyway, I won the debate and the WP-mods voted in favor of my analysis and allowed the image. Anyway, the point is, the ABC.com photos can be construed as actor-images rather than character-images, so I believe you are correct in not using those. I think I'll use screenshots from an episode of Private Practice, but I'll make the dimensions match what you've placed with Naomi Bennett. Ace  18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New Infoboxes
For Residents and Attendings:

What do you guys think?


 * Now when you mentioned it, I think that we should finally get serious and finish the conversation above, and once and for all agree how the infoboxes should look like. Do you agree with me? In the question of the suggested infoboxes I think they are fine, absolutely even If I don't see some big change in them. And one more thing I think we should discuss about the relationship section in the infoboxes, I've seen some great characters articles which are GA standard and they don't really have information like Izzie's "fling" with Hank and Meredith's one night stand with Steve, or Derek's nephews and nieces. I think you guys get the point. I hope we'll discuss this soon. :) ---Max(talk) 12:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with the relationship thing they probably need tightening up a little bit. I can really only very vaguely remember Meredith actually having a one night stand, and if the character didn't even get a surname, he's probably not notable enough to be mentioning in the infobox. In fact, I've just gone to the article to try and refresh my memory, and all it says is "Meredith has a series of one-night stands with various men". I'd say if he's not notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself, he's definitely not notable enough for the infobox. Moving away from Steve specifically, I think the details of the relationship often put in brackets or small font next to the names eg "Kevin Nelson (ex-boyfriend) " are overkill. The names alone should be enough, and the details of the relationship should be in the article itself. And looking at the Derek article, where it has "Unnamed father", "Two unnamed sisters" "Nine nieces, five nephews" - again, if they haven't even been given names & have only been mentioned once or twice in passing conversation, I don't think it's really notable enough to mention. We can assume that all the characters have parents, but there definitely shouldn't be "Unnamed mother/father" fields in every infobox. Just my two cents, anyway :) Frickative  14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So hello everyone. I'm noticing that the infoboxes are becoming more inconsistent between the character articles and what counts relevant information as it pertains to the infobox. Here are some items that I believe warrants review by this project:
 * The characters' occupation does not require "at Seattle Grace Hospital"/"Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital". The show's main setting is the hospital itself, revolving most of its storylines within that setting. From a real-world's perspective, having a character on that show alreadys leads readers the basic assumption that the character is employed within the show's main setting. It's also not an important detail to note when it's already established in the lead of the character article.
 * Unnamed children or family member, regardless of their impact to the character's overall story development, really shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. These are plot devices used to move a character's development or overall story that should be noted within the body of the article; it isn't releavnt to the overall summary of the character nor whom the child was conceived with.
 * Characters mentioned in "significant others" shouldn't have the nature of their relationship in parenthesis. Such details can be mentioned in the article; the specific type of relationship is irrelevant for the infobox as the item of "significant others" already tells the reader the relationship was significant to the overall character.
 * If a character has a spouse that overall had an impact on the character, the status of that relationship in parenthesis, ie (divorced) (separated) are further details that can be mentioned in the body of the article. It isn't necessary on the infobox. Characters that have had multiple spouses throughout the show's history, such as Derek Shepherd, should list both Meredith Grey and Addison Montgomery, with the most current/recent at the top. The show is obviously in a contemporary setting based in Seattle, Washington: there is the implication that Derek is not committing polygamy. The basic assumption that he and Addison are divorced is apparent, and details on how that marriage was dissolved should be in the body of the text. Additionally, length of time "(2011-)" is a bit debatable, but I believe it goes along with additional details that can be found within the article itself. Dates such as that is an in-universe perspective of the character's marriage.
 * Since infoboxes are more for real-world people as opposed to in-universe characters, listing each individual family member, no matter how abstract, is inappropriate. It offers no real value to the reader that Lucia and Aria are Callie's sisters. I think our criteria should be more defined to how it impacts the overall character. Meredith, for example, can list Ellis, Thatcher, and Susan as family members for each has contributed heavily on the overall character's development. Unless Molly is mentioned in the article, she should be excluded from the infobox as having her there gives no real value to a reader as to that character's importance to the article.
 * The assumption of children's full name, i.e. Zola and Sofia, is against WP:NOR. Until the show or a credible show affiliate actually states the name, the name should remain as given "Zola" and "Sofia". Zola Grey or Zola Grey-Shepherd, or Zola Shepherd are derived from synthesis.

This is all what I have so far. Please let me know your thoughts. Ace(T•CON) 19:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Project
I just thought I'd let you know I've gone around tagging many Talk pages for this project, hopefully this'll give you a better scope on the project. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add Real quick I didn't know whether you wanted the Actors Talk Pages tagged, if it would help you I could tag those as well for you. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! We appreciate your help. If it really doesn't bother you, you can tag the actors' pages as well.---Max(talk) 08:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm pretty sure I tagged all the Cast members. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Grey's Anatomy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability Of Episodes
Most shows do not have articles on their episodes, but this show is unusual in that all the 2nd and 3rd season episodes have their own articles, not to mention the 1st season, and other episodes in other seasons. According to our policies, I don't think most of these, if any, episodes should have articles as they are not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger of this project into WikiProject Television as a task force
It has been suggested that WikiProject Grey's Anatomy to be merged into WikiProject Television as a task force since the project might be inactive or semi-active. After reviewing this project that it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. If you have questions or comments, please let us know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree; there are a ton of people that of members of the projects. This project is in no way semi-active, or in active. It is all active. TBrandley 01:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope's coverage
Hi, everyone. I recently noticed that some guest stars' articles have been tagged as being covered by our project. I remember a while ago, we only covered in-universe articles. I guess through time, some users just randomly tagged guest stars with the WP:Grey's template. I feel as though we should only cover the current/former star-billed actors in the project. Another problem with not just covering star-billed actors is that only some guest stars are tagged, applying undue weight. That leads me to another thing: should we cover Private Practice-related articles? Looking forward to everyone's feedback, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should reduce our coverage to current and former main cast-members only. That means we could remove Elizabeth Reaser, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, etc. As for the other problem, I see that in July 2009 Frickative had already asked the question in section 'Private Practice'. Max and Ace said no, with Ace asking for a separate project. Frickative explained that it would be useless to create one and that other series also cover spin-offs, meaning why not in our case? I first thought PP should not be in the scope of our project, but after reading Frickative's explanation, I don't mind if we include it -even though I don't/won't make many edits on those articles because I don't regularly watch the show. So, if other users agree to remove PP, I won't be opposed either. --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that all of guest stars should be removed from WP:Grey's; there are so many guest stars that barely even appear in the episode. I have no problem with keeping Private Private articles, unless a separate project is created for it. Also, mainly agree with Sofffie7. TBrandley 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinions! I think a PP task force would be beneficial, but I don't know how to make one. Does anyone know how? TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know how. Create "WikiProject Grey's Anatomy/Private Practice task force", then, just do everything else the same as this, just as a task force. Then, edit the WikiProject Grey's Anatomy template, and add the "Private Practice task force" to the bottom. I can help you if needed. Also see WP:GATE. Thanks, TBrandley 01:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But do you think it is necessary? TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd join, and, plus, it would attract more people to the force. So, yeah. Totally up to you though. TBrandley 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds good. Can you set it up? But to differentiate between that and the main project, can you set it up in the format of WP:AWAKE's? Thanks, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure; I may need help knowing what details to include in it though. Should I list you as anything? Create an administrative board as done for this project? Etc. TBrandley 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think an admin board is necessary; there's under 20 PP articles. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay; as stated above; would you like me to list you as anything on the project? Probably should as your the one who came up with the idea, so. TBrandley 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's okay. I don't think titles or positions should be on the task force; all administrative work can be done on the main WP:Grey's page. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I'll get started on it right now. TBrandley 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get it on there by tomorrow or later tonight. Thanks, TBrandley 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Intern listing
Hi again, everyone. The normality for characters given a spot in a recurring status/table is that they are in 5 episodes or 4 over 2+ seasons. That said, I added some interns who meet that requirement at Grey's Anatomy. But, the interns listed, despite Steve and Sadie, were not really given any storyline except maybe 1 episode. They did appear in a lot though. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed. I am feeling as though they should not be included, because they really made no impact on the series. Perhaps a simple mention of their existence without each actor and name listed would be fine. Hoping for thoughts, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion would be to not include them at all, because they were really close to becoming only background characters. "No impact on the series" is the perfect way to describe their appearances. I would only mention their existence as "fellow interns of Lexie's". Hope my outlook was helpful. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's how I'm going to proceed; thank you for your input. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Seattle Grace: Message of Hope
Is this article really necessary? I recently tagged it with a bunch of issues, but was wondering if it even meets the general nobility guidelines. Looking forward to everyone's feedback, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; its unneeded. Please redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. Regards. TBrandley 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will wait for more opinions before proceeding with anything. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your right; you need to wait until proper consensus is reached, so. Cheers! TBrandley 21:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. As of today, it certainly does not meet the guidelines so unless someone seriously works on this article anytime soon, it should redirected. I, personally, didn't even know they existed until I got involved in the project, which leads me to think that very few people will care about this article. --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of their existence until researching the show more. I will wait for Jonathan's opinion, and if he thinks 'redirect' is appropriate, I will do so. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Double images in episode plot sections
Hi, everyone. I used to put double images of two cast members in the plot sections of episode articles, but after receiving feedback that it jumbles the text and detracts from the readability, I stopped using them. For an example, see Good Mourning (Grey's Anatomy). Due to the feedback, I believe the images should be removed and not used again. After all, if the community doesn't like it, then there's no sense in using them. Sofffie7 has also expressed that it is an obstacle to the readability and should not be used, so further opinions would be great. TRLIJC19 ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever possible, NO left-aligned images should be placed immediately after headings, as they break text flow and distract the reader. This applies to all images, not just double images. In Good Mourning (Grey's Anatomy) and similar type situations, moving the images down to the next paragraph is acceptable, even double images. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, AussieLegend. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

April Kepner
Well the article is not a complete mess anymore for sure. However it does need some brushing up by some expert-editor from the project. Thanks. :D--Meryam90 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Other medicine projects
Hello WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! Someone at WikiProject Medicine just pointed out how popular Grey's Anatomy is on Wikipedia. I had the idea that perhaps WikiProject Medicine could support this group by being aware of medical conditions mentioned in the show, and that this group could help WikiProject Medicine by including wikilinks to medical conditions in Wikipedia articles on Grey's Anatomy episodes. If anyone has any comment on this please say hello on the WikiProject Medicine talk page.

Also, perhaps someone here might be interested in participating in a new-found non-profit organization, meta:Wiki Med. The group was founded by people who wanted to improve the quality of Wikimedia health content, but I think that everyone there has also wanted to support cultural depictions and practices in medicine. The fanbase around Grey's Anatomy certainly seems like cultural movement in medicine. Might anyone here like to join talks about the future direction of Wiki Med? If so, say hello on that talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   23:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate
I've nominated the article about the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" for Featured Article consideration. The article is about about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice that received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape. I am asking for support from this Wikiproject as the episode is from the spin-off of Grey's Anatomy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:A-Class-GA
Template:A-Class-GA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Turn this WikiProject into a Taskforce?
I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. – sgeureka t•c 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing inactive task forces
I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to close inactive task forces, including this one. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)