Archives

Archive 1 (prior to episode redirect discussions)

Ok, let's get this rolling, since the upcoming arbcom case on episodes & characters is focusing on actions, not the viability of the policy. I have reviewed the Scrubs episodes and they feature: no real-world context establishing notability, the usual discouraged goulash of plot sumnmaries (see WP:NOT#PLOT and trivia, of course, which we love here per WP:TRIVIA, mais oui c'est si bon! Etc.. Etc... See WP:EPISODES and WP:FICT and WP:N, for further details and the place for comments about how unfair all this is. Are there specific episodes (episode specific award-winning, or significant ratings achievement, etc...) which warrant individual articles per our policies and I have missed? Please so indicate and we'll redirect the rest. Btw, for editors who feel strongly about this kind of stuff, I draw particular attention to: (1) WP:CON - consensus is global not local, so to establish consensus for keeping scrubs episodes, please comment about changing our notability and fiction guidelines, don't post comments here about how the episodes are notable. And (2) at WP:FICT, there's a discussion on how to transwiki information that is discouraged at Wikipedia. The Scrubs Wikia is probably the best repository for the trivia, in-universe continuity stuff and other fan-driven details. Eusebeus (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every episode of every TV show ever invented is noteworthy, if for no other reason than because they are all unique. Some show may "tip the hat" or be a reference to another show, book, movie, comic, graphic novel, quote, personality, or event, but they all deserve credit for being, literally, one-of-a-kind. To say that only the arc of a show is noteworthy is the same as saying that each novel by Joseph Conrad is a variation on a theme, and that a one-sentence plot description is sufficient. Aramis1250 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ones in the navbox as sufficiently notable (award winning, etc). Redirect the less for lack of real world context. Will ^(talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There may be a few more out there with that match up to them, so I'll give them a look over sometime soon. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just off the top of my head, but My Five Stages is based around the Five Stages of Grief. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your point? Do you think that that makes it worthy of having its own article? Also, it is the conclusion of a two-parter, so "My Cabbage" would also require its own article...etc. etc. etc. This is going to be a big project, and deciding what is notable enough to merit its own article is extremely subjective. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. "My Lunch" is part one of three episodes yet the other two don't have any real world information in it, like My Cabbage. The episode I mentioned has an entire story dedicated to a real world theory. It should stay.Notthegoatseguy (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "My Screw Up" is followed by "My Tormented Mentor", but that doesn't make MTM notable. Will ^(talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 71.255.90.58 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The exercise in determining what merits an individual article is not really that complex. As I note above, awards, unusual ratings or achievements that accrue to a specific episode are certainly grounds for establishing notability. Writing gimmicks may count if they have had enough demonstrable real-world impact; otherwise they should redirect as well. An advantage of redirection is that if any article is later deemed to be notable, it can always be restored. It looks like we have fair agreement on this so I suggest we proceed. Also, please consider weighing in on the upcoming character redirects if you haven't already. The same notability criteria apply. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Lunch and My Musical seem to be fine, but none of the other "notable" episodes seem to establish notability. I'm fine for leaving My First Day because pilots are usually well off, but the others need much more to need to stay. Two or three have awards, but they can easily be footnotes or just be placed in the main article. TTN (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true - they are fine. There's actually another one that has a major award - "My Life in Four Cameras". --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not establish notability with a variety of sources, then they are not fine. Awards by themselves are not enough. TTN 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we could source it to the awards site, that'd be a reliable source for popular reception. Will ^(talk) 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is while they obviously can be used as notability establishing sources, being the only source is not going to work out. If all we have available is the award, it is better placed as a footnote on the episode list or in a section in the main article. TTN 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I actually said something to the effect of "one Nielsen rating an episode article does not make" on the episode and character AC (although of course a Hugo or an Emmy is more important than a Nielsen rating from a Wiki point of view). Still, I think that, for the mean time, the ones in the navbox should be given a stay of execution longer than the normal episodes as they are notable, and we can discuss the notability in depth a bit more. Will ^(talk) 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I won't make a fuss. So are we about ready to go at this point? TTN 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say give other people about twelve to twenty-four hours to throw in their opinions, and then go ahead. Will ^(talk) 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore TTN, and I for one, will be reverting his vandalism. I do believe the articles need to be improved, however, there is not the urgency that TTN is self imposing. It's interesting how they've rehashed Episode into what they want, then they're trying to force a suggestion down our throats as law. Just revert him. --Maniwar (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Many editors have pointed out that WP:EPISODES is a suggestion and not a rule. Moderators have also commented on it.

So are the summaries being expanded or left as they are? Because some of these summaries are only one sentence long. BioYu-Gi! 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's rediculous, removing information from an encyclopedia because it isn't of the real world. If that is the case then why not just delete the articles about a load of ordinary, not exceptional books since they don;t necessarily relate to the real world. You can't just delete all this information, why is it so necessary anyway, is there a lack of space for wikipedia that requires articles to be deleted so more can be written? Or is it just that some people don't like the idea of episode articles and so they need to be deleted? Why was it necessary to delete the articles? nobody has explained it beyond this rediculous real-world based ideaNIKKKIN (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include the featured music in the LOE with the episode merges? For some episodes, such as "My Choosiest Choice of All" or "My Way Home", it's actually rather important to the episode. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think so. I have brought that info into the LOE for at least one episode. Eusebeus 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I checked the scrubs wikia (http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) to see if a transwiki would be in order and they have already ported or amplified on the individual episode & character information here. I suggest, then, that since the information already exists in tremendous detail over there, we not worry to much about which tidbits to port over to the LOE. The same pertains to the character pages. Eusebeus 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if insted of having each episod its own page, make pages for each eason with summeries and trivia. and keep notible episode pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.72.187 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see genuine merges rather than simplistic redirects to the List page. The links between, say "My Screw Up" and "My Tormented Mentor" could be discussed in prose. So, please put effort into your "merges." The JPS^{talk to me} 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does each episode of Scrubs have an article? The summaries are enough. If each episode of Scrubs has an article than each Pokemon and each character from Spongebob Squarepants should have their own articles. 65.101.237.106 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough people who are able to contribute to wikipedia apropriatly are interested in those shows i guess. Although a lot of grown-ups also watch spongebob, which made me wonder why there are no pages for each character there yet. I like reading some episode pages to understand certain references or appearences or whatnot. Other people do as well. So just leave it and turn to those things that brighten your day 217.82.11.175 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is currently in the process of being merged. 68.77.91.91 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldent all scrubs episods have an artical?I think if one wants ti look through these pages to find a favorite episode or mabe a favorite character in an episond the should be as they were december122007 creampuff3333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.72.187 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the summarisation of episode pages on any show, or at least those with two seasons or more. This turns the helpful resources into petty shadows of what they used to be, and the summaries are completely useless. Can we please stop this madness once and for all? --Riche (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here - http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Eusebeus (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact you had to give me that link (and that there were no obvious links on Wikipedia itself) proves that the Wikia system doesn't work, added to which is the fact that the Wikias are unlikely to be as updated or have such a large userbase (or quality of articles), that Wikias (in general) lack any support by Firefox search bars or similar useful apps, that the page formats are awful, and collapse completely when the page is beyond about three printer pages in length (in both Firefox and IE, the former of which is practically unusable), and the unlikelyhood of them appearing in a decent position in search engine rankings. I find it amusing that pages such as episode pages are considered poor quality when they are far more readable than many other pages, in particular those on scientific subjects that seem to assume that (apart from the summary, in most cases, which is normally easier to read but more limited than the article) the reader has a full knowledge of every subject mentioned, which simply defies belief in terms of research. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, but deletionism seems to be taking away its primary benefit over other encyclopedias, that being that you can type in a topic you are looking for and in 99.9% of cases there will be an article for it that at least acts as a reasonably up-to-date NPOV (which is particularly useful on subjects otherwise plagued with bias if they were to be searched for on Google) starting point for further learning. Due to the amount of effort required (and the impossibility for those who aren't admin) to return a page from deletion, and the ease with which pages are deleted without consideration, Wikipedia is losing that usefulness. --Riche (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well listen, I think you are making a number of very good points and I think you make them well, even if I persist in disagreement with you. I would strongly urge you then to weigh in on the centralised debate. Remember, consensus is defined globally not locally so the best place to note this is at the WP:FICT talk page where there is an ongoing discussion. Consensus changes, but it does not change here at the Scrubs page, while remaining intact elsewhere. I would recommend you (1) read through (or at least glance through) the archived debates at the Fict talk page before weighing in since many topics have already been extensively discussed. And (2) I suggest you avoid slurs like deletionism. I know what you mean, and I suspect that you are not trying to be insulting, but when you have a good point, which you do about wikia, it is best not to distract from it through infelicitous phraseology. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why!!!!!!! no!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Fuster (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the pages been delted?

The summaries are not enough, many ppl will want a more detailed recap of eahc episode, want to know what music featured in the episodes or even want to know what tv show or film they were making a joke at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.118.173 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm going to say is, what a moronic thing to do. --82.37.32.93 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Hypershadow647 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too! I loved the episodes summaries here, and it's a real pain to have to go between Wikipedia and Wikia. There was more than just summaries - it's themes, trivia (which I do like to know) and lots of other information that is otherwise hard to come by or spread out over lots of other sources - which at the very least, the episode articles link to. Jess Gordon (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am so pissed off at this. There's tons of other shows with separate episode articles. What is the point of merging anyway? Is the whole God damn world going to explode if Wikipedia isn't fucking sparkly shiny clean? Jesus Christ, get a life. My opinion? Leave Wikipedia as is. Don't change anything, because people like myself will go here trying to read about the latest episode of Scrubs, only to be met by a fucking pointless redirect that shouldn't even exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.169.81 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reverse it but the links went no where so it didn't matter. PUT THE PAGES BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.184.201 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has pissed me off too, i enjoyed reading the episode summaries on these, if there is trouble with unsourced notes and trivia take them out and leave the episode summaries in as per say, house or heroes. Put them back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.89.52 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where else are we supposed to find out which songs are in which episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, this is explicitly disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, it's draconian and silly. I'm not even sure why it's disallowed. But it is. --Roguelazer (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I tell, the "no plot summaries" rule has been applied all over Wikipedia, as per the Television Show Episode Guidelines. A casual glance shows that List of Psych episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes has been similarly trimmed, although the anti-plot people haven't yet erased List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Stargate Atlantis episodes (to pick random television shows that I've looked at episode summaries from in the past month). I'm not sure why this has happened, and, frankly, I find it ridiculous, but it has happened. :-( --Roguelazer (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm down people. Wikipedia's main focus is on the real-world significance of its topics and while it is possible to point to other places that seem to fail that standard, that does not lessen the need to bring existing content into line with our policies. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) However, the good news is that the scrubs wikia (http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) has all the plot-summary & soundtrack goodness that you need, including an exploration into the minutiae of the Scrubs universe to satisfy even the most die-hard fan. I will add a link and a mention to the list article now. On behalf of those of us who merged the info, I apologise that such a link was not provided before. Eusebeus (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. I'm glad this could be handled noble-ly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Italian journalist and writer, and I was finding all the data in the Scrubs episode summaries very useful and precious, while I'm writing a book about Scrubs. Obviously, it was not just a matter of "plot summaries" (and no, Scrubs Wikia is not even near to have all the data of the deleted summaries. Not near at all, the episode list is fairly blank down there). It was shared knowledge about pop culture inside Scrubs. I was thinking the entire Wikipedia project was about sharing knowledge. I think the day someone will start to decide what is "important" or "right to care about" for others, that will be (or already is) a very sad day for Wikipedia as a whole. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i just want to do what other editors haven't, and apologise to all you readers of the project who have come here and are upset about the missing episode pages, i'm sorry this has happened to you, since you are the people who are missing out here, i wish this hadn't happened. Anyway the pages are still available to view, and heres how, type the name of the specific episode page you want to view, e.g. My Overkill, into the search box. that will bring you here. go to the top of this page, and in small letters underneath the title page, it will say "redirected from My Overill. Click on this link, and you will be taken to a page with a link to this page. go to the history tab, and view a version before TTN's redirect. There you are--Jac16888 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be a good idea, given the comments above, to transwiki to wikia the scrubs episode pages that are currently incomplete. The ones I had checked, however, were pretty extensive. Eusebeus (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive? Did you bother to compare them to the existing articles on wikipedia?

My Screw Up (top rated episode) Scrubs Wikia vs My Screw up Wikipedia

Elliot on Scrubs Wikia vs Elliot on Wikipedia

My Long Goodbye vsMy Long Goodbye Wikipedia (before deletion)

I could go on all day making these comparisons. Bottom line: the Scrubs wikia sucks compared to what was already here. Whoever said that it's equivalent to the huge knowledgebase that existed here just a few days ago was either lying or didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

I'm not going to bother trying to sift through the condescending sarcasm below, as there's no profit in that, but it's worth pointing out that this demonstrably false assertion about the Scrubs wikia having some sort of parity with the extremely thorough knowledgebase that existed here (as well as the clumsy sales pitch for the Scrubs wikia) shows that the people making these decisions a) are totally disconnected from the subject matter and/or b) simply don't care. Not exactly a good way to gain the confidence of the people who actually write these articles. --Warrior-Poet (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The Scrubs Wikia is lacking significantly when compared to what was on this site before. To sit here and continue to strut around an inferior Wiki (not on a dedicated server, but a free Wiki service no less) as an alternate is laughable, and the lack of fan support for the Wikia is clearly evidenced by the fact that it hasn't been updated since November, even with these pages going down. Whatever motives are driving this are ludicrous and the one step back, no steps forward approach helps no one. 69.183.162.37 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entire decision was agreed upon by very few people. Very undemocratic. Pathetic choices made by pathetic people. This sucks. --69.117.172.143 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, unfortunately. Will ^(talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this was one of those things that was supposed to be voted on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What Happened?

Following a discussion in October & November 2007, it was determined that the vast majority of Scrubs episode articles did not and could not aspire to the standards for fictional topics as they are elaborated at Wikipedia's policies on notability & secondary sources, its prohibition against plot summaries and trivia, and the general guideline for writing about fictional topics. Full debate details can be accessed in the Archive.

2. So are all the Episode Pages lost?

No. At the time of the merge it was determined that most of the existing information at Wikipedia also existed at the scrubs wikia site, which can be accessed at http://scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. In the event that you find an episode article at the Scrubs Wikia which does not contain complete in-universe information, it is possible to transwiki the information from the original Wikipedia article to the Scrubs wikia. You can either be bold and do it yourself, or else leave a note here indicating which episode(s) are incomplete.

3. This sucks. Why are you ruining Wikipedia for everyone?

We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination. As part of that campaign, we use Wikipedia's policies, such as its prohibition against plot summaries, and guidelines, such as the need for real-world context, to fashion crude but effective weapons and incidentally to promote encyclopedic standards. Also, Wikipedia consensus has long held that this is not a fan site, that information needs to focus on real-world impact. While some readers may feel that the prevalence of fan material here mitigates against its removal generally, that argument has been discredited. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, now do the same for every other episode page of every other show on Wikipedia. --69.117.172.143 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Eusebeus, but I just think your conception of "fan content" is uncorrect. Or, by the way, are not all the sport statistics in Wikipedia "for fans only"? And what about all the data about pop music releases? Are not these a pure fan service? Is the history of Destiny's Child more "Wikipedian" than Scrubs episodes analysis? However, Scrubs Wikia _is_ a fansite, made by fans for fans, far from the quality control Wikipedia can and must have. Therefore, as a professional, I can't trust at all the content of a site like that. Dumping the old pages there (where at the moment they are NOT) will means not to improve them anymore.(And the system to access the deleted pages through history is so unpractical I can't even consider it seriously). But, again, here the problem is to treat informations about a pop culture act of undeniable quality like some stupid childish gibberish that would pollute the great adult encyclopedia. And that's just plain prejudice to me. (Thanks for introduce the sarcasm, anyway. It's very useful in a discussion. Was it in this way you "determined" all your things during October and November discussion?).Kumagoro-42 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry if my attempt at humour came across as sarcasm. While I agree wholeheartedly with the effort to remove in-universe fan-driven content, that is not personal caprice, but instead the even application of our guidelines and policies as they have evolved. Bitching about it on the Scrubs talk page is not going to change what is a larger consensus-driven view of what does and does not belong here. As to the comment posted above, thanks for the encouragement: we are slowly getting around to bringing the mass of non-encyclopedic fictional content up to standard. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Even application of our guidelines"? Go put merge tags on the articles listed at List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes, and List of Doctor Who serials or stop pretending the criteria is applied evenly. --Pixelface (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You've tossed this "suggestion" out all over the place. I, for one, would be all for merging some of those articles and trimming out the dross. However, I also know that it would cause a huge fight, and I expect that you know it, too. So, basically, you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It would only cause a huge fight if WP:EPISODE doesn't have consensus. If WP:EPISODE doesn't have consensus, it needs to be rewritten or marked historical. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really really fail to see how deleting a bunch of articles on Scrubs helps any single person in life in any way, shape, or form. In fact, although I doubt anyone is really harmed by it, it provides for the exact opposite purpose of an encyclopedia(which is providing information) by taking it away. And, really why put so much effort into something like that? Why not let people just have their articles? Or atleast have an open discussion where more people express their opinions before just acting on such things.Viciouspsychedelia (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, at least as a temporary change while this is all worked out, the music that was listed in each episode as well as the list of special guests should make it to the summaries. These are two pieces of information on every episode that should not be removed just because the summaries are to be banished. 146.95.18.203 (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Wikipedia seems more concerned with following its own rigid rules rather than acually bothering with articles that people apparently want, what exactly is the procedure for getting the individual episode articles restored? It seems that there was very little opportunity for discussion before these articles disappeared, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is increasingly going the way of a private members club with more concern for bureaucracy than knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.49.188 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ideally anything that would make the revived episode article look like one of these Simpsons episode articles. But for a start, I guess also something like "The One Where No One's Ready" from Friends would be allowed. It can also be considered to start Season articles for Scrubs, like e.g. Smallville (season 1), which allows for more plot detail but also(!) production facts. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Echoing Sgeureka's reply, any episode that demonstrates real-world significance (an award, unusual ratings achievement) should have an article about it. I might add that in almost every instance there were: 1) overly long plot summaries and (2) trivia sections. These would continue to be discouraged. If what fans are looking for are detailed plot summaries & trivia, this is simply not the place for it. Eusebeus (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, so articles about "non notable" episodes should be moved to a website where Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley can profit off it? --Pixelface (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree with this. If all the article contains is plot summary and what songs were played, that belongs on the wikia site. If there is more information on Production/Reception/etc, then an article is warranted.↔NMajdan•talk 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this new change. I think it's pathetic. Isn't Wikipedia meant to give as much information as possible? The episode pages were great and had lots of info. Hell Seinfeld episodes have less info than any Scrubs page did. I think it should go back to the way it was. This new method is rubbish. Scmods (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the people who are against the reinstation of articles (especially those who actually voiced that on these pages) to please look at how many people here on the talk page want the articles back. Not only that, but also look at the real page and how many times it's been reverting from people trying to bring back episode pages. Clearly, the users of wikipedia do not agree with this move. So i'm asking you to look into your hearts and bring these pages back. We'll have to keep them in better shape and add more information to them, but just bring them back. It's what the people want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) (18:04, 22 December 2007) diff

And although it may sound heartless, I'd like the people who want to have the articles reinstated to please read WP:NOT#PLOT (policy) and WP:NOTABILITY (guideline), both of which have considerable support from the wikipedia community. The problem is not to keep articles in a good shape, but to get them there. If someone can achieve this for some episodes, then those episode articles surely deserve a place here at wikipedia so that others can enjoy it. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, these episode articles had more than just a plot summary (so WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't apply here) and WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, WP:N is not policy but it "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (nutshell). So, what did the articles have to justify that occational exception? I randomly picked My Fifteen Minutes, My Drug Buddy and My Brother, Where Art Thou?, and just found a section for featured songs and for continuity, all of which are unsourced and trivial. Common sense says that this is not exactly what wikipedia strives to include as sole content. And I also see no progress for other Scrubs episode articles (in reply to this thread), so reinstating them now just because some people want them to is the wrong direction. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write an article that goes beyond the plot of the episode, by all means, recreate it. For instance, My Way Home is a great example.↔NMajdan•talk 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying reinstate the articles for a short period of time, so that way people who want them back can make them into more "wiki proper" articles while still getting the information they want. That way everyone wins. Laynethebangs (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tested for several TV shows in the past half a year, and except for maybe 2% of articles, no improvement ever happened (unfortunately); instead, the problem got worse with the addition of trivia, quotes, and lots of other stuff that doesn't belong. Why not choose a redirected article and work on it (e.g. in your userspace), and then resurrect the article in its reincarnated form? I've also seen the option to allow for a handful of episodes to be temporarily be resurrected and to then check back in a month. If that's what you want, be aware that the lack of improvement will directly confirm the non-future of all other articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to provide me with a specific episode, I will get the text from the deleted article and put it on a subpage of your userspace to allow you to improve it before publishing it to articlespace. We can do that one episode at a time.↔NMajdan•talk 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the individual episode pages probably wont be returned, and the other wiki is, frankly, poor quality... so why don't we start up a specific new wiki for Scrubs? I've got a bunch of festering webspace with a tonne of bandwidth... give me 24 hours and I'll have one up and running. If anyone thinks its a good idea...? --Sovvy (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an instance or two of an episode page that you feel is inadequately represented at the Scrubs wikia? Eusebeus (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrubs wikia says the last aired episode is My Inconvenient Truth, while My Number One Doctor actually is. The former doesn't have alot of information on its page, while the latter doesn't have a page.

As posted above (in comparison-- aside from the fact that the "last" episode was in November)

My Screw Up (top rated episode) Scrubs Wikia vs My Screw up Wikipedia

PORTED, although that episode meets our notability standards. On the Wikia, btw, you can go into MUCH greater plot detail. Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot on Scrubs Wikia vs Elliot on Wikipedia

My Long Goodbye vs My Long Goodbye Wikipedia (before deletion) 64.148.40.127 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to improve the existing wiki than starting a brand new one.↔NMajdan•talk 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing Wikia is hosted on an ad-driven, free-for-all, anyone can create, server. If someone was willing to open a Wiki on a dedicated server (assuming not a burden on the person who starts it), I think it should be considered (for both quality and aesthetic purposes). 64.148.40.127 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to have a go at this? And if so, what's the format going to be - a bulleted list, or '"X" by Y, "Z" by A, "B" by C'? Will ^(talk) 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, maybe I'm out of the loop. What are you proposing?↔NMajdan•talk 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please, someone put the individual episode pages back. i've been watching every episode of the show (yeah, i know, lame) and the pages were really useful for finding out songs played, trivia and references, more extensive guest stars names, etc. i don't know who deleted them but if you can put them back, it'd be great, there was no real reason to delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.253.221 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For songs, check out http://scrubs.mopnt.com ↔NMajdan•talk 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a set of articles didn't conform to rules a few zealous folks follow way to strictly doesn't mean the information in them wasn't useful. Deletion of content because it does not conform to stylistic standards or rules is just plain backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Read it and weep, CABAL. It's time to revert back to the information we once had (and I suppose improve it to appease those with sticks up their arses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I was about to start making episode pages for Scrubs because I just figured no one had gotten around to doing it yet, then I read all this about them being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.197.56 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we bringing them back? Laynethebangs (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) W[reply]

• We have clear policies and guidelines governing our content (links above in the discussion on this page). Any episode that can demonstrate the standards iterated by those policies and guidelines merits an individual article. Otherwise, the content is better placed on a site like wikia, or any other fan site where content is not governed by global consensus. When we redirected the articles, we determined which articles could stand on their own, so editors should provide as a courtesy the grounds they have for asserting real-world notability. Let me note further that extensive in-universe detail, trivia and plot summaries are discouraged by Wikipedia, so even if we restore additional episodes, they will focus on the real-world, not the in-show, significance of the episode. Eusebeus (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• eusebeus, we all know that there are "clear policies and guidelines" for all of this, but you have to think about the spirit, not the letter, of wikipedia. i think that any change involving massive removal of material from wikipedia is contrary to wikipedia's purpose, and reversal should be seriously considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.253.221 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point are also clear policies. Clearly the removal of information actually detracts from value of WP in general, and therefore those policies are breeched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, why do List of Futurama episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Family Guy episodes get away with this? I guarantee that should something like this occur to those lists, there would be a ridiculous backlash. What's the train of thought that keeps those exempt from deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the Family Guy episodes and randomly clicked four articles. Each of those four went beyond an infobox and plot summary, which is all most of the Scrubs articles contained. If you feel you can write an article on an episode of Scrubs that goes beyond simple plot summary, then please do. I'll even provide the plot summary from the original article if you want.↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's rediculous, removing information from an encyclopedia because it isn't of the real world. If that is the case then why not just delete the articles about a load of ordinary, not exceptional books since they don;t necessarily relate to the real world. You can't just delete all this information, why is it so necessary anyway, is there a lack of space for wikipedia that requires articles to be deleted so more can be written? Or is it just that some people don't like the idea of episode articles and so they need to be deleted? Why was it necessary to delete the articles? nobody has explained it beyond this rediculous real-world based idea NIKKKIN (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% for deleting articles such as this. But when all the article contains is a plot summary, I can get that elsewhere. Wikipedia articles should go beyond simple plot summaries.↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They used to contain more than just summaries, they had interesting trivia, but then people decided to ban the use of trivia on wikipedia, something I didn't understand. One of the main complaints here was that the scrubs articles had information about the songs which is now gone. As for summaries, whenever I need a plot summary my first stop was always wikipedia NIKKKIN (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all you needed was plot summaries, then a Scrubs Wikia should be just as good. As I said, if you need music from scrubs, check out http://scrubs.mopnt.com (would a list of music from scrubs be worthwhile to pursue?). As far as the trivia section goes, I'm iffy. On one hand, some of it is good information. On the other hand, it tends to be used as a lazy way of adding content to an article. Convert the trivia section to prose and properly cite is and you just might have yourself a solid section.↔NMajdan•talk 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nmajdan has made all the points I would make. I would add that I find this hesitation in using a wikia for fandom a bit mystifying. The Star Trek and Star Wars and Pokemon wikis are popular and huge and they exist in part because of the policies and practices that redound to encyclopaedic quality which exist and are enforced here. I see lots of griping that wikia doesn't have this or that, but porting the info over to wikia takes no time at all, and, once there, editors will encounter no prohibition against any type of content they wish to include pertinent to the series. By contrast, there are several policies and guidelines which will need to be changed by global consensus before this material will be considered suitable for Wikipedia. I note that these policies continue to be regularly upheld at AfD, so this is not the actions of a cabal of rule-mongers, but rather the implementation of sitewide policy. That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody. Just that I am in good company. Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, what was the sitewide policy being implemented here? I seem to have missed when you mentioned it. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will be more than happy to provide anybody with the text from the deleted articles if you do want to improve it in hopes of recreating the article or for porting to Wikia.↔NMajdan•talk 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we see in the other episode lists (Futurama, Family Guy, etc), while the individual articles may not meet notability in any real sense, due to the large fan following, the fans make the articles notable and worth keeping. Also, each list namely adheres to the following content:

• A brief summary of the episode's plot
• How the episode was received by critics
• Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
• Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element

...though there are exceptions in each list.

That said, what if the redirects were reverted back to having the individual articles (there were many hours put in to each, starting from scratch would be an absolute shame) and letting us rework the articles to meet this standard? I'm sure that myself, as well as many others here, are up to that task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bulleted list would make a great article. Unfortunately, most Scrubs articles only contained the first bullet. We can't just restore all those deleted pages. But, like I've said a couple times now, we can do this one episode at a time. Give me the name of an article, and I will copy the text to your userspace. There, you can improve it and when it contains at least 2-3 of those 4 bullets, it can be moved to main articlespace. And if I have five people willing to improve an article each, I will put five eopisode on their five userspaces. How is that?↔NMajdan•talk 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am up for that, and I'm willing to take on the first five episodes of season 1 (ep101 and ep104 already up). Can other people give a shout out here to take new episodes? Assemble a project worthy team;) Danakin (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just noticed, these articles weren't deleted. The content was just replaced with a redirect. So if you go to the history of the page, you can get the previous versions. So anybody, not just admins, can see the versions as they were before they were redirected. Nevertheless, I've put the My Mentor episode in your userspace at User:Danakin/My Mentor.↔NMajdan•talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! I'll work on this one a bit later tonight. I am willing to go through each episode myself if needed, but it would definitely be better to have a team for this ;-) I'll keep plugging and chugging as I can (though I'm out next week for Katrina cleanup/rebuild in Kiln, MS)Danakin (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm been reading all the comments made here and one thing that seems to be echoed a lot is that the information in the episode pages doesn't have any value to the rest of the world, or doesn't fit in or whatever.

But what about the fans?

Doesn't the fact that fans of the show might want to read that information mean anything to you people?

Who's going to read episode pages for scrubs? Um, probably fans of the show. Right?

Do you go into a show you hate or a show you've never watched and start reading through the episode guides? I don't.

Only fans are going to read it, so what's the big deal about putting it back the way it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.179.110 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Granted, wikipedia encourages fans to add encyclopedic material, but just plot, trivia and lists of songs isn't. Wikia (for example) however is designed as an all-purpose fan outlet. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is also a for-profit site, founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. --Pixelface (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So? I was thinking to give fans a proper outlet. But we can just leave these articles redirected, practically inaccessible to the average wikipedia visitor, if that's what you prefer. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i's not meant to be a fan base, then how come almost all th other big shows have individual episode pages? Shouldn't we delete them too? 12/30/07 66.31.144.27 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a very valid point.↔NMajdan•talk 15:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.31.144.27, indeed they should, and you'll see that merge/redirect discussions have already started for some "big" shows. But this takes time, and there is little to be gained to propose all episode articles for all shows for a merge/redirect at the same time. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first step in Wikipedia no longer being a living, breathing encyclopedia of knowledge and becoming a cold, metallic pile of information a small handful of people think looks nice. The episode pages were useful and contained content. The fact that editors and admins are openly advertising external sources as outlets for information is proof that the encyclopedic collection of information is no longer paramount at Wikipedia.

I want to know why the powers that be would rather divert information to other websites instead of trying to improve the use and content of Wikipedia itself. Any site on the internet can tell me that My Mentor is about J.D. trying to get to know Cox. Wikipedia should be able to tell me more than any random site.

If we're going to stop collecting information on television show episodes, one of the largest and most popular forms of entertainment, then I propose two options.

• Revert the episode pages so they can be improved, or...
• Start a Telepedia or something, but make it a part of the Wiki family. Don't pawn it off on a Wikia site. Do it for real. WiteoutKing (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first bullet, I have already stated this numerous times. The articles are still there. If you go to the article history, the content was erased and overwritten with a redirect. You can view the article histories. I strongly suggest that you take an article, get the history, put it in your userspace, improve it, then recreate the article.↔NMajdan•talk 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE bring back the episode pages. 165.129.2.15 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is absurd that Wikipedia would remove individual episode articles. It's not like they take up much server space and I doubt they would bring Wikipedia into a negative light. A true shame as I relied on these articles to provide information on each episode. A very poor job has been done of converting the articles to the list summaries - most likely because there is enough information on each episode to warrant its own article. Another example of the admins taking WP in the direction they want to instead of listening to the community. SillyWilly (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't really that much involved in consensus-finding; the community itself has decided on consensus (e.g. policies and guidelines). Admittedly, WP:EPISODE is under dispute at the moment, but WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:QUOTE aren't, so almost all of the Scrubs episode articles had nothing to justify a separate article (almost no show has). The list summaries aren't the result from converting, but were there when the redirect happened. You are encouraged to improve them if you want. You can even start season pages if you want, see Smallville (Season 1) for a good example. And you can resurrect episode articles when they satisfy all of the above (use your userspace in the meantime). Nothing is set in stone here other than discouraging/"disallowing" poor episode articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus either here or at WP:EPISODE for the mass merging and redirecting of Scrubs episodes. Catchpole (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is however consensus to only give articles to topics that can and do establish notability. Almost none of the episode articles did, so the options are to delete through AfD (not going to happen), merge (if there is anything to merge, that is) and redirect (done), improve to meet all the mentioned policies and guidelines (can still be done), or transwiki (can still be done). If someone doesn't want the redirect, he is free to explore the other options. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about that. See Bart the General or Love and Rocket. The consensus among editors who actually edit articles (and not just among editors who try to enforce their opinions by editing guidelines) is that individual episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. That is the consensus among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Eusebeus has decided to overide the no consensus on this talk page and re-insert the redirects from many of the 106 articles I removed redirects from. I'll be removing the redirects in another week, because it's clear there is no consensus here for them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes made without discussion by the 3 IP addresses this morning, two of whom were the same user and who all showed up with five minutes of each other. I'm not fixed on this, but you've at least got to provide a rationale if you're going to do that. BLACKKITE 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all the time, for Scrubs and for other shows with redirected ep articles, and it's probably happening in good faith because everything used to be bluelinked a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't give it any more thought (as long it is just the circular links being recreated, not the episode articles). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, do you see all that discussion above you? The IP editors don't have to provide a rationale for doing that. Anyone can wikify links on Wikipedia. The fact that those articles are currently redirects does not mean the wikilinks to them should be removed. When I remove the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles in a week, I plan on adding the wikilinks back to this list. --Pixelface (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't both reverting the redirects, as they will just be reverted right back again. If you really want these to come back, show how a bunch of whining editors form a consensus that overrides our "main three" (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS). Please don't try to pick them apart like most people do by saying that WP:V doesn't fit this because "blah blah blah". They are essentially one single entity, so that's irrelevant to this. TTN (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'll be removing the redirects in a few days. You can count on that. There's no consensus here for them. Do you see all those threads above this one? WP:N is not a policy. WP:RS is not a policy. And the information in the episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes. Saying WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS are essentially one single entirety is false. The fact of the matter is that individual episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. --Pixelface (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, those people are just whining because they have to go somewhere else for this information. Why that is so hard, I will never know. Their arguments are not based from the position of policies and guidelines, so they are irrelevant. Please don't use the "It's not policy" "argument"; it's ridiculous to think that you can ignore them because you don't agree with them in this case. I guess you missed "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." in WP:V. TTN (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you're referring to no consensus as "whining" I'll never know. Consensus can change. There may have been consensus at one point in time for those articles to be redirects, but there isn't now. WP:CONSENSUS says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." I do see that in WP:V, but you seem to be treating each of these articles as separate topics. How is it that Scrubs is notable enough to have an article but the episodes (which is all the show is) are not notable? --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not encyclopedic and it is only valid to fans and parties uninterested in an encyclopedic overview. The information can be found on dozens of other websites, with a good chunk of them being just as easily edited as this one. That is why it is whining. Consensus is not found in numbers, but in policies and guidelines. As I'm sure you've looked over WT:N at least once, you have probably seen that the large amount of people whining about it have not changed it as of this point. All you have to do is read WP:N's nutshell to answer your last question. TTN (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Scrubs episodes? Consensus does not derive from policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines document consensus. I have read the nutshell at WP:N. Now I suggest you go look up the word "presumed" in a dictionary. --Pixelface (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as we haven't brought up The Simpsons in this discussion, I assume I'm talking about Scrubs. Yes, they do document consensus, which is not derived from numbers, but rather extensive discussion based upon an encyclopedic view. A small consensus here does not mean that the consensus formed in our policies and guidelines is wrong. Please don't play with words. Just because it's a loose term does not mean that we can randomly ignore it for no reason. TTN (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were maybe talking about List of The Simpsons episodes when you said "The information is not encyclopedic and it is only valid to fans and parties uninterested in an encyclopedic overview. The information can be found on dozens of other websites, with a good chunk of them being just as easily edited as this one." A consensus among a small group of editors on a guideline does not override the current practice among editors who work on articles. The current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not each have to establish individual notability. Is "worthy of notice" an objective term? How about you tell me what you think "presumed" means. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to bother responding to any comments relating to The Simpsons from you anymore. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. The "current practice" has nothing to do with consensus, so that is gone. Looking at it again, presumed is defined for you right on that page, so you can tell me. TTN (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were applying your criteria evenly, The Simpsons would never even come up. Current practice is what policies and guidelines are supposed to document. Consensus on some guideline most editors have never even heard of (WP:EPISODE comes to mind) does not override current practice among editors. Guidelines are supposed to describe current practice among editors. The definition of "presumed" at WP:N is ridiculous. WP:N says ""Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." So according to WP:N, notability can only be presumed and suggested.

Definitions of "presumed" from dictionary.com include, "to take for granted, assume, or suppose", "to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary", "to undertake with unwarrantable boldness", "To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove", "To venture without authority or permission; dare", "go beyond the proper limits", "to suppose to be true without proof or before inquiry", etc. Significant coverage in reliable sources suggests a topic is notable — it does not mean it is notable and WP:N does not say there is only one way to assert notability.

If Scrubs is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry, I must assume that the episodes are also notable because the episodes are the show. Current practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to assert individual notability apart from the television show. The term "worthy of notice" is not an objective term, and that's probably why WP:N will never be a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. And there's no consensus here for these articles to be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, please read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, especially the bit about circular redirects. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I remove the redirects in a few days, the wikilinks to the episode articles won't be circular redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What, in your opinion, would provides true context to the episode? --Pixelface (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I think the format of Bart the General would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry. I think the format of Love and Rocket would be acceptable then. --Pixelface (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, well, then I think the format of Jaynestown would be acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 determiine 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 the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|contribs)} 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. TTN is just making ridiculous demands for shrubberies. Catchpole (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. BLACKKITE 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Like it or not, an infobox means an article does not violate WP:NOT#PLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree completely. An infobox, in my mind, doesn't quality as "content." The article must have "content" beyond a plot summary.↔NMajdan•talk 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • I also disagree with that. An article needs more than a plot section and an infobox. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

        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)[reply]

  • 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|contribs)} 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pixelface that infoboxes make the articles pass WP:NOT#PLOT. 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)[reply]

• 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?? BLACKKITE 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.↔NMajdan•talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? BLACKKITE 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this discussion, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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•talk 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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•talk 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have any of the arguments changed? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]