Talk:J.D. (Scrubs)

Daydreams

Shouldn't we note J.D's habit of daydreaming, and how it often spreads out onto reality (i.e daydreaming of Neena kicking men in the balls to a dance number then informing her that "I'm wearing a cup!" or daydreaming about doing the "re-run dance" at a stag-night and actually doing it)? I'm not suggesting we list them all, but it is of note I reckon. Crimson Shadow 14:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

well that's the humor of it all isn't it. his daydreams were never supposed to come true but do. come to think of it his daydreams are a huge part of the show's uniqueness! i loved it when colin farrel was on and JD daydreamed about an "irish brother" :p but thats besides the point. or howabout the kung fu fighting "betrayal five" courtesy of todd?? but that was really turk. it's certainly an idea, but needs someone with a much better memory of J.D.'s daydreams than i :) or perhaps a heckuva lotta "research" :P ahwang 06:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

transportation=

WHYYY delete "He also has a curious tendency to wear a "riding sock" down his pants whether he is riding a car, scooter, or a bicycle. "???? its as related as his hairmet right?? its interesting to know!! ahwang 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A) It was relevant in episode 1 of Season 5. B) It's useless knowledge, and incredibly trivial. C) I'm fairly certain it only came up in that episode, and never came up before or after, whereas the Hairmet showed up more than once. D) Please learn English, if you plan on using the English Wikipedia. There is a "Simple English" wiki if you feel that might be easier. 21:59 EST, 12/30/2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.134.180.206 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 31 December 2006.

Daydreams

We should mention his daydreams and also his narrations and thoughts. A section listing a few memorable ones might be good, but we would have to discuss which ones are noteworthy. Here's a few I would mention.

Kung Fu fighting, My Day at the Races

Sean/diet soda, My Lucky Night

99 Luftballoons, My Interpretation

Turk/Gospel church, My Own Personal Jesus

Irish Brother, My Lucky Charm

Randall/locker, My Rule of Thumb

Turkiott, My Jiggly Ball

Todd/old lady wrestling, My New Old Friend

p.s. Sorry for the Newbie question, but how do I add responses to the appropriate part of a diccussion page, going under the established title of that conversation? EJB341, 24th August.

   lets not forget "floating head doctor"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.220.23 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 

Nicknames=

Someone has taken off all the nicknames for J.D, this means we have the unfortunate task of finding them again and listing them in their appropriate seasons. Please list the girls names in the seasons and add addtionail nicknames e.g Bambi, vanilla bear, seperatly.

Yeah damnit, put the nicknames back on. They're relevent to the show and to J.D. -Tony

No, they are not. Look at the other Scrubs articles. Well, most of them.--SUIT 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How are they not? Every other charcter has their nicknames and J.D doesn't? We should put them on the J.D page.

They are unencyclopedic and are only there to take up space. See the history. One should say, "deleting unencyclopedic content". If you have an issue with this, take it up with him.--SUIT 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it unencyclopedic? It is relevant to the show. The characters having many nicknames is a feature of Scrubs and each of the characters have certain nicknames from certain characters, which shows how the characters interact with each other. Scrubs fans on Scrubs message boards sometimes bring up topics about the girl's names Cox has used for JD, so that in particular is useful. Is there any way to get the nicknames back (for all the character articles, not just this one) without having to find them all again? If not, whoever did this has ruined a lot of work and forced us to start at square one. EJB341 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what fans on a forum think, and a list of nicknames is unencyclopedic, and shouldn't be there--SUIT 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter what fans on a forum think, yet it matters what <bold>you</bold> think? Call me ignorant, but I think that's rather rude and wrong. I personally think that a list of JD's nicknames IS relevant to his character descriptions, in an encyclopedic fashion. So far, there's at least two people's opinions that outweight your one. Because that's what your statements are. Opinions. Just like I'm under the opinion that Dragonball Z is not a good anime in any sense (artistic ability, voice acting on either japanese or english, storylines, or character ideas), to use something familiar to you as an example, but other people might disagree with me. You don't see me going onto the Goku article and deleting the information on his different super power levels saying that "They're just there to take up space, so what if a bunch of people talk about them? It's not encyclopedic information." But hey, I'm just a Goon who likes Scrubs, and dislikes 12-year olds acting all mature and stuff. Me. 22:15 EST, 30 December 2006

Stay civil, pal. A nickname section isn't necessary and this isn't a vote. So rather than going on a long rant about this, go and contribute to Wikipedia.--SUIT 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

to answer your question it is possible to recover the list of names as they are held in the pages history, I have to agree with the other contributors - I think the list on nicknames is relevant to the article. Suit, could you tell us which of wikipedias policies having the list contravenes?Georgeryall 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I suppose a few wouldn't hurt, but not that entire list.--SUIT⁴² 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ok. Georgeryall 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to take the names from the history of this page, rather than to take them from the portugese, also wouldnt it look better not to have the portugese reference there?Georgeryall 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fears

Can we include his fear of hot air balloons, since the only time I remember hearing about it was during the sitcom-sequence from My Life in Four Cameras? It seems unclear that you can use those sequences as reality given the random changes that occur in them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Move?

I suggest we move the page to J.D. (Scrubs) or something like that since he's usually called J.D. anyway--SUIT 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I, uh, just moved it... If it doesn't work, I'll change it back--SUIT 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Turk states that JD has "this wierd things with pennies" while talking to Dr. Elliot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.72.132 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rowdy

It says under the Rowdy section that "Rowdy was a dog, owned by J.D., who apparently died before the beginning of the series." This makes it sound as though J.D. owned Rowdy while he was alive, while in fact it is pointed out in one of the episodes that J.D. did not have a prior connection with him and that he bought him at a garage sale. I don't recall which episode it was in though so I might be wrong. I'll try to find it.

Spoiler

Spoiler end tag would be GREAT on this page, as right now, I can't read a thing! Also, I wont check back here because I don't want it spoiled, but does JD have some kind of mental illness? I mean his daydreams and talking to himself. It would be an interesting twist and make SO much sense JayKeaton 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Name

I just watched episode 424 "My Changing Ways". At the very end of the episode, JD introduces himself as "Johnathan" to his neighbor who fell through the ceiling. So his name should be Dr. Johnathan "J.D." Dorian — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.220.60 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I've seen that episode too, and it's the only time I can think of that the name 'Jonathan' is used. It contradicts every other instance in which his full name is spoken, as well as the official website. Given the context, I think we can safely assume that he's joking.24.44.137.19 05:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see notations for two other episodes. I can immediately remember the episode "My Fifteen Minutes." When speaking to the board, Dr. Cox refers to him as 'John Dorian.' Add to that that NBC, ABC, and IMDb use 'John,' I think it's safe to assume that his first name is John, and that 'Jonathan' is used facetiously.24.44.137.19 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

abc, nbc, and imdb are not written by the writers. he has used jonathan on more than one occasion, and jonny several times as well. nobody would call themself jonathan if their name was john--Jac16888 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If he'd introduced himself as 'Johan' would you say that that's his first name? Unless you can find an official source - more official than the studio that produces the show and the network that airs it - that says that his name is Jonathan, I'm going to have to go with John.24.44.137.19 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

how more official can you get than THE WRITERS THEMSELVES. --Jac16888 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Bill Lawrence is the ultimate creative authority on the series. If the series website, studio website, and network website erroneously listed his name as 'John,' I think he'd correct it. But fine, what if we just use both?24.44.137.19 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it thus, what do you think? Of course John comes first in alphabetical order. We'll just have to write to Bill Lawrence and get him to settle this.24.44.137.19 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

are you guys retarded? You know "John" is short for "Jonathan" right? They are both his real name, because they are the same name.68.238.6.11 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

its not always, there are many many people who are simply called John, without it being short for Jonathan, my dad being one of them. and i suggest you read WP:ATTACK--Jac16888 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Im the episode where J.D. did not know the janitor's name, the janitor shamed him by calling him "John Michael Dorian." It was obvious from J.D.'s chagrin that the janitor was EXACTLY correct. Bustter 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe that he was actually unnerved by the janitor knowing his middle name, remember that janitor only got his info from J.D.'s diary, which may not have Jds full name in it, we don't know, and also, jd has actually introduced himself as jonathan on occasion. but anyway, we have no concrete confirmation either way, hence the inclusion of both--Jac16888 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we do. In "My Case Study," the bulletin announcing J.D. as the winning case study says, "John Dorian M.D." In "My New Game," the name on his and Elliot's office door says "CO-CHIEF RESIDENT - JOHN DORIAN M.D." I've heard him called "Jonathan" in dialogue, but I've never seen his name written as such. In point of fact, "John" and "Jonathan" are entirely seperate names. Of course the latter is often abbreviated "Jon." Khan_singh 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Observe thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:My_New_Game.JPG Khan_singh 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that image settles it. If anyone disagrees, you can of course un-do my edit.Khan_singh 04:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your image settles nothing, can you see jonathan fitting on that sign? The point is that we have seen or heard him called both John and jonathan, which is why the article has both--Jac16888 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, find a single instance of his name being written as Jonathan. If you look closely, you can see John written on that bulletin, on his office door, even on his paycheck. If the two names were used equally or even 70/30, I could see where this debate - insignificant though it is - would have two sides to argue. But in view of the fact that every official online source, viz. NBC's website and Touchtone's website, the fact that every written instance of his name on hospital documents, and the fact even programming guides call him John "J.D." Dorian; and that he's only referred to in dialogue as Jonathan once, perhaps twice; it seems to me that the vast preponderance of evidence favors John.Khan_singh 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, John and Jonathan are seperate names. If Jonathan couldn't fit on the sign, it would say Jon.Khan_singh 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right, there is much more evidence that it is John rather than jonathan, but the point is that he has, on occasion, called himself Jonathan, which is why they are both included--Jac16888 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that john is written on his paycheck means nothing. My dad's first name is really Anthony but he goes under Tony a common nickname of Anthony and often has Tony written on official documents (including business cards, and the name on his office door). I've definitely heard of people called Jonathan actually going under the name John and not Jon. I don't really care I'm not a huge Scrubs fan but you could safely assume his full first name is Jonathon and John is short for it. I would rather you guys decide on one name and then have a note about his disputed name in the article rather than the very clunky "Dr. John (or Jonathon) Michael Dorian". Jabso (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Tony is a nickname for Anthony, and Jonathan and John are names in their own right. There is precendent for using both names. See the article on Nathaniel P. Banks.Khan_singh (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's been over a year since anyone posted on the subject, but I thought I'd have my say. John is short for Jonathan. It's as simple as that. It can be spelt John or Jon - it's a matter of preference. Josh is short for Joshua, Ant is short for Anthony, Chris is short for Christopher. It's true that a parent may choose to officially name their child by the shortened name, so his name MAY be just John. I disagree with people doing that, as I think it seems tacky, but that's just my opinion. I think that his full name is Jonathan Michael Dorian for the simple reason that he would not have introduced himself as such if it were not his name. The fact that his paychecks/office sign/etc may say 'John' is irrelevant. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use the short-form of their name for such things. Zestos (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"J.D.'s name is based on that of Dr. Jonathan Doris, a college friend of creator Bill Lawrence". Zestos (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

John is not short for Jonathon - see the bottom of this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_(given_name). They are two seperate names. Also he mmay refer to himself as Jonathon if he thinks its funny - I once knew a man whose name was Kym, and he quite oftened introduced himself as Kymothy - both for laughs and to sound a bit more posh, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced

The entire article is unreferenced. "The program itself is a reference" - ok, give episodes. It's what was done on the Janitor page. mattbuck 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, done it --Jac16888 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Acula refference?

I may have found a reference to an unmade film with the same name on the Béla Lugosi page under the decline section, third paragraph. It was going to be made by Edward D. Wood, Jr., but there is no mention of it on that page. Some of the footage that was taking might have been used in Plan 9 from Outer Space. Xannon 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that it is more likely a reference to Forrest J Ackerman, who often referred to himself as "Dr. Acula" in the pages of his kiddie magazine, Famous Monsters of Filmland. This name received much wider exposure through Forry than anywhere else. Check Dr._Acula for a few likely references, but I wouldn't select a single source without a cite. Bustter 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scrubs jd.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this possible?

"played by John Ritter who died a few months before the episode was made"Bustter 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

john ritter played his dad in My Old Man, s1, and another ep too, can't remember which, and when he died, they made My Cake, s4 as a tribute to him. but that line isn't actually in the article, where are you quoting it from?--Jac16888 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

check the article history to just before/after my above post. It's been revised to indicate that the Ritter character's death was a "tribute" to Ritter's death, an assertion that needs a source. Bustter 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

that was me, it didn't say that before. anyway, we know its a tribute because the ep was dedicated to him--Jac16888 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the history..."a few months before the episode was made" was changed to "a few months before the episode was aired" shortly after my initial post. The quote was verbatim from the article as it stood on the date of my post.21:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

see i'm confused now, i distinctly remember changing the sentence after reading your post, and yet it apparently never happened. Must have just hit the preview button, then moved away from the page, sorry, my mistake--Jac16888 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Quirks

The entire first paragraph of that section consists entirely on event that occurred in one particular episode then were never referenced again. This section should be trimmed down to only events that occur repeatedly throughout the series. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i think that his fears should be kept, but beyond that, yes it should be trimmed down, i will have ago later when i've got more free time--Jac16888 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

have free time after all, have trimmed it down, somewhat, some things seemed significant despite being one time occurences.--Jac16888 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The article does need cleanup. However, there is no justification for slashing large sections down to a few sentences. It would be better to discuss first, then edit. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And now we'll watch the "This is important" comments just role in. That is why there cannot be a discussion, discussion on this. On the offchance that they don't come for some reason, there is nothing to salvage in most of these sections. The article's current information needs to be condensed right down. "Profile" needs to be trimmed and merged into the opening. Family history can pretty much just go away. A mention of the brother can probably pass somewhere. The next three need to be chopped down and merged into some sort of section. Musical preferences is just junk. Relationships can just be wiped out. Key information will be merged into the general section. Production Details should be cut down to the one actual detail, which can be placed into the opening until a section arises. TTN 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say aiming for Homer Simpson is the best direction to go at this point. The only difference would be that "Personality" wouldn't exist like that for this one. TTN 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are way too zealous about this. You seem obsessed with reducing it to 1 paragraph per character. It's not going to happen. Yes, the article needs cleanup but nowhere near the level you seem to believe. Why are relationships not relevant - Scrubs is a sitcom, relationships are a major part of the character and thus should be of the article. Family history is a useful thing to have, to a small extent. Production details should NEVER be in the opening as it's not relevant to the very brief description an opening is meant to provide. mattbuck 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relationships are relevant, but there is no need for sections in articles repeating information over and over. We can identify that he and Turk are best friends, that he and Elliot have their thing, and that he looks up to Cox, but we don't need to describe the inner workings of those to monotony for two reasons. One is that this information is better covered in the main article and on the episodes/episode list, as the relationships between the characters are one of the main points of the show, so it is just redundant to everything to flesh them out here. The second is that there are not enough important details to actually need subsections. Everything under it is original research or just plain trivial.

Only important family history that is relevant to the character is mentioned (the death of his father). Listing all of his relatives doesn't help anything. That would just be a placeholder because a one sentence production section is pretty pointless to have. TTN 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you TTN, wikipedia has millions upon millions of visitors who do what the main purpose of this site is for. They read it. The thing thats sets wikipedia apart from other online encylopedia's is that it has information like this, do you really think there would be as many visitors if every television character's articles was as cut down as you want it to be?, thousands of people would stop coming here. Its how people end up editors, its how i did, i liked reading about the characters, then i decided it would be good to make them even better, i imagine the same could be said for many many other editors on here, indeed i'm pretty sure its the whole point of wikipedia. You need to get yourself out of this wikilawyering, bueracratic frame of mind, and try looking at it from a different perspective. And also, are you actually likely to change your mind?, because my experience of you before suggests that nothing anybody ever says to you will change your mind. Well in this case it seems to me there is a helluva lot of consensus against you.--Jac16888 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Being useful to people doesn't make the information exempt from following our policies and guidelines. People can goto another wiki for that (for example, I like the Mario series, so when I want to read up on fan details, I visit a Mario wiki). The information currently is too in-universe (thus failing WP:WAF), mostly original research (original thoughts pieced together with observations from the episodes), and a lot of it is full of unneeded, boated plot summaries. That is not how an article should be. This needs to be geared towards Felix the Cat, Jabba the Hutt, Superman, and other featured articles (Homer Simpson and Jason Voorhees are good non-FA examples) to exist, or it needs to be merged eventually.

To do that, it needs real world information surrounding a concise amount of in-universe information (see the above examples). The amount of in-universe information here is too much for this topic, so it needs to be removed. This is not just my opinion, as you can see in the above examples. TTN 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

do you even listen to yourself? people shouldn't have to go to other wiki's, they don't have to go to other wiki's. They come here. and as for, "eventually merged", thats not how wikipedia works at all, an article grows untill it becomes too big and is split into smaller articles, not the other way around, thats just stupid.--Jac16888 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Information needs to be managed to provide the best encyclopedic coverage. We are not here to please fans of a series. We provide a concise overview of various topics by using reliable sources to build a new source. This ideal is the main ideal of the site. If they want fan information, there is wikia and there are plenty of fan sites. This is supported by the various policies and guidelines of this site. TTN 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY mattbuck 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the examples that I have cited up above. Those are considered to be top quality articles by the community of this site, and they represent my points exactly: real world information comes before in-universe information; it all balances out. If I am just being too "bureaucratic", what do those represent? TTN 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Very very dull articles. mattbuck 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I hate discussing most of the time. I have just explained that these are the community's chosen articles, and they do represent the true feelings of the community, yet you still continue with your own opinion. You are always free to have an opinion, but it alone doesn't change the procedures of this site. TTN 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really a single community. It's a collection of communities. Thing of it as a great big venn diagram - there are people (eg) who edit McFly articles, those who do quantum physics, those who do ancient history. Now, I do not feel that just because say quantum physics does their articles one way that ancient history have to do the same. They may have some of the same members, but by and large they are not the same community. We, the Scrubs community, have a consensus on how these articles are done, built up over years of wikiing. I would not go and impose Scrubs standards onto any other community - they can do things the way they please. I feel that that is the best way to work these things. mattbuck 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

off topic comment"a great big venn diagram", what a perfect analogy, it fits my views on wikipedia exactly, put very well.--Jac16888 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, there are people that edit only in certain spectrums, but there is no such thing as communities that decide how their content is managed with no regard to guidelines, policies, or other "communities." At most, you can group them into the projects, which still are not able to just say "Oh, we don't like this guideline." Besides that, FAs are placed in a general area where all editors are able to comment on them, so there are no specific specialties that decide to promote them. They are the chosen articles of the full on community. TTN 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still here? This needs to be cut down, and you cannot realistically have a consensus to keep an article in a crappy state, so you can either try to help format the article or whine about it afterwards. TTN 11:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you don't have to dismiss the concerns of others by using term like "whine about it". You have made a good point about the need to clean up the article; on the other hand, there's definitely not consensus to cut it as radically as you wanted to. Let's find a happy medium. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, as (some of) these people believe that this is their own group where they get to manage the content. I don't believe one of them has even suggested trimming this even a little. Anyways, this has to be cut way down. The in-universe stuff should be balanced with real world information. This would probably take maybe four to six paragraphs at most. TTN 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

JD & Jesus

J.D. talked abortion with Jesus? When? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.133.169 (talk) 04:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

EPISODE 6.02, "My Best Friend's Baby's Baby and My Baby's Baby" 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC) http://scrubs.mopnt.com/scripts/602.php J.D.: Laverne? Is this your Jesus?02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"Bromance"

This description was recently added... I was going to remove it, but Jac16888 beat me to it. I don't think it fits here for several reasons. Firstly, the text would need a citation from a reliable source, not a blog or forum. Secondly, and most importantly, from what I can find, the term appears to refer to a close, non-romantic relationship between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man, not between two heterosexual males. As such, it wouldn't apply to J.D. and Turk. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously i agree with it being removed (as i did it :)), mainly because word seemed too obscure to be meaningful to many people, plus the article explaining it has been deleted about 10 times--Jac16888 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

testicles

Hmm...I deleted the character profile section dealing with a description of J.D.'s balls. sound fair? 9/16/07 ksagar

Don't see a problem with it, it didn't lend much to the article--Jac16888 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pennies

"acts strangely around pennies (possibly due to an event in the pilot episode that makes the Janitor dislike him.)"

I'm pretty sure he acts weird around pennies because he has appendicitis. I don't have any specific reference, but in the episode, I believe JD was in the hospital as a patient and he didn't want Turk to operate on him, but he ended up operating on JD anyway because of complications and him being the only doctor on call. Some dialogue I remember: JD "Did you stitch your initials into me?", JD "If I ever need surgery again, I want you (Turk) to be inside me." and Turk says, "I want to be the one inside you."

Hopefully that's enough to pin it down for a correction. 208.117.81.202 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The episode you are referring to, My Day Off, is the one where he as appendicitis, and it is mentioned earlier on by turk that he acts weird around pennies , confirmed at the end when turk puts two pennies close to him. However his appendicitis has no bearing on this behaviour, and is apparantly due to the janitor accusing JD of breaking a door by jamming a penny in the mechanism--Jac16888 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

This article is in dire need of a clean up. While it is debatable on what should stay and go, I think Transportation should be completely taken out, while the Romantic Relationships section heavily condensed.

Let's be honest: Most of JD's girlfriends aren't all that unique. Alex's section is how I think they should be handled, 2-3 sentences of the history of the relationship, and the actress who plays her. I'll take this up sometime this weekend, but I'm open to suggestions on how to go about this.134.68.177.150 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in. Notthegoatseguy 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I edited the "Relationships" section (Romantic interests, to be precise) and forgot to log in and another user reverted it as vandalism. It was nothing of the sort, just trimming down the Romantic Interests section of a few sentences, whereas I believe it should be trimmed down much more but I didn't have enough time yesterday. I'm going to revert the edit, as it certainly wasn't vandalism, and I've put this page on Watch so I can be reached here or my individual talk page. Hopefully we can come to a compromise. Notthegoatseguy 15:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having an off day. Ignore this. Apparently I've forgotten how to read and differentiate between IPs. Notthegoatseguy 15:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because you actually removed some of the more notable info, Molly Clock was notable as she appeared in a lot of episodes, and the info about Mandy Moore being Zach Braffs real life girlfriend is good because its real-life information. I have re-added the bit about Molly Clock. If you want to clean it up, rm the bits within each character which are minor, not the whole characters themselves--Jac16888 17:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'll coneded about Moore, Molly and J.D. didn't even date. The extent of their relationship was "made out, and weeks later almost hooked up." Hardly notable. It is true that she appeared in several episodes and had storylines with several characters, including Dr. Cox, Kelso, and Elliot. But J.D. had no storyline other than "made out and almost hooked up." She deserves mention in their articles, but I don't think in J.D.'s. Notthegoatseguy 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

a brief mention in J.D's article would be fine but she needs a more detailed entry in elliotts and Dr Cox for sure, and to a lesser extent in Turk and Carla's after helping with their relationship.Skitzo 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quirks?

"Quirks

In the episode "My Hero", he is shown to act strangely around pennies, which possibly due to an event in the pilot episode that makes Janitor dislike him. His religious orientation is unclear, he appears to believe in karma, as seen in "My Karma", but on other occasions J.D. has indicated that he may be a Christian, having an imaginary conversation with Jesus over the option of abortion and taking Jesus' ultimatum of "no abortions!" seriously. He is generally a very clumsy person; he trips and falls in some way or another on a regular basis."

I'm just wondering why his religious affiliation have anything to do with "quirks" 66.69.122.130 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

nicknames

jd was also nicknamed scooter in one episode by the janitor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.231.147 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

exactly, in one episode. We only include nicknames that are used many times, otherwise the nicknames section would be huge--Jac16888 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information

The information previously in this article is not suitable for this site, so it has been removed. Most of the information was just pure original research, while the rest is just not suitable for an in-universe description of the character. Both his role in the series and his overall personality should be described within a few paragraphs. That information should be directly sourced by something, preferably information from the creators rather than the episodes. The current layout is based on Troy McClure, which is a featured article. If you believe that the information was fine, you're currently on the wrong site. Finding a good wiki on Wikia would be a good goal.TTN (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP added a ton of stuff back, and more. Enigma ^message 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnant girlfriend

I just saw an espisode where one of J.D.'s girlfriends got pregnant, shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Emperor001 (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was, his son was born as a result. (75.150.217.29 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

errors..or so i think..

i think i found two errors in this article

• where in the show does it ever say that Turk and J.D. went to College of William and Mary. i dont think this fact is ever mentioned

     In a flashback about JD's college girlfriend Stacy a couple William and Mary posters can clearly be seen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.33.43 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 

• i know it was a joke by J.D. but is it ever shown that his son's middle names are Perry Gilligan.

let me know what you think 74.225.89.149 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J.D. (Scrubs). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210054204/http://www.schmoozemag.com/?p=281 to http://www.schmoozemag.com/?p=281

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J.D. (Scrubs). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509161709/http://blog.meevee.com/my_weblog/2007/10/more-on-scrubs-.html to http://blog.meevee.com/my_weblog/2007/10/more-on-scrubs-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)