Template talk:Grey's Anatomy

Untitled post

What is the reason for removing characters from this template once they no longer are regulars on the show? Should the template not be "timeless" so that new viewers (such as me) can easily find prominent first-and-second-season characters such as Montgomery-Shephard or Burke?
—Leif Arne Storset 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see people agree with me! :)
—Leif Arne Storset 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we make this template like on the macedonian wikipedia its prety cool. --77.29.15.153 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are in the Seasons line only links to seasons 1, 4 and 5? And why are there even those same links twice? Svick (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

About the new look of the template!

Ok, the template was awful. And everyboody knew that so a think that this is better than the previous one. Of course maybe its not even near to perfect, but that doesn't mean that you can earsed right away. Everything about this show is disaster. The main page is in mess, the template is not in order and the articles about the characters are small and in big disorder. So, I am planning to change as much as I can. So when one of you see this template for sure will earse it. So lets talk like mature people and see what's the best thing. First of all the color can be changed. The color is neutral and i put it because it was stupid without color. If you think that the color is wrong, than put the right. Second, the big title on the template is exactly like the logo of the show. You are of course going to change it because is not good for you, but i saw the template about Desperate Housewives and its the same. With the logo of it own show. So because of that i don't see a reason why we should change that. Third, I think that the groups in the template are great and with them the template is very organised. I beg you please do not undo it my last change on it. Just improve it and first duiscuss that with me here. Lets all who are intersted talk about it here. I am telling you that the change i made is not even near to fatal so don't panic like always and first see the changes and than do what you think you can do. --SmartM&M (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Navigation templates are supposed to be functional, not good looking. And sorry to say, but this one isn't even good looking. The title is huge and unwieldy and the groups are lopsided. There's no reason to split the cast into present and former, because that shows a bias towards current events. As an encyclopaedia, we're supposed to document the show as a whole, not chronicle the ever changing entrances and exits of new characters like a TV guide. WP:NAV says "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles" and there is no such justification here, beyond you personally thinking that the standard template is ugly - an issue you should instead raise on the main template's talkpage. Frickative 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem! I respect your decision, but the thing I don't understand is why you don't like the TItle. Just see this - Template:Desperate Housewives! There Template is like the one i made! And nobody said anything to them. And sorry about saying this but because of you the articles about Grey's Anatomy are distaster. If somebody made just the slightest change you'll "fix it". I am very very good user but not on this wikipedia and from now I'll try to be active here too. So all I want is to help you. You are the only one who see these articles. I just want to make order about Grey's anatomy articles here like that about Desperate Housewives. All I want is respect from you and if deny me changes all the time I won't bother undo them. Good wishes! --SmartM&M (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

template

So I get that this is an encyclopedia but that doesn't mean you have to do it all strictly. Arranging the characters by alphabet is not helping anyone, I think. Arranging them by their appearance throughout the show is a much better help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.244.91.2 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think if we're going to do that, we need to list the order of the entire cast, past and current as opposed to segregating the past cast members at the end. The template shouldn't show any bias towards current vs past events, but the cast as a whole throughout its entire history-run. I would like to note that House currently holds FA status uses the order of how how they appear on the title credits. Ace^(T•CON) 22:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadie Harris

Harris was not a character who received starring status. The template should be for characters who have starring status. Sb1990 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No where on the template does it say "starred characters"; it says 'characters'. She will be added back for navigational purposes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The template IS for series regulars only. Otherwise you would have to add a lot of people to the template, like nurse Olivia or Dr. Dixon. Sadie Harris only had five or six episodes and she's definately not important enough to be on the template. She will be taken off the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.188.246.166 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's enough. Please tell me where it says the template is for main characters. It is a navigational template, to navigate Grey's Anatomy articles. If there were an article for Olivia, she would be listed, but there's not. The point is if they have an article, they get listed. If you can point to any guideline that says it's only for main characters, please let me know. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's reach consensus and not edit war or violate WP:3RR. "She will be taken off the list.", You do not own Wikipedia, so let's all reach consensus. Here we all are. My thoughts:

Keep on the template. As it doesn't note or say anything about "main characters". She is also a key character at FA status. There is no policy or guideline that states that above. As TRLIJC19 said above, "The point is if they have an article, they get listed." TBrandley 17:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Harris is the only non-starring character that has an own article on Wikipedia. There's characters that are far more important. Like Olivia. Or Bailey's fiancée. They just don't happen to have their own article. What I'm saying is that I don't even think Sadie should have her own article. Everything important about her could also be said in Meredith's or Lexie's article.

First of all, stop changing the template while discussion is undergoing. Multiple users have explained to you why she should be here, and you continue to ignore and revert. Sadie Harris is a featured article, which means it is one of Wikipedia's best. If you would like to create an article on Olivia, who is of zero importance, or Ben, with reliable sources, go ahead. But stop removing the character from the template. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's a featured article doesn't mean it's supposed to be on the template. I'm not saying the article isn't good enough, because obviously it's very well written and all, but Sadie Harris had a total of 7 episodes on the show and she wasn't very important either, so no one would really expect her on the template and no one would go looking for her character on the template. No one would be looking for Nurse Olivia on the template, too, because even though it doesn't say that there should be only series regulars on the template, it's supposed to be like that. Look at other templates for television shows, like Desperate Housewives or Friends. There's only the main characters because those are the characters one would be looking for if they were to look at the template. Langer Rede kurzer Sinn, rather than removing Sadie Harris from the template, I'm very fond of the idea to extend the template. It's rather short anyway. You could add some more characters like Nurse Olivia, Dr. Ben Warren, Dr. Virginia Dixon, Ellis Grey, Adele, Thatcher Grey, etc. You could also add important episodes, like the double episode after the SuperBowl or the season finales, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.241.148 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how many times I can put this to you. It is not about their importance, it is about if we have an article on them or not. Desperate Housewives and Friends do not have articles for any recurring characters; if they did, they would be listed. Yes, I could add more of the recurring characters, but I have no interest in creating quality articles for them at the moment. If someone creates an article for one of those characters, they are welcome to add it to the template. And no, we will not be putting episodes on, because all episodes are listed at Template:Grey's Anatomy episodes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, no, actually, there is no guideline as to which characters should be listed on navigational templates. It is a navigation template, not a list of starring characters, such as is featured at Grey's Anatomy. Regarding Dixon; she was in 3 episodes, there will be no article created for a character that unimportant to the series. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You say it's about if there's an article on them, I say it's about their importance. There's no guideline as to which one of us is right. What's with the attitude? Could it be that you're mad that I don't want your featured article'd Sadie Harris on the template? Just kidding. Or am I? I still don't think Sadie deserves an article and I still don't think she should actually be on the template but there's no messing with you obvs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.203.246.98 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not about their importance. It's a navigational template, not a list of important characters. And no, it's not that I'm mad, it's that you're not understanding what "navigational" means. It's to navigate articles, not to represent how many episodes a character has been in. That's nice that you don't think Sadie deserves an article, but Wikipedia doesn't base article existence on episode count; they base it on reliable secondary sources, which are available for the character. The FA reviewers obviously thought so as well. Also, are you the same person behind all these different IPs? Because it's getting a little confusing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I do get what navigational means but I think I just don't see Wikipedia as a mere source of information. At least not as much as you do. But I get it's about the sources and all. But I would really enjoy articles about other characters, because I think there's lots to say about them. And yes, I guess that was all me.

Since it appears there are no guideline mentioning that only the main characters should appear in a navigational template, I think we can keep Sadie Harris in the template. When we create more pages on recurring characters like Ellis, Adele or Denny, then we'll consider dividing the template between main characters and recurring ones but as of now it's not necessary. The question of Sadie Harris being an important character deserving her own article is another discussion which should not appear on this page... ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Franchise as a whole?

Since the template links to Private Practice and Station 19, I vote we combine the (unneeded due to it's small size) Private Practice template with the Grey's Anatomy template to get the following.

This way it makes the franchise feel less disconnected, while also eliminated a rather small, unneeded template and allowing easy navigation through the franchise in it's entirety. 2605:E000:180F:BC:6DA0:31C3:899E:CE97 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)