Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 4

"Everybody lies."

House assuming "everybody lies" and relying much more on empirical testing makes him a skeptic, no? 71.162.255.83 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the degree of lying is conditioned behavior, but the basis is a genetic element (instinct: self protection)i say "if a cat could talk he would also be lying his ass off all day" it's not skepticism it's how people cope with issue's. Markthemac (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes was NOT a cocaine addict. There was only one instance of him using it and in my opinion this has become exaggerated like he's some kind of a crack junkie craving for the thrill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.218.246 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For a fairly thorough discussion, see http://www.bakerstreetdozen.com/coca.html Doctor Watson, and by extension Doyle himself, seem to have thought that Holmes's habit of using cocaine was a serious problem. The parallel to the House character is fairly apt.P.D. 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have ever read the complete works of Sherlock Holmes by Auther Conan Doyle, there is a great amount of evidence of drug use, in some cases cocaine. This is parallel to the character Dr. Gregory House for the T.V. series House. It allowed Sherlock Holmes to function and solve cases much like Dr. House ShogoFan3000 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the exras on the season 1 DVD. Holmes was used as an inspiration and model for House's character, and the writers/actor were aware of the paralell from the start. bahamut0013♠♣ 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Holmes section it says house has a relationship with "James Watson" which links to John Watson. This needs to be changed and clarified. 142.68.78.235 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am about to say does not relate directly with House and Sherlock Holmes, but it seemed like the best place to put it. I see a remarkable similarity between House and Albert Camus' The Plague. House faces many of the same struggles as Dr. Bernard Rieux and comes to many of the same conclusions. I do not know if these similarities are intentional. I have no outside information to back my claim. It is merely an idea that formed in my mind as I read the book and watched the TV show. I am sorry if I violated the rules or did something wrong. If anyone wishes to discuss the similarity between Dr. House and Dr. Rieux please e-mail me at [jason@blakeburn.net] and in the subject field put, "House and Camus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.131.38 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Recurring Characters?

From what I have heard, two or three of the new doctors are going to become permanent characters. I know we don't know who yet, but what will happen once we do? Until this point, the major cast list has been in all seasons. Dylan 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

All the male doctors are still in the team, in addition with Thirteen and Amber Volakis. This is true as the timestamp. Rchan89 05:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it doesn't make sense to remove the doctors which are fired because they are still featured in more than one episode. It would be better to write that they were one of the last ten, seven and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.90.59 (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no point in keeping people simply becuase they appear in more than one episode on those grounds, Foreman's parents, etc., or Wilson's girlfriend (in season 2) would qualify for the list; the "twins" had almost no lines and neither did "Jody". The fact that the same actor appears isn't a reason to keep them around (i.e. several nurses appear in more than one episode) Even the Mormon doctor had few enough actual storylines to qualify. Kal Penn, Peter Jacobsen, and Olivia Wilde are being added to the permanent cast and should remain on the list regardless of the number of lines and arcs they appear in and "Cutthroat Bitch" deserves listing because she has by far the largest screen prescence of the potential fellows and has more lines and appearances than Wilson or Cuddy in her episodes. Mooshimanx 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that a specific character appears more than once does not make them "recurring" becuase "recurring" characters have a more significant role in the plot, see recurring character. Changing it back is just being stubborn, unless you include every character that appears more than once for consistency, including all the nurses (many of them appear multiple times). I mean, for chrissikes, you had a character named "Twin #1" on your list; that's the kind of role that's credited at the endo of the show.Mooshimanx 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we get a new table/page for minor House characters, similar to that of other television shows? The only actual characters I think at this point merit their own mention as legitimate "Recurring characters" are Stacy Warner, Edward Vogler and Michael Tritter, as each of those characters had significant story arcs that revolved around them affecting House's practice? And it's somewhat odd to put them on the front page like that. Let's just add those characters to the front page, and delete the "recurring characters" table, as it also spoils episodes.

Page Name

Shouldn't the article be at House, M.D. instead of House (TV series) because thats what it is called on the DVD Boxsets and also listed as in the TV guides? Peachey88 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the title is simply House, though the title graphic does have an "M.D." in it. There's plenty of discussion about this in the archives if you're interested. The opening sentence does state that the show is sometimes referred to as "House, M.D.", because it is.Chaz ^Beckett 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the name was House, M.D. in season one, and the M.D. was dropped with season two. 91.55.83.135 12:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So that explains why the House MD is on the season *two* DVD box, as well as *still* on the title card for the show in season 4. Please read the archived discussion about this. There is no reference that exists that describes the MD being dropped from the show. Why people debate this is incomprehensible to me. If anything, the page should be "House M.D., also known as House". Nairebis 15:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On the channel 5 website (five.tv), it refers to the program as House MD when it was talking about the DVD "Hugh Laurie's smash hit medical drama House MD." ([[1]]) but on it's page on the program it is title "house" and that is how it is on the program list([[2]]). On the fox website it equally ambiguous as to where is stands. I couldn't find many instances where it was actually written excluding the title which was in the form of the logo and therefore MD is always included. But [[3]] says "OWN HOUSE: Season three". I know this doesn't clear much up but it seems that even the t.v channels arn't clear/consistent on what the name of the show is. Mypinkphone 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sequence Box

What's it a sequence of? I can't find any pattern to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.84.135 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Release in Australia delayed

Is it worth noting that Channel Ten in Australia announced we'd be 'seeing it as the rest of the world see's it' only to, on the day of House's airing, change their spiel to 'see it only days after the rest of the world see's it', by which point most of their viewers just went and downloaded the torrent anyway? :P

TV channels in Australia have been trying to bring airing forwards, but failing misrebly at doing so, resulting in half the population turning to torrent streams from other countries. A significant amount of torrent download of normal TV shows for the rest of the world seem to be from Australian IP's too. Jachin 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New characters

I don't think we should be adding new characters on the basis of what they are 'going to be' (leaving aside the reliability of Fox as a source). Why not wait until the new characters are actually there? 199.71.183.2 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Because removing information that is sourced and true seems to go against the idea of an encyclopedia, don't you think? 64.179.40.186 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, is there something we can do about this until the episodes air? I came to this page trying to get to the season three episode list and just had upcoming episodes spoiled for me just by glancing at the page. Goddamnit. WesleyDodds 06:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert war. "also" vs "originally" refered to as House MD

As a disinterested party, who is awake far too early this morning and noticed two generally positive contributors to this page having a revert war, I thought I'd go check on whether there was a consensus on how the article should deal with the "House" vs "House MD" issue.

Here's the archive of the last discussion on the subject. The consensus appears to be, at least to me, with one or two exceptions, that it should start with the "also refered to as" language, because at that point (late 2006, first half of 2007) there were numerous unofficial references to House with the MD appendage, varying from the DVD covers and the show's title card to third party (non-Fox) uses of the name, including IMDB and even someone's DVR listing.

At one point, it looked like everyone was (including Billywack) agreed upon "House, also referred to as House, M.D.,..." but the consensus broke (and I'm not sure how)

This is what has been discussed before. It may be that some feel that circumstances have changed enough for that not to be the consensus any more, in which case that's fine, but I'm hoping we can get away from a pointless revert war between what are obviously good faith contributors, however we do this. --Squiggleslash 09:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the consensus was 'also', since it doesn't imply anything, whereas originally states that it is no longer called House, M.D, by anyone. I don't know why we need to have such a big problem over a single word, but billywhack pops along every so often to try to change it to 'originally', even thought IMDB still calls it House M.D. Iorek 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And IMDB is a user contribution site. SO that is attributable now? Since it clearly states the last consensus was "also referred to" why was I reverted for reverting to that consensus? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me. Billywhack (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was "also known as". I reverted your change to that standard. "Also referred to" seems like a weaker form, which to me seems to imply that "House MD" is an arbitrary phrase that some people use. To me, "Also known as" gives the correct flavor that it's an alternate official title. Anyway, that was the consensus, which I don't even agree with (My opinion is that it should be, "House M.D., also known as House"). But the consensus phrase is better than your change. Nairebis (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The original consensus was also referred to. So what is the point of a consensus if you can arbitrarily ask for a new consensus when people aren't around to argue? I have an example: people who are on vacation for a week wouldn't be part of the "new consensus" even though they helped settle the original argument. Look a couple paragraphs up where somebody says originally I stipulated to the referred to consensus. That should have been the end of it. Since people violated that, I feel I have every right to revert back to also referred to or even eliminate the whole , M.D. argument. Thoughts? Billywhack (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I also stipulate that that also referred to is "a weaker form". That's why I agreed to it to end the argument. Because "also known as" does make it seem like an alternate official title, which it is not. The MD is a graphic displayed on the name. Why doesn't the page call it "Square around H, ouse, M.D."? Because that is a stupid argument, just like the MD argument. Billywhack (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because "square around" is not a part of English grammar, last I checked. On the other hand, "M.D." *is* clearly English. To use the Desert Island analogy, if the DVDs were dropped on the inhabitants, what would they think the title was? Clearly they would say it was "House M.D." I don't care to rehash which title is "more" official, but it's simply factual that "House M.D." is official. In fact, Amazon has the title as "House M.D.", and that title is given to Amazon by the producers of the DVDs when they supply the catalog copy. Anyway, as the Iorek below alluded to, it's been stable for seven months, except when you pop in and obsessively try and change it. As I said before, I'm not happy with the way it is now either, but all you're doing is wasting everyone's time with changing it every few weeks.

The original consensus was either 'also referred to' or 'also known as'. The choice between the two wasn't clearly made, but the page has been (apart from when you changed it) "also known as" since at least April. I've reverted it back until we can decide which is better, establishing a consensus on the term. I think it's a little pedantic, really, and while I prefer 'also known as', I'll also accept 'also referred to as'. And Billywhack, people changing something to what they thought was the consensus doesn't give you the "right" to do anything, especially not to ignore it completely to have your way. This isn't a battle, we're trying to work together to make a better encyclopaedia here. One "side" breaching a truce doesn't mean you can attack again. Iorek (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I've placed an original research template in the plot summary section - I am not challenging any of the claims therein, however, most of them read from a viewer's point of view. They require the proper citations from a reliable source. Most would probably overlap with those found in the Gregory House article. Cheers. Wisdom89 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a references tag not be more appropriate than an original research tag? Just because citations aren't included doesn't make the section original research. Rray 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite agree - bear in mind that the template also reminds editors and readers that there may be unverified claims..not unverifiable. Yes, citations ARE missing, but I don't believe that is the section's primary problem. My earlier assertion stands though. In its current form, much of the content would be difficult to substantiate from primary, secondary, or third party sources. Let me give you an example: "Realizations made during some of the simple problems House faces in the clinic often help him solve the main case of the episode—ironic, because he claims to hate working in the clinic." Use of the term "ironic" in the statement exudes original research. It may be true, but just because it's apparent on the glowing tube doesn't mean it becomes immune to core policy. Also - "ironically, House was unable to diagnose his own infarction before it damaged his leg" - In the same vein as the first. Finally, "The patient is usually misdiagnosed two or three times over the course of each episode, often with sarcoidosis, lupus, cancer, or an infection, and treated with medications appropriate to those diagnoses that cause further complications. Often the ailment cannot be easily deduced because the patient has lied about symptoms and circumstances." This is pure OR. Again, I watch the show myself and I agree with mostly everything in the plot summary, however, if we're going to do this right, this section might need to be purged and rewritten. Wisdom89 03:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how I've been "warned" for disagreeing with Wisdom89, I feel I should point out here that a plot synopsis is not original research. Considering it so would make summarising any plot in any medium very troublesome as most official synopses are covered by copyright. See any TV series article for a demonstration of this. Docta247 08:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a plot summary for a movie. It's a plot summary for an entire series with sweeping remarks regarding characterization and motives. This is original research. You were warned not for disagreeing with me, but for removing the template without prior discussion. It's as simple as that. Wisdom89 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there are already citations/sources found within said section, so it is completely feasible to reorganize, trim, prune, or change the plot summary without introducing widespread original research. As I mentioned already, much of it reads from a viewer's perspective. I definitely feel there is room for improvement. Wisdom89 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly agree it's not a plot summary for a movie. I think you're confused over the circumstances that merit a warning and I'd like to ask you in good faith to withdraw it, so that we can move on and address the issues you've raised. You have assumed bad faith on my part which, as I pointed out on your talk, is very disingenuous not to mention against the guideline WP:FAITH. Docta247 15:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been withdrawn. I would be more than happy to help with the article. Wisdom89 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding title of article

Content dispute regarding whether the article should begin With House or House MD

The title already has been discussed at great length. There's two sections about it on this page and plenty more in the archives. The current wording was chosen after much arguing and debate. 'Please don't restart the discussion. Chaz ^Beckett 09:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the consensus chose to name the article in direct conflict with the actual title card of the actual show, but what can you do? :) Nairebis 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Of couse, the consensus is still perfectly inline with the official show titles from this year's Emmys, presented by the The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Notice that it's simply House and that no show's title is abbreviated (e.g. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart). ;) Chaz ^Beckett 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to rehash the whole argument (which we're NOT doing :) ), but I maintain that there is nothing more official than the show itself. I don't care if the creator of the show himself says that it's "House". If that's the case, then they should change the title card. Otherwise, the title of the show is the show's title. Nairebis 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. It's not like the show's title is lengthy or cumbersome. The official title of the show is House M.D. It would logically follow then that the lead should read as "House MD, also colloquially known as simply House, is an American..etc..etc.." I apologize for dredging up an old argument, but I fail to see the logic here... Wisdom89 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's new evidence of some sort to be discussed (the title card is not new), then discussion isn't going to accomplish anything that the past dozen debates haven't. Every official source lists the show's title as House, but it's also commonly referred to as House, M.D.. The article properly reflects this. Can we consider this closed? Chaz ^Beckett 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This suggests otherwise [4] Wisdom89 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you're looking but I see House. Now, I do see some graphics with the M.D., as well as the trademark "TM" symbol , a box around the "H" and a line under the "OUSE"). The official show info page only calls it House. That's a verifiable, reliable source on Fox's official website, which is about as good as it gets on Wikipedia. Chaz ^Beckett 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, "who are you going to believe, Fox's web site, or your lying eyes?" Let me put it this way. If a tourist bureau web site for a town says they have a red bridge, but pictures clearly show a green bridge, should we trust the web site because it's "authoritative", even though a picture is clearly more authoritative? This is exactly the same thing. My lying eyes see "House, M.D." clearly on the show's title card. Why should I care what any other reference says? Why is that more authoritative than actual reality? Nairebis 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia discourages using primary sources (such as an episode). Yes, I realize it's confusing that the title card is at odds with all other official sources, and that's why it's mentioned in the opening sentence that it's also referred to as House, M.D.. Chaz ^Beckett 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you see the word "House". I also see Fox's official appellation at the top of the screen - House with the subscript M.D. What exactly am I missing here Wisdom89 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a graphic at the top, not everything in it is necessarily part of the title. The actual text always refers to it simply as House. I'm done debating this unless something new and exciting is discovered. Later, Chaz ^Beckett 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The House trademark title can be seen in a variety of places such as [5] and [6]. Not to mention the Fox network website. Wisdom89 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The header of this section suggests the discussion refers to the title; the brief explanation of the debate suggests it might refer to the first line of the article, particularly since this has also been debated above. Since I'm unsure which is really up for discussion, I'll weigh in on both. WP:NAME indicates that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Evidence suggests that the general audience of this show refers to the program as "House", sans the MD, no matter what the title card says. By guideline, then, I believe "House (TV Series)" is the proper title for the article. Since apparently the title card indicates that the show is called "House, M.D." (I watch the show but have never paid attention), it seems fully proper to start the article with "House, also known as House, M.D.". Conversation above suggests some prefer "formerly known", but ongoing use of the same title card and the logo at the Fox website would contradict this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Both 'also known as' and 'formerly known' would require a source. It needs to be less weasely, there's no indication, when or where it was known as House, M.D.. If the alternative name is notable enough to go in the lead then there ought to be some info about the title changes in the article. My ideal solution would be to title the article House, M.D. and have House, M.D. known colloquially as House in the lead. --Neon white 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to me to contradict the guidelines recommending using the name as known by the general audience. There seems to be substantial evidence above that "House" is the name by which the show is generally known. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

true, but all reliable sources have it otherwise. Would officialy titled House, M.D. work better? --Neon white 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is quite confusing. You yourself admitted that there are no references which can be made for even "also known as"... how can you make the claim that it is officially titled something which no reliable source agrees with? ThatGuamGuy 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)sean

The official website just says "House." mirageinred 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

no it doesnt, the official website is the fox website i believe and it says House M.D. --Neon white 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It swings both ways. The URL is fox.com/house, the text refers almost exclusively to "House", but the logo says "House MD".

FWIW, this issue keeps being brought up, and unless something new has happened since the last time (see Archives), I suggest this discussion is somewhat fruitless. The page name is good enough, it's not contradicted by Fox (neither would House MD), and both names are mentioned in the lead in. Changing the page name would be an exercise in misguided pedantry, rather than a fix that would in any way help Wikipedia. Unless there's strong evidence that either Fox is going to be consistent, or ordinary readers are usually referring to the show with the MD prefix, I do suggest relaxing a little on the subject. --Squiggleslash 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the official title of the show is simply "House". The Fox web url, summary and details all list it without the "MD". When they advertise the show on the air, it's always referred to as "House", not "House 'em-dee'". The MD is only part of the logo. It adds visual style, and also gives somebody who has never seen the show an idea of what it's about. A new viewer would see the "MD" and think "Ah, it's a show about a doctor". Magus05 ^(talk) 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than the logo which says House MD, the site consistently refers to the show as House. mirageinred 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed to death, but something I haven't seen mentioned is that Fox didn't trademark the "MD". This is why on the show and all graphics, you see House with a "TM" afterwards, then the MD, but on printed material and trade publications it's "House" as this is the brand-name, as owned by Fox. --BubbaStrangelove 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also of note, when you see law firms, doctor's offices, and other professional businesses, they usually include their credentials after the names. However, that doesn't make their name, for instance, Dick Phillips, LLC, or Ron Stall, MD. I feel that the inclusion of the MD was a stylized one, not inclusive of actual name. The same way the movie Seven is written on the DVD box and everywhere else as S7ven, although the title of the movie isn't actually S-Seven-Ven.

Even more so.... For many years, Saturday Night Live's title logo was SNL-15, and SNL-25.... yet that was never the name of the show. I doubt anyone can argue that the show was ever titled anything other than Saturday Night Live

Yet, even though SNLs title cards and logos clearly read "SNL", the wikipage for Saturday Night Live makes no mention of "also known as" even though IMDb does. I feel this is how it should be. -- BubbaStrangelove (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point - although IMDb is not generally accepted as a RS - nevertheless the way the article currently reads is just fine with me. I do disagree about it being purely stylistic. One could always speculate, but I wonder if the producers (Bryan Singer for instance) has ever made a comment regarding this topic. Wisdom89 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about it not being purely stylistic. Even with my own example of SNL-15/-25, it does serve the purpose of informing that it's their 15th or 25th year of broadcast. What I guess I was trying to say was... Well, I'm not sure, but giving it just a tad more thought, I really agree that it's not a stylistic choice. I'm not even sure what you'd call it... Also, I don't have a real issue with the way the article is written, especially given all the discussion and thought that went into it. I just wanted to add those observations. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comedy-drama

Sure, there is comedy in this show, but ER (TV series) has just as much comedic moments as House. I really don't think that this belongs in the infobox. What do you think? dposse 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comedy-drama seems to be very fitting. While ER certainly has it's laughs, House desinately makes the humor a specific part of the writing. --Human.v2.0 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But so does ER. I've watched ER for years, and there's plenty of comedic parts in the writing. The comedy just comes from the drama of a hospital and between the characters personalites. "Medical drama" seems like the only logical way to go with this. I mean, can you cite a source that says that this is indeed classified as a Comedy drama? dposse 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find ER to be funny in the "you have to laugh or go mad" kind of funny, but that's besides the point. I did a quick google search; this place lists it at "Drama, Comedy". IMDB, which I'm willing to take as a definate source for stuff like this, lists it under the main catagories of "drama" and "mystery". Thier complete list of keywords for the show has a lot of rahter interesting terms. Stuff like "limp" takes a moment to get, but the ones like "coffee" and "jacket" just make me wonder. So while it's debatable how much of an influence the humor should have on the show's catagory, I don't think anyone is going to argue that it would be the same type of show if there wasn't the level and brand of humor currently used. "Mystery" might be good to add. --Human.v2.0 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The multiple points about which categories (comedy or drama) are fitting are somewhat moot. The Wikipedia article should use whatever category is used in the reliable sources which are being used as references in the article. Anything else is just original research. Rray 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Asian diversity is the fact

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comparing to another similiar physician TV series, abc's Grey's Anatomy which has one Asian female actress - Sandra Oh as one of the main phyisican in the hospital. This show does not have any Asian actors. According to the 2002 census, there are 8.6% physicians are Asian Americans, only 2.4% physicians are African American. Even though this show is based in the US, one of the actor Jesse Spencer is actually an Australian actor. Just like many other TV shows and movies, Asian actors are only given minor roles in this show. It certainly does not reflect the real physician populatin in the US.

Is Kal Penn not Asian enough for you? --Vinnyvinny2 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

are you blind? is his name listed on the CAST?! --71.156.47.81 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are too stubborn to accept facts so I won't force them on you. --Vinnyvinny2 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the lack of Asian diversity on the tv show House unless you can point out reliable sources to indicate that it is. Lots of tv shows lack Asian characters. So what? Rray 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Kal Penn is an indian american and india is part iof Asia so there is at least one regular Asian character on the show. If you don't think Indians count as Asians. Just remember that when Edi Amin kicked all the Asians out of Uganda, he wasn't talking about no slanty eyed peoples. Personally I'm still pissed about the lack of Mestizos. At least Mongoloid Asian's have shown up as patients. I think we should add an entire section on the lack of the Mestizo people on the show, I am serious.--Dr who1975 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem here is that the anon is failing to understand core Wikipedia principles. To determine whether the inclusion of this information is compatible with a neutral point of view, the reader would have to be able to verify whether the issue has been addressed by any reliable sources. In the absence of any sources discussing the presence or absence of Asian actors on this show, the anon's additions look like the soapboxing they are. If there's any reliable source which has discussed the matter, we can consider adding it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds slightly offensive... that's because it is; it seems as though you're bearing some sort of grudge against American TV shows or something - why is the employment of an actress in one show comparable to another? Should I complain because there are no English people portrayed in House (that I can remember :P). You've said it yourself that only 8.6% of physicians in America are Asian - if there are 20 physicians in the show I think you can forgive the statistical 1 Asian one for not being shown. I don't hear you crying out for European or Brazilian actors. Personally I think that if you're gonna fight for apparent anti-racial reasons you may as well do it for all groups of people, dont you think? - Crankytoad 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF?! Is lack of "Asian Diversity" such a big question to put on this page, where it is totally uncited? Lemme see who added this...203.218.123.205 09:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think that this "asian diversity" bit could be an interesting addition is worded and cited better; when I think about it, it is slightly notable. It's just that the paragraph is worded in a way that can be summed up as "there arn't enough asians in this show, you bastards." What are people's thoughts on including a brief mention, assuming there can be a valid citation about this; a source specifically talking about it in House, not in medical shows or american television in general. --Human.v2.0 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was a valid source somewhere, then sure. But so far the only sources listed have been those that simply give statistics for how many Asian doctors there are in the US, none that directly address the show or it's portrayal of that. So right now, everything that's there is essentially soapboxing. --Maelwys 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

8% physicians in the US are Asians in 2002, there is 0% Asian in this show, do you need a source for 1+1=2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.229.90 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. But you do need a source to prove that it's notable that 1+1=2. Not everything that is 'true' automatically gets added to an article simply by virtue of simply being true. --Maelwys 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may very well be a fact that Asians are under-represented on the show. For the sake of argument, I am even prepared to stipulate to it as a fact. Let me quote, however, from the very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source ... for any material ... or it may be removed." Then, immediately thereafter, in the second paragraph, it says: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

So, in summary, (and as Josiah Rowe said, above) the sub-section about Asian under-representation is totally unreferenced. As such, it is unverified and is likely to be original research and is probably an expression of a non-neutral point of view. Therefore, it should be deleted unless and until it can be properly verified with citations. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough that the statistics about Asian doctors in the USA are available and the number of Asian doctors who aren't on House is also clear. It's original research to draw your own conclusion from the two. Someone would need to include reliable sources to prove that this information is notable and that it isn't original research. I'm not aware of any articles which cover the subject of a lack of Asian diversity on the show. It sounds to me like someone has an axe to grind, but this isn't the place to do that. It's an encyclopedia article, and the "lack of Asian doctors" probably isn't very important to understanding the show or its impact.

Or in other words, Dave is exactly right. Rray 04:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

mm, let's see, you see ZERO ASIAN in this show, you call that original reserach?! do you need a reference next time when you tell us that the weather is hot, because it is your own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.244.104 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 October 2007

LOL. Only if I think it's a notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article, which most of the time it isn't. Rray 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ONE Asian (Kal Penn) IS THE SOLID fact. Among the 3 doctors, 2 are whites, 1 is from australia, the other is a black guy, do you need a research to see that clear fact? Are you all blind or something? if you are racist, just admit it, there is no need to hide behind all those pov, original research excuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.244.104 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 Oct 2007

A reminder to the other users who edit this article: the best way to handle a troll is to ignore the troll. See Wikipedia: Deny recognition and What is a troll?. Rray 04:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. This is how Wikipedia functions. If you cannot conform or adhere, then I advise you to discontinue editing. Wisdom89 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth those who criticize House for alleged racism to spend a little bit of time watching the show. Seasons 1-3 featured five (not counting Cuddy) regular doctors, and in season 4 neither the Australian nor Black doctors mentioned above are actually part of the group (albeit they still feature in side stories.) And, as mentioned numerous times, it's not "ZERO", it's one, as Kal Penn is very much part of the show - hence the change in section title. --Squiggleslash 12:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. If you can find a source out there that comments on a lack of asian diversity in this show, then that is valid. Just because 8% of doctors are asian doesn't mean that a show with an average may of 6 doctors is going to include an asian; in fact, unless you have more than 10 doctors as regulars, it would be statistically incorrect to have one of them be asian. At least by the interpertation of your logic, I mean. Noone is going to complain if you can find some source specifically commenting on a lack of asian diversity on house, but we are going to question the necessity to commenting on something that noone else has or seems to give much of a damn about. --Human.v2.0 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is pretty absurd. It's a never ending, never resolving discussion that just spirals down the endless helix of statistical hell. For one thing, the cast is too small to make judgments like that. The persons involved in casting might be ultra-racists, or maybe not, but the cast is too small. If I were to make a serial monogamist male who dates a different woman every season, and as of season 4, all the women he has dated were white, is that a racist show? Has it never happened that a man consecutively dated 4 white women? That's an extreme example of an even smaller cast to illustrate my point. The other point, the helix of statistical hell: If we start discussing things like the lack of Asians on the show, we might as well discuss things like the under representation of Europeans, South Americans and Africans. From a world perspective, only Australians and North Americans were represented. We could also say that Czech or Slavic Australians are OVER-represented on the show. Statistically, what are the chances of the ONE Australian doctor being of a Czech background? We could also say that German/Austrian Americans are underrepresented. All the "whites" on the show have British surnames: Wilson, House, Cameron... even the Czech ones have British names like Chase... even though any monkey with a phone-book can tell you that the proportion of Germanic surnames in the US is high... Within the US, we could say that certain regions of the US have been underrepresented: the South, for example. Jews and Blacks are overrepresented. You have to remember that these people were hired to treat people, and not to represent their skin tones, continents and regions. You never see a bunch of doctors sitting in a conference room saying: "You know what we're missing? Someone with an olive complexion.. a female with an olive complexion... yeah!" Even if the show had a Korean or Japanese doctor, isn't China still being underrepresented, considering that almost one in six humans is Chinese? And do you think that if House had a Japanese doctor, people watching House in Saudi Arabia and Cambodia would rejoice that "they" are being "represented"? Of course, the people involved in casting could still be racist.. they could hate Latvians.. and Asians.. the only way to know is to ask them... You have to remember that the show does not represent the world or the United States or anything, so US population stats are useless. It represents physicians in New Jersey, so if you're really taking this issue to heart, you could check stats on NJ hospitals and I assure you there are departments with no "Asians" in them. You could also look at the issue by department... aren't Black neurologists overrepresented, or mid-western immunologists? Of all the neurologists in NJ, how many are black? Of all the immunologists in NJ, how many are from the mid-west? and we spiral down the helix.... Rxminimalism 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd weigh in on this. This argument is absurd. It's really sad that somebody has to be a jerk about "diversity" on here. Make your own show if you think they don't have enough asians. Now let's get this page unprotected so I can make 400,000 other accounts and argue for the also known as... crap to be removed. Billywhack 13:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

no, you are a racist for saying that this is "absurd!" if black people didn't fight their equal rights, how often will you ever see a black person on TV or in movies?! never! if jesse jackson didn't protest the Oscar, when will you ever see two black people winning oscar on the same night?! never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.247.184 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe that House ought to have more Asian representation, although, it's already been pointed out that House in fact does have an Asian. I think you probably mean East Asian -- your refusal to recognize Kal Penn as an Asian is its own brand of racism. But I digress. The point is that the point of Wikipedia is not to host your protests. Set up a web page to call people's attention to it. Heck, if the page gets the attention of the media and gets written about in reputable sources, it can make it on the page here. Hold an opinion about it... that's great! This just isn't the place to write about your opinion. Nairebis (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to take part in this never ending conversation I just want to add that there's no true hispanic characters either and I am hispanic should I be offended? No. You shouldn't take these things personaly but if they do offend you then that's understandable but the point is this isn't the article to express that you should try another article that's more general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.15.157 (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, you're never going to see a show that covers all social groups. You will never see a show with at least one black, one hispanic, one asian, one European, one native American, one arab, one jew, one mormon, one muslim, one lesbian, one transgender, and one white. Practically speaking, there usually aren't enough roles to cover even just the major social divisions. And if they did cast a show that way, people would think it was weird, and would probably say that they were just trying to fill racial and religious "requirements" instead of hiring on a basis of acting quality. If you're going to get pissed about the lack of diversity in television, then it doesn't make sense to focus on one show with a limited cast that seems to be making an effort at least to mix up its cast. I mean, how many of these shows have even a recurring character who's a Mormon? Its better to look at the industry as a whole, and ask why it is that some minorities are overrepresented while others are seemingly nonexistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.155.118 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is not a message board.

Chase's true specialty

Chase is a ID expert like House not a cardiologist. Hence why he usually suggests bugs as a differential in episodes of previous seasons similar to how forman suggests neurological diseases. Runehawk 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Chase is an intensivist, not an expert in infectious disease and diagnostics. --Allie 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreman's position at mercy before returning to plainsborrow

Hi,

In SE04 Ep02 Dr Lisa cuddy tells House that Foreman is running the diagnostics department at mercy hospital, not neurology. This conversation takes place When Dr cuddy finds House in the hallway, tracking a mirage of Dr Foreman.

Also, later in the series, you can see Foreman at mercy running a diagnostic team (while trying to avoid becoming like house), and dealing with non-neurological issues. The Last thing he did as a doctor at mercy, was to abolish a tumor by radiating and killing his patient's immune system,instead of giving her treatment for a supposed infection. again, no neurology involved.

foreman was never head of neurology at mercy hospital , if anyone can provide any proof that he was, please link here. if not, it is a factual error.

Please change Foreman's occupational history in the table on the main page.

Thank you

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.78.61 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Factual Error about his cane

The factual error on the page is actually wrong. House deliberately uses his cane on the damaged leg.

This is mentioned here: http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-04-17-house-main_x.htm and here: "It was a big issue early on about which hand he holds the cane in," says executive producer and series creator David Shore. "The thought was he should hold the cane in the opposite arm from the injury. That is basically true — most people use the opposite arm. But some people feel more comfortable with a cane in the dominant arm, and that is acceptable." House's injury — and cane — are on the right" which is sourced from here: http://www.housemd-guide.com/faq.php#cane84.92.167.68 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember what episode (although I can definately say it wasn't season 4), but somebody mentions to him that he holds his cane in the wrong hand. It's not a mistake, it's on purpuse. It gives him a very unique looking limp which I feel is part of his character. Magus05 ^(talk) 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

it was i belive third or fourth episode of the third season House was having arm pain from using the cane so a nurse told him that if he used the right arm it would be better and that he needed a diffrent cane type ( one with 4 points at the bottom) he quickly swaped that with some guy in a halway and kept the cane in the " wrong "hand.

I have to use a cane due to a motorcycle accident. My right leg is pretty damaged and I hold my cane with my right hand. I would hit someone if they told me to use my other hand. I am already having to use a cane, I might as well be comfortable. So, to me it seems perfectly natural. Even the way he walks with it seems like it is real. 76.123.141.217 —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Eagerness to update

I know everyone on this encyclopedia wants to be the first to update an article about a popular TV show, but could we perhaps wait until Michael Michelle has been in two episodes before adding her to the cast list? The cast list is missing several of the team who have been in many more episodes than she has. 199.71.183.2 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. She should only be mentioned on the list of character pages.--Dr who1975 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...and that's why, folks. 199.71.183.2 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Asian Diversity

The short section that discusses Asian Diversity in relation to the show sounds like original research. Are there sources that back these claims/criticisms? If not, this section should be omitted. GregTheVirus (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you will see that there has been an ongoing edit war over this with one person continually adding their soapbox point. Anytime you see that, unless they actually add external coverage, feel free to remove it, and drop a note on the talk page of an admin who watches this page (me, Yamla, a couple more I'm not thinking of right now) to make sure we see it's happening again (this is addressed to anyone; since the soapboxer's IP changes constantly it's hard to lock them out). --Thespian (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, duely noted. I jumped the gun a bit on the talk page. I'll just delete it next time I see it. Thank you. GregTheVirus (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The underrepresentation of Asian Americans on television in general has been duly noted in print. I'm not sure if a major source has singled out House as a leading offender. Kal Penn should be considered a recent improvement on that defficiency. MMetro (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Description of Eric Foreman's profession

Is he really a physician in the Dept. of Diagnostic Medicine? I think he's more of a supervisor for the Hospital. He doesnt really belong to the department. He is the de facto Cuddy, and is not under House, but is over House. Vreddy92 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreman is not "over" House. Not only is House still very obviously in charge, but Foreman sneaks around behind House's back when he wants to do something other than what House ordered. The only difference between this season and last is that House cannot fire Foreman. Primium mobile (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this Eric Foreman from That 70's Show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No they're too different characters, and the character's name from That '70s Show is spelt Eric Forman, not Foreman. Swanny92 (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Remy Hadley?

Where is there any information that this is "Thirteen's" actual name? Even FOX's official House site simply states her name as "Thirteen". I'm putting a citation needed there for now. Where is that information coming from? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, well I found the answer myself, I guess I'll source it too. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bring this matter to the talk page. It has been argued that, since the name "Remy Hadley" is seen on the ballot in "Mirror, Mirror" and since no other characters have that name, then that must be Thirteen's name. I have no reason to dispute that argument. However, as we see by the fact that FOX's official site still calls the character "Thirteen," the name "Remy Hadley" has not as of yet been acknowledged by the show, even though it has been acknowledged by a number of fans of the show. In this instance, since FOX and the show's producers are the ultimate authority on the show, I feel that Wikipedia policy dictates that we don't as of yet have a "reliable" source citing Remy Hadley as Thirteen's real name.

The only source is the original research of the show's fans, who watched the show frame-by-frame and then cited the name seen in one frame that, by process of elimination, could not belong to anyone other than Thirteen. While this may certainly be very good original research, it is still original research, is it not? I mean, this was never published in any reliable secondary sources or anything like that. No producer or actor associated with the show has ever commented on it. The show itself has yet to acknowledge this name. As such, I feel that the name is the deduction of the show's fans and therefore constitutes original research. Therefore, the only way to avoid original research in this matter would be to wait until the show actually says Thirteen's name, correct? After that, her name would be perfectly verifiable by the show itself.

User:Cburnett once argued (in a discussion we had on my talk page) that the ballot itself is a reliable enough source and makes the name verifiable. I feel, however, that anything that has to be viewed frame-by-frame is not necessarily a "reliable" source; reliable sources should be unambiguous. What are the thoughts of the community on this matter?

FYI, LonelyMarble, you noted in an edit summary that I was "the only one" advocating in this matter. Please keep in mind that the earlier dispute existed only between myself and User:Cburnett. I was the only one advocating my viewpoint and Cburnett was the only one advocating his viewpoint. The consensus of the community was never determined. I'm glad to see that there is an opportunity for such a determination here.

By the way, in the course of laying out my argument, I'm mindful that it may eventually turn out that Remy Hadley is Thirteen's name after all. I'm not arguing that it isn't; I'm arguing that there isn't adequate evidence, other than the original research of some of the show's fans. My argument is based strictly on what I feel Wikipedia policy dictates, nothing more. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong and I have no stake in the outcome of this discussion. What does the community think? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hnsampat, thanks providing a nice comprehensive statement on your viewpoint. I pretty much agree with everything you say I'm just not so sure what the right answer is. House has a very clever team of writers and it seems just stupid to have this ballot card of the six remaining applicants of the team shown (yes extremely briefly, true) and have 5, Brennan's name is pretty obscured but still a bit readable, of the already named applicants correctly shown on the card and then incorrectly name the sixth applicant, which should be "Thirteen".

Seems dumb to do this since this show has always strived at absolute realism and the only reason to do this would be to screw with fans, like the obsessive online fans here, but that doesn't seem like something House, MD would do. I definitely agree that it is a stretch to include this information though and that FOX hasn't officially done it so I may be inclined to agree with you. I'm tired right now, let me think about it again tomorrow and I'll see what I think then. And hopefully some other people weigh in their thoughts to this matter so that we may get some consensus on it. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel like this is exactly the sort of thing the writers of House would do. The show doesn't really strive towards realism that much; it's much more focused on being fun. A doctor like Greg House would have lost his license ages ago in the real world, but can continue being the maverick that he is on TV because of how fun it is. The writers of a show like that could easily screw around with fans, especially since the show has very loyal fans who are easy to screw around with. (You know that Greg House would do it!) I think that that's what the writers are doing here, which is why I think it's somewhat questionable that Remy Hadley is Thirteen's real name; that could just be a tidbit the writers stuck in to screw with fans. However, as Cburnett pointed out on my talk page, it is not our place to try and read into what the writers are thinking and so I won't try to do that. Maybe they're screwing with the audience and maybe they're not. We won't know until they actually reveal Thirteen's name. However, I think my earlier argument still stands, namely that Thirteen's name has been deduced through original research. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well I think I agree with you, it does seem like original research. I was curious what other people thought, since obviously other people are the ones that put her name on the page in the first place, it wasn't me. If no one else weighs in though soon one of us can take her name off because I agree, it's not really an encyclopedias job to stop shows frame by frame to get extra information, even if it's interesting information for fans such as myself. This would mean taking it off the House characters page too but that seems like it might cause more of a fight than here. LonelyMarble 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be removed from the page for now. Once she's actually introduced by that name onscreen it can be readded, but for the moment she's only ever been officially known as Thirteen, so we should continue to refer to her as that. --Maelwys 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I took her name out. That might get other people to give their opinions here too, but I do agree it should be taken out. LonelyMarble 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that *linking* to original research is fine (e.g., an investigative report by the major media is an obvious example), it's only hosting the original research on Wikipedia that's disallowed. That said, for all we know Remy Hadley was just a placeholder stuck on that paper because they needed something there. It could be the name of a grip or something. I don't see that the writers have any obligation to respect whatever was on that paper, since it wasn't intended to introduce the character. Nairebis 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So, after the airing of tonight's episode, the plot thickens. Cuddy very clearly called Thirteen by the name of "Dr. Hadley," not once but several times. This does lend credence to "Remy Hadley" indeed being Thirteen's real name. However, I should note that the first name ("Remy") was not spoken tonight and that House implied that "Dr. Hadley" was not her real name (although his logic could be that "Thirteen" is her real name). Nonetheless, since the last name has indeed been spoken on the show now, I think we can justify mentioning her last name. I wouldn't jump to start renaming everything "Remy Hadley" yet, though. (Eventually, maybe, but not yet.) That's my take. Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure House was snarking at Cuddy, as in, "Her real name is Thirteen, duh!" 216.164.33.13 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but that remark by House does still cast doubt, however small the doubt may be. Plus, we don't know for sure if her first name is "Remy" since it hasn't been spoken on the show. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that talk about it.[7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I see here, these sources just say what we already know, i.e., that the name "Dr. Hadley" was spoken in the episode "House's Head." --Hnsampat (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that's all you can use them to say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what difference House's comment, but if anyone would know Thirteen's name it would be Cuddy so I doubt she got it wrong. I'm guessing what House was referring to was Cuddy not calling Thirteen by her nickname. Also it was mentioned in an interview that the two-part episodes would finally reveal Thirteen's name. I think we can be assured that Thirteen's name is Remy Hadley, as it has been seen on paper on the show, though yeah we should still wait for it to be confirmed somewhere or wait for it to be spoken out before we start using it everywhere. Swanny92 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere before, but it says on [8] that according to Olivia Wilde (in regards to whether her character's name has been revealed) " No, it has not. I thought they were going to reveal it awhile ago, and I think it’s great that the producers made this dramatic choice not to reveal it when they had planned to." Bear in mind that this was was said AFTER the new team had been formulated so therefore after Chase's balot. I conclude that so long as Olivia Wilde is trustworthy, and that comments that House says to Cuddy about her name in House's Head, then Remy Hadley is not her real name. Maybe shes faked it? Deamon138 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that Olivia Wilde is right. The ballot did not "reveal" Thirteen's real name, because according to FOX.com (which I just checked), her real name is Rena Hadley and not "Remy" Hadley. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is probably getting annoying and repetitive but even though Fox.com keeps screwing up Thirteen's real name, apparently a House insider confirmed her name is actually "Remy Hadley", and they said that the official website was screwed up, therefore ruling that out as a source. Here's the link but this is what was said, as that page is fairly long:

Question: Huh? Fox's official House site lists Thirteen's real name as Rena Hadley. I thought her real name was Remy? -- Polly Ausiello: It was! It is! A House rep tells me someone goofed and listed her name as Rena on the site. It should be fixed by the time you read this.

So it certainly does seem like her name should be Remy Hadley but it's just poor care for the official site, so is that good enough to prove that her name is Remy? Swanny92 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said on the Thirteen talk page (did you find that link yourself, or see my link to it?), it is not good enough. That person in the source is saying that the name was given as "Rena", but it was a typo, and should've said "Remy". All that doesn't explain why every couple of days it keeps changing between "Rema", "Rena" and "Remy" on that site, so it is most likely that they are toying with us fans of the show. We should wait until her name is used unambiguously in the show itself, or until an interview with a writer or producer of the show is explicitly interviewed and confirms what her name is, before we mention her name in the articles. Deamon138 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think Hnsampat got it right nearly a year ago with his incredible prediction above that, "The writers of a show like that could easily screw around with fans, especially since the show has very loyal fans who are easy to screw around with." Damn straight they could, they are screwing with us, and we have been (so far) easy to screw with. Deamon138 (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen's name being goofed as Rena or Rema or whatever has obviously been fixed and goes along what I posted above, where her name was goofed as Rena though her real name is Remy and it should be fixed (just a little longer than anticipated). If Fox.com now states her name as Remy then it also goes along the episode where her name was seen written on the ballot paper. I think we can assume that's her proper name, if now both the official site and the TV show are using her name as Remy Hadley. Swanny92 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The official site already had it at Remy awhile back, it went from Rena to Rema to Remy to Rema again and now it seems back at Remy. This is obviously them screwing with fans, this is not a case of typos here. I think it would just be best to keep it at "Thirteen" for now as the site had already listed at Remy earlier and then changed it again, there is no indication this is any different. And the show has never said "Remy", that was just fans interpretation of a blurry piece of paper in one frame of the show. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, LonelyMarble. I've been keeping an eye on it. Last week, it was "Remy," 2 days ago it was "Rema," and now it's "Remy" again. AFAIK, "Rena" has dropped out of the picture. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How realistic are the diagnoses?

I would be interested in knowing how realistic the show is, either in broad terms such as the idea that certain conditions express unusual constellations of symptoms and require crack teams of md's to diagnose, or in narrower episode-to-episode terms of how often the symptoms exhibited by patients are actual constellations of the (actual) disease attributed to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Depaderico (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're looking for is House Medical Reviews, which is also in the "External Links" section of the article. Good diagnosis (ha ha, I kill myself) of each episode. If I were to give a reasonable summary, it's that there are enough inaccuracies to annoy a doctor, and procedurally the show is somewhat simplified (you wouldn't get the diagnosticians running their own lab tests for example in real life) but in general the symptoms are right, with the the occasional howler of an error. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you're such a liar. The show has between two and three specialists on scene like any other medical program, these "inaccuracies" have only been known to affect a few shows where the writing and directing have been omitted or mixed up in the final cut of the show. It's really the directors fault or the editors. LOTRrules (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also you must take into account that the knowledge of each of these "specialists" are at around the level of a third-year med student. Their conversations during differential diagnoses can get annoying due to perceived tautologies by people who know it (e.g. He must have hydrocephaly. His brain swells up and pushes against his skull. - Anyone who knows the term would be thinking "Uh... that was redundant" - but it must be done because no one watches the show with a medical dictionary at hand.)

So basically, yes, the diagnoses are correct and can match the symptoms, but the likelihood is low.Bockbockchicken (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

house vs reality is simple there is no time to diagnose, and there sure as hell aren't any interesting conversation going on besides who stooped who, which 80% of the time is a doctor doing a nurse named Suzy nobody ever claims to know (but everyone has gone over). Markthemac (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There actually is a book based on how realistic the diagnoses are. It's titled "The Medical Science of House M.D." A doctor who has sat in on some of the differential diagnoses on the show comments on how accurate they are. He says that each of the cases is realistic and have existed at one point or another, with a few exceptions to his own statement. He states that while possible, some of the cases are rare, and even then, the likelihood of them all to occur in a little teaching hospital in New Jersey was slim. Someone stated earlier that was correct in saying that specialists don't run their own tests, and some of the tests that they run can take days, if not weeks to culture.

Now, when it comes to Gregory House's medical license? It would have been a thing of the past a long time ago. He would have been stripped of his medical license, sued, and placed in prison long ago because of his "off-beat" medical procedures....Like, when he gave a young man "shrooms" to diagnose a symptom in the episode "Jerk." Even though it worked, he would've gotten the book thrown at him. Hard. Eternity06 {talk} 12:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for talking about the show, it is for improving the article. Asher196 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded "See Also" seciton

I'm not certain why there seems to be a wish to include three unrelated television shows (the premises are completely different, save that they are all medical shows) in an unnecessary "See Also" section of the House article. Please support the need for inclusion here before re-adding them. Thanks, Bellwether ^B_C 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you care so much?--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's the point of your reply? The talkpage is for discussion. I reverted the re-insertion, and added a discussion here. Either contribute to the discussion or don't. I don't "care" about the issue per se, except that there's no need to wikilink unrelated T.V. shows in the article of another T.V. show. Bellwether ^B_C 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Must admit I agree with Dr Who here. It's overstating it just a tad to suggest that these are "unrelated T.V. shows", they're prime-time mainstream medical dramas, in some cases with a comedic element comparable to House. I'm not seeing a great rationale for including them, but I'm seeing even less of a rationale for removing them. We're not getting the answer to "why do you care so much" here, beyond a clearly false argument that the shows are "unrelated".

Perhaps a solution here that might calm things down a little would be the creation of a category? --Squiggleslash (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A category like...(checks article) "Medical television dramas", perhaps, which it's already in? More support for Bellweather. Lambertman (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing to "calm down." I'm not upset. Those T.V. shows just have less than nothing to do with House. Unless we're going to list Homicide:Life on the Streets, CSI, CSI:Miami, and every other non-related cop show on the page of, say, NYPD Blue, then these shows don't belong on the page of House. Bellwether ^B_C 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• And, for the record, Dr. Who didn't even make a point. He just asked why I cared so much. How you can "agree" with that is a bit confusing. Bellwether ^B_C 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bellwether BC. ER and Grey's Anatomy are medical shows but they don't seem to have any significant connections to House. It would be relevant for example, if the shows were placed in the same time slot and competing for ratings. But there isn't an objective way to decide what gets included in the see also section. WP:SEEALSO just asks you to "use your common sense. миражinred 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another support for Bellwether. A key portion of House is about House's social eccentricity. These other shows do not share such story elements. 59.95.232.130 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the consistency argument in that it would be silly to list every related TV show of a TV show on every TV show page (although I disagree that these shows aren't related, they are fairly related). But cluttering up pages with See Also sections with marginally related shows is rather dumb. I don't really care either way but for the sake of consistency with other TV show articles I'll agree it should be removed. You are right that content needs to be argued for inclusion rather than deletion although if one deletes a section that has been on the page for awhile it should at least be discussed, which it is now so fine. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Walk and Talk"

Please stop removing the new "Walk and Talk" section. This is a well-known technique, and is often employed by the show. It certainly has a place as a sub-section of "Production", and is not a controversial assertion. Blogs (especially established ones on a given topic, like Blogcritics) are not inherently unreliable, especially for such a non-controversial fact. Please do not remove the section again, without discussing it here first. Bellwether ^B_C 07:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A well known technique? Maybe, but last time I checked Wikipedia relied on Verifiability not truth, otherwise it's Original Research. I checked your source, and found no mention of anything that backed up the claims in the section. I read it fairly carefully, but it's possible I missed it. Please highlight the pertienent quotemarks. Thanks. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I included the direct quote citing its use in House in the ref when I readded it. It's there. And it is a well-known technique. Bellwether ^B_C 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I know about the "walk and talk," I question how "well known" it is, which is why we need a reliable source (which blogs are not, according to WP:RS) saying that it's well known. However, the issue is somewhat irrelevant here, simply because House doesn't really use the "walk and talk" all that much. (I think that the critic cited in the blog is just plain wrong on this one.) On the contrary, most of the crucial scenes on House involve House standing at an easel or blackboard and everyone else sitting down, shouting out ideas. Sure, the "walk and talk" has sometimes been used (usually in scenes involving House and Wilson talking), but lots of shows do that. It's not used frequently enough to merit having its own section in the article. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They are constantly doing the "walk and talk." They're always catching House in the hallway, and discussing tests with him, informing him of some new symptom, or whatnot. That's what the "walk and talk" is. And what you "think" about that critic's observations of the show does not matter. That's classic OR. What matters is what is independently verifiable, which House using the WaT method is. And if you read closely the policy on verifiability, blogs are not inherently unreliable, so it would be good if we could be done with that line of reasoning for now. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm doing is not OR at all. I am questioning the reliability of the source. While not all blogs are inherently unreliable, I question the reliability of this one. There is no indication of how expert the opinion of the source is. Please find a better source, such as maybe one of the show's own producers talking about the "walk and talk" method. Otherwise, we're passing off one critic's opinion as fact. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• But that's the rub: she's not proffering an "opinion", but simply making an observation of what happens on the show. The show employs WaT, and she points it out. Do you have any reason that you consider her review "unreliable" as a source for a basic observation of fact? Bellwether ^B_C 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But here's the thing: she describes the walk-and-talk as a "signature" of the show. We are using those words of hers as a source to justify including an entire section on the technique. Basically, because she says that the walk-and-talk is a "signature" of the show and so we're acting like that makes it true. I don't think that it makes it true, though. This is not like The West Wing, where the walk-and-talk was discussed endlessly by many critics and by the show's producers. The walk-and-talk was indeed a "signature" of The West Wing, but I question whether it's a signature of House. Merely using the technique doesn't make it a "signature" of the show. (ER uses the walk-and-talk, too, as do many other shows.) That's why there's the whole issue of whether to include it in the article or not. Mind you, I'm not saying that my opinion is worth anything more than the blogster's. On the contrary, all I'm saying is that maybe we should get sources from several prominent critics or some of the show's producers that discuss the walk-and-talk and call it a "signature" or otherwise important aspect of the show. Then, we can justify including an entire section on it. Otherwise, I feel like we're using one source to justfy giving undue weight to the technique. I hope this clarifies my position. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on including the "walk and talk", you might as well give the passing mentions of the "cold open" and the Socratic method their own sections. These two elements have more merit for inclusion than the "walk and talk" as they are key elements to the show's style. Typer525 ^Talk 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I believe the previous version did include cold open before. миражinred (speak my child...) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this. If there's to be a "production" section--as well there should, in a television show article--the various methods should be discussed. Especially if there useage can be verified in a third party source. Bellwether ^B_C 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that usage does not justify inclusion. The cold open, a cinematic technique, has been commonly used for almost half a decade (see link). The technique may be used, but it is not notable because most other shows do not use it. The Socratic method is not notable because its purpose is to make House stylistically different from other medical dramas. It is like adding a section completely dedicated to the use of the white board because House is the only show that uses a white board. Usage has no effect on notability unless it starts a trend (ex. the modern description of Orcs and Elves introduced in Lord of the Rings). As House said "Mango juice prevents cancer!" Typer525 ^Talk 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is basically the point I was making. Sure, House does occasionally use the walk-and-talk, but it isn't a distinct characteristic of the show. While the walk-and-talk does merit discussion in the The West Wing article, since that show popularized the technique, many shows have used it since then, so no reason to especially mention it in this article. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just finished a House-watching marathon last week. The show does not "occasionally" use the walk-and-talk, they use it all the time. I contend (as does the source), that it's an integral part of the show. It's unclear to me why a sub-section for this would not belong in the larger "Production" section. Bellwether ^B_C 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for not including it is that, even if House uses the walk-and-talk "all the time," it's not necessarily unique to the show. The walk-and-talk is a relatively popular shooting technique and so is there a reason why it deserves specific mention in this article? In other words, is there something special about the way House does the walk-and-talk? There isn't. It's just pretty cool that they do use it. As Typer525 stated above, "usage does not justify inclusion." Still, if you feel that it's an "integral" part of the show, by all means include that information. I do urge you, however, to find several reliable sources (e.g. the show's producers) saying that the walk-and-talk is an "integral" part of the show. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted both a critic's view, as well as a script showing it's inclusion as "walk and talk." How much sourcing do I have to have to suffice? Bellwether ^B_C 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I discussed the reliability of the critic's view above. The script source merely indicates that show does indeed use the walk-and-talk, which nobody questions. The question is whether the walk-and-talk is an integral part of the show. Is the walk-and-talk specifically on House something that has garnered widespread attention in reliable secondary sources? Is the walk-and-talk on House unique/special/different enough to merit discussion, even though the walk-and-talk is used extensively by other shows? This is why I say to get sources such as the show's producers. The producers of The West Wing, for instance, have extensively discussed the walk-and-talk, since that show basically pioneered it and since it was one thing that made The West Wing what it was (in addition to rapid-fire dialogue). Is House still House if it didn't have the walk-and-talk? I think it is (evidenced by the fact that I didn't even notice how extensively it's used and I still love the show). (Mind you, I'm conscious that all of this discussion is about a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of the article and so I won't lose any sleep if you do include the section. But, I figured that I should at least lay out the rationale opposing inclusion here.) --Hnsampat (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've crafted what I feel is a fair compromise, by merging the WaT sub-section into the "Filming" sub-section. Have a look, and let me know if you think this is fair. Bellwether ^B_C 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I still think it'd be better to have the show's producers as sources, but I won't make a fuss about it. Also, I think we should add some more filming information to that section to flesh it out more. I'm sure there are other interesting filming techniques and other details on House that we can find sources for and add information about. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that whomever thinks that pedeconferencing is a "signature" of this series was never a regular viewer of The West Wing, where that *was* true. If anything is a signature of this show, it's the Whiteboard DDX. Or breaking into people's houses looking for toxins.  :-) --Baylink (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was a regular viewer of The West Wing and there they could go on for a full five minutes of walking-and-talking, moving around corners, running behind and in front of walls, entering and leaving rooms, all in what appears to be a single continuous take. House doesn't do anything close to that. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the walk and talk section should stay in. I think it is interesting. I watch the show and it hit home when I read it. And I can't think of another show that uses it, besides Studio 60 and West Wing (both Aaron Sorkin shows).Chexmix53 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sure House may not do it as much as the West Wing did (to the point where its use there was satirized), but it does use it more than most other shows. I don't know of any other medical shows where the characters walk and talk so much, and the scenes don't usually call for it. Deamon138 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ER uses the walk-and-talk quite a bit. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, well I haven't watched ER so I wouldn't know that. Anyway, I think the walk and talk mention as-is, is fine. I certainly wouldn't call it a "signature" of the show like the article did before, but I think it's notable enough to deserve a mention. At the moment, it resides in the "Filming" sub-section, but it seems to be the only thing mentioned in that sentence. Is there no more info out there on the filming of House? Deamon138 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The filming subsection certainly could and should be expanded some time or other. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

5 Feb end date discussion

We should discuss this issue here. My thinking would be that inferring that the season would end on 5 Feb simply by "assuming" that the WGA strike continues constitutes original research, in that we would be interpreting and extrapolating what might, could, or even is likely to happen. The way I read policy, that's not allowed. Bellwether ^B_C 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The February 5 end date hypothesis is not only OR, but also probably violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. In addition, I've searched through various news media sources, and I can't seem to find any articles backing up this claim. It seems this one website is (at least for now) the only source for this information. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. And I think the source can be interpreted differently. House usually takes a break around Feb/March and I'm not sure "closing a book on the remaining three episode" means a season finale for House. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wish I could tell what you people are discussing here..... 05:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk)

Opening sequence question

I noticed in the House opening sequence, when the H flashes and the x-ray shows (before it turns into House's head), in the top left corner you can see "Adler" written mirrored. Is this a Holmes connection? I remember that the patient in the pilot episode was named Rebecca Adler, so does anyone know the reason for this? (if there is a reason at all) Swanny92 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that the x-ray in the opening sequence is Rebecca Adler's x-ray from the pilot episode, that is why it says her name on it, because it is her x-ray. Rebecca Adler's name is a reference to the Sherlock Holmes character Irene Adler. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah makes sense now. Thanks. Swanny92 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [9]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

airing

when will the show start running new episodes for 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.45.3 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The next new episode is Tuesday, January 29th at 9:00pm. See the official FOX House site for a countdown to that date: http://www.fox.com/house/ LonelyMarble (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

after that April-may we will see the rest of the episodes now that the writers are back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.15 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Anyone else notice that they have started airing the new episodes in New Zealand already. They never had a break actually and just kept going after "Don't ever Change". Strange kinda, can any1 else confirm. Savre (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How does that work when no other country has seen any new episodes after Don't Ever Change? That was the last episode before the Writer's Strike, and the US haven't even seen the episode after that yet. I think countries like the US and Aus just aired repeats of old episodes. Think the US aired ones from Season 3 and Australia aired from the beginning of Season 2. Swanny92 (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article split to List of awards for House (TV series)

Please state whether you Support or Oppose here.Limetolime (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Something obviously needs to be done about this section. I have been ignoring it for a long time now but since you have started the discussion let's end it here. This awards section list either needs to be completely deleted from the main House page (incorporating any important awards) or moved back to its own List page. I'm not an expert on what makes a List type page worthy for inclusion but I feel House's award page was definitely singled out for deletion in this case because I've seen plenty of other awards lists similar to this one. I know this is not a good point of debate, but if it's decided in this discussion that lists of awards like this one don't deserve their own article it can definitely be used a precident for future deletions or inclusions. I'm not really support or oppose, I just have wanted this section to be cleaned up ever since it got moved here from the deletion, but have been too lazy to start a discussion about it. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's some examples of what I mean by House being singled out: List of awards won by The Simpsons (featured list), it has a million sources with some well written paragraphs but it's in the same spirit of the page as the House one was. List of awards and nominations for Lost, again, a lot of sources and some written paragraphs but it's at the core a "indiscriminate collection of information", just a better presented one than the House list was. List of Grey's Anatomy awards and nominations, on the very same level as the House list was, simply a list without any sources or paragraphs yet. So I'm just asking, is the policy that if it's not a well written list of awards it is deleted? I really don't care if the list of House awards is completely deleted or not I'm just curious now what the rationale is. Just because a list of information has a list of references does not make it better than another list of similar information really, it just means it has had more work put into it. If someone put enough work into the House awards there could be plenty of references and a couple written paragraphs and more attractive looking tables. But if not as well maintained awards lists are deleted that can never happen. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects here I'm going to recreate the article with this content. Any complaints can be made here. I'll do it some time tomorrow to let people make any final complaints if they have any. Thanks =) LonelyMarble (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposals of all House characters by User:Eusebeus

Perhaps a centralized discussion can be made here, although I think it should be brief because this has been talked about endlessly already in other places. Eusebeus made no arguments for these mass merge proposals and this user is also known for being involved in the recent ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 (see that link for the case and the final decision of it). He is a known supporter of User:TTN who has been restricted because of that case. He is known for supporting mass calls for deletion and mergers of TV episodes and characters. This is not a personal attack on Eusebeus, I am simply pointing out his past history and the fact that he provided no reasons for these merge proposals and did not even start any new sections on talk pages for them. Mass merge proposals like this should be frowned upon. I propose that unless Eusebeus gives compelling reasons for these merge proposals in a day or two the merge tags be taken down and not be back up until Eusebeus makes a good argument here. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the five character articles tagged for a merge are stubs, and they're all adequately sourced, so I don't see why a merge into the House article is either necessary or makes sense. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, for those reading who are not sure which articles have been tagged for merger, Eusebeus has tagged Lisa Cuddy, James Wilson (House), Eric Foreman, Allison Cameron (House), Robert Chase, and Thirteen (House). I agree with the sentiment above and oppose this merger. Each of these articles provides information beyond simple plot summary, with Robert Chase, Thirteen (House), and James Wilson (House) each providing outside information on the concept and creation of each of the characters (something the other three articles need to do). There is enough information (or potential information) in each of those articles to merit keeping them separate. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The articles were gutted because of Eusebus's excessive love of the rules before, and now comply with WP:FICT guidelines. They are notable, they have external reliable sources and they contain info on the characters' characterisation and stuff like that. They are also hardly stubs. Give one good reason why they should be merged rather than just putting merge tags on and disappearing like a deranged cheshire cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks, sorry for the delay in getting the discussion rolling here, although I see that hasn't stopped reliable fanfict aficionado mattbuck from his blanket oppose. Anyway, I am going to assume that those contributing to this discussion are knowledgeable about the arbcom case and the ongoing discussion at the talk page of WP:FICT. Presumably, most will have contributed to that discussion given the level of interest in fictional topics (like mattbuck). So, I won't bother with an extensive rehash of the issues. Basically, the question is how to get the necessary real-world significance into the character articles, backed up by reliable third party sources while at the same time soliciting recommendations for trimming the in-universe content to conform with the best-practices of our guideline. These currently read like articles form a fansite, not an encyclopedia; I think most everyone can agree on that. So the merge proposal is really about getting some specific focus on how these can be cleaned up or else, if real-world significance cannot be demonstrated, merged into a LOC article. As a final point, it would be very beneficial for folks to back up their points with specific references to sources and policy. That way, even if we cannot come to terms here we can move this to arbitration and have something beyond the usual mattbuck-ILIKEIT, Eusebeus-FANCRUFT !votes, which arbitration will not consider very seriously. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Throwing another internal link in for you: BE BOLD and edit the articles to your liking. Shocking proposal, I know. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I think we're already starting to see too much personal animosity between Eusebeus and Mattbuck here, which is not constructive. Second, Eusebeus, remember that Wikipedia operates by consensus and so, while our arguments should be based in policy, it's probably not a good idea to have everyone directly quoting policy left, right, and center, as that will very quickly deteriorate into WikiLawyering. Third, Eusebeus, judging from your comments above, you seem to have proposed mergers in order to get discussion going as to the best way to improve these articles and get enough real-world context. Well, for that we have the {{in-universe}} tag. You don't need to propose mergers for this unless you feel that there are not enough reliable secondary sources on each of these characters out there to sufficiently source these articles. Considering that House is the #2 show on FOX (behind American Idol), I'd think there are plenty of sources out there. This shouldn't be a merge discussion; it should be a discussion on how to improve the article. Mergers are for when we feel that the articles inherently should not exist. (Example: I proposed mergers for the articles related to various characters from the movie Scarface because I could tell that there are not enough secondary sources out there for each of the characters, except of course for Tony Montana.) --Hnsampat (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that there is enough real-world significance to these characters to justify individual articles, although I look forward to being demonstrably proven wrong. Justifying or explicating a position with specific reference to policy & guidelines is always a good idea, especially since we all agree on the general consensus established at WP:N, WP:NOT & WP:FICT (I assume). We could slap up the {{in-universe}} tags, and I don't mind excising the excessive in-universe details for these characters, reducing the plot-driven sections down to a paragraph or so each. But the real question is how we can change the focus of these articles to the real-world significance of the characters in question. Let me reiterate though that in the event of a disjuncture between the consensus established at WP:N, WP:NOT & WP:FICT and the individual expression of preference here, arbitration is perhaps the best solution. Per the recent arbcom case, even slow edit warring is unacceptable, so arbitration can allows an independent assessment of encyclopedic intent with respect to policy that is unaffected by the incidental agglomeration of motivated local opinion. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think arbitration is quite premature here. I don't think we have irreconcilable differences here yet. Let's work to build a consensus, bearing in mind the consensus at WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:FICT. Remember to assume good faith on the part of the editors here and not to presume that we're all a bunch of fanfiction-crazy House nuts. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points, all. And I don't mean to suggest arbitration will be necessary. Sometimes I get too wrapped up in my zealous drive to ruin Wikipedia for everyone and the larger march toward universal domination via Fiction articles. Anyway, I look forward to thoughts and suggestions. Eusebeus (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Cuddy, Cameron, Foreman (no real-world), keep rest. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Dudesleeper above, a merge for characters doesn't make sense, it is simpler to navigate between different articles than one main list srticle. Catchpole (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The purpose of lists is navigation, not to act as a surrogate for articles. Articles such as Lisa Cuddy seem fine and, even if they did have problems, merging their contents into an omnibus list would not resolve those problems. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Next Steps

Thanks much to everyone who weighed in above. I suggest we proceed cautiously here. So, first off, I propose to merge Allison Cameron (House) to the LOC. Despite this discussion, not a single thing has been added to this article which relocates the focus of the article to the real-world significance of the character, backed up by independent sources. As a result, per the ongoing discussion and clearly reiterated consensus at the fiction guideline which maintains that such content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, this article should be merged. If editors think it salutary, we can post to the fiction talk page to sanction as an example "en vif" of the ongoing hard work to clarify the fictional guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After borrowing his trusty dictionary, I can't argue with the guy's points. If nobody's going to put the effort in towards making the articles meet set guidelines, the articles probably should be merged and redirected to the House article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While I respect that these things are all very much guidelines, may I suggest that we ignore all the rules. I really don't see how merging these articles will improve wikipedia other than by reducing the database by a few kb. As it is, it is an informative article about one of the principal characters of a very popular TV show. I don't believe every fictional character should have a page, god knows how much information Star trek would fill otherwise, but I figure a few for a popular show are quite justified. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will be one less click for someone who wants to read about the characters, and it will help the main article flow. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines & policies exist for a reason and there has been longstanding consensus that Wikipedia is not a fansite, for which many other alternative sites exist. If the basic argument for retention is simply to ignore the rules, that is not an argument at all. It is a fundamental mainstay of the encyclopedic project that Wikipedia be focused on the real world. We permit LOCs as a necessary spinout for length, but individual articles attract the kind of trivia, and in-universe detail that is not appropriate as consensus has so far consistently defined it. I will proceed to merge. Eusebeus (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that articles should assert some form of real-world notability, however, I baulk at the idea of just merging what is a small if rather nice article into a list where it will merit barely a sentence more than that horny schoolgirl who tried to seduce House. (Aside: Stephen Fry should be a clinic patient.) Possibly merge her article, Foreman's and Chase's into a single one called House's employees or something of a similar vein. The team as a whole most certainly could pass notability guidelines, and it would allow us to keep the majority of the articles while removing the problem with the characters' individual notability. Such an article may also discourage excessive plot details as it would be clear that the article was not about a single character's history but about the team as a whole. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I completely disagree. WT:FICT is clearly in agreement that splitout LOE and LOC articles are best practice for TV series. I do not understand why, if you are so opposed to the consensus that is being reached there, you cannot be bothered to participate, and why you feel, while not improving the content at all, you can revert my changes which are a good faith application of that consensus praxis. Care to explain? I am going to remove the link as a dbl redirect and would appreciate that you provided explicit grounds in policy and guidelines for undoing it. Does it need to be said that House articles are not exempt from Wikipedia standards just because you happen to like the show? Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly are you disagreeing with? Also, please quit the acronym soup. I tried to read through all that crap on the talk page for wp:fict and it just did my head in. It would HELP, Eusebus if you could be more helpful rather than just storming through the wikijungle. I did not revert your edits, but what you did was merely deletion of information. At BEST, the consensus here was merge rather than delete. You made no effort to merge whatsoever. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was disagreeing with your suggestion for a separate article above. Please note that I rewrote the entry to provide - as a merge - what I feel is the necessary general information about the character per summary style. Did you even compare the before and after? You may feel my efforts were crap, but if so add what you will to the LOC and let it be edited per our normal procedures. But restoring the link to the page when we are all in agreement that real-world focus is a requirement for articles is unhelpful. Look, I am assuming good faith here, but I made the effort to merge the most pertinent info and it annoys me to think you just assumed I cut the link without trying to do so, even if you gauge th result to be inadequate. Eusebeus (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, LOC, List of characters... makes more sense now. Someday I'm going to come up with some really important wikirule and will make it have a really horrible acronym just to torment people. I'll see about something in the morning maybe. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have been clearer. After a while, the TLAs at WT:FICT become second nature. Sorry again. Eusebeus (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the merge discussion above has resulted in no consensus for the mergers to be ahead, I have restored the Alison Cameron article. Catchpole (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Catchpole, as I see it, I have argued ofr a merge, and in this latest review, you are the only voice that is suggesting that this content should be allowed to stand independelty as it is. Your revert is pointy and disruptive. If you wish to establish grounds for the Cameron article, please discuss first, per the arbcom case. In light of the consensus at WP:FICT and the discussion above your actions are not defensible. Eusebeus (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't misrepresent the discussion at WP:FICT or the discussion above. Just because I am the only one willing to revert your attempts to bulldoze content do not think that I am the only voice opposing your proposed mergers. There is no consensus for either these mergers or for the proposed WP:FICTION guideline, maybe you need to re-read the discussion. Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of the discussion that favours individual spinouts over LOC spinouts, especially for secondary characters?? coz I don't see it. Eusebeus (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Dudesleeper, Hnsampat, mattbuck, Colonel Warden and myself all opposed your suggested merge. Sceptre agreed three articles could be merged. How you interpret this as consensus for a merger to go ahead is beyond me. Catchpole (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Next Steps (2)

My merge has been undone again and I am confident that no-one wishes to edit war over this; I don't. Thus, I suggest we go to WP:RFM. I will submit that we merge all characters that do not have a principal real-world focus to the LOC. Can we agree that mediation is a good next step for sorting through what is apparently an intractable problem over applying WP:FICT to these articles? The lack of real-world focus doesn't seem to be disputed here, so we have reached an impasse. While we are at it, we can add the episode articles as well, with a suggested merge to the LOE. Agree? Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Consensus has been blurred, if not the definition of the word. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll open up an RfM case on this issue. Do we want to open up an official RfM, or go through the Cabal or initiate an RfC? I am open to any of these channels and feedback on the preferred avenue would be warmly appreciated. Eusebeus (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An official RfM for me, but that's just because I haven't experienced the other two. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I tried an RfC a while back and got pretty much nothing. RfM please. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Mediation As it stands, Will suggests the Cabal, Dudesleeper and mattbuck suggest RfM, so I'll try formal mediation. Before we proceed, two points
  My position for a merge is:

1. Consensus is global, not local
2. WP:FICT states that fictional articles need to focus on the real-world impact of the subject
3. WP:NOT#PLOT enjoins editors from using Wikipedia as a vehicle for plot summaries & other in-universe fan purposes

So, my argument is that the Allison Cameron article does not merit an individual article since it clearly violates the prescriptions laid out above. Dudesleeper and Matt, it would be helpful if you could elaborate why you disagree and the basis for retaining this article as a standalone? You will have an opportunity to expand further, but I would like to provide a fair overview of the dispute here. User:Catchpole & User:Colonel Warden, you both seem to be motivated largely out of personal animus against me, but if you, too, can state your position against the merge that would be useful. Second, on reflection, I propose to submit ONLY the Allison Cameron article. That way, we can keep it simple and obtain a principle which can serve as a basis for further cleanup that will extend to the other articles which currently exhibit the same problems. Can we all agree on this? Eusebeus (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have no special feelings about your person as I have trouble telling you apart from sgeureka, for example (it's all those vowels). My current position, based upon what I read above, is that I disagree with just about everything that you say. Overall, I don't agree that there is a problem that needs fixing here. The article upon Cameron is a useful ornament to Wikipedia and there seems to be no good reason why it should be deleted, merged, blanked or otherwise disrupted. This seems to be the big gulf between us - I am quite willing to tolerate material which you feel compelled to attack. What is not clear to me is whether your impulse arises from a hatred of contemporary popular culture or a desire for uniformity/conformity or from a desire to cause trouble/drama. Since we seem likely to keep butting heads, it may be helpful to discuss our personal motivations. For myself, House is one of the few TV programs that I watch and since it seems highly-rated and is award-winning, it seems clear to me that it merits good coverage here. I suppose that there is a good numbers of readers of this material and that is our main purpose - to provide informative material for our readership. When I see the competition such as the article 65536, which hardly anybody wants to read but which we are keeping following its recent AFD, I wonder why we are even here discussing the matter - there seems to be no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise for my error regarding your motivations. You seem basically to be advancing an argument for inherited notability then, with a nod to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is that a fair characterisation? As for motivation, upholding the standards of Wikipedia as elaborated at WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:FICT to me requires no additional justification. Wikipedia works by consensus and there is strong sitewide consensus that Wikipedia is not a fansite; we discourage, working from encyclopedic principles, the inclusion of this type of content. I understand you disagree with this and you will continue to revert me, regardless of how often I point you to those policies. Hence we go to mediation to support or oppose the merge proposal and where needed to protect the redirects to prevent further dispute. Eusebeus (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My position rests upon our core policies for content which are threefold - no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view. I consider that the Cameron article adequately conforms to these and with our fundamental principles, per WP:5. The guidelines that you cite are weaker and I do not believe that they are generally accepted. Arbcom seemed to understand this when they noted a divide between editors who create such articles and those who "hang around policy pages". In any case, since Wikipedia is explicitly not supposed to be a rule-based bureaucracy, we should have a loose, laissez-faire approach and see what emerges over time, rather than rushing to judgement. Furthermore, your proposal to merge this materal seems to achieve nothing with respect to the guidelines that you advocate - it just rearranges the material in an inconvenient way. This activity seems quite unproductive and so a reasonable practical outcome would be for you to be barred from this topic, as TTN was. I do not say this out of animus but simply so that we may be more usefully occupied. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • My position similarly rests on an opinion that merging the article would delete information which is quite informative to people. Now, I'm not suggesting that this should be a fansite and analyse every minute detail, and I accept that as yet the Alison Cameron article does not have real-world sources. However, I feel that it could have, and that while articles are not actually referenced, they would back up the content. It is just a matter of time. Also, I feel that while AfDs should not in general be argued on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the other stuff argument CAN be used to a point. Within a single TV show, for instance, how does it make sense to have an article on two of the three main supporting characters, but not on the third, who is arguably the most important? In general, I also disagree with people who spout policy or argue over minutiae ad nauseam - I have seen the arguments over whether or not things should have flags and other inconsequential things, and it just makes my head spin. Policy should exist, but there are times when what you believe should prevail instead of what policy dictates. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum It may be salutary for editors to review another instance where such a merge was enacted so we can see wat we are ultimately talking about here. See List of characters in the Firefly universe and the related discussion on the talk page as well as the mediation case that provoked that outcome. Eusebeus (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for mediation. I think Eusebeus is forum shopping after he chose to ignore the discussion above which rejected his merge proposal. WP:FICT does not justify his attempts to gut useful content from the encyclopedia. That should be the end of the matter, I do not see any purpose in persuing endless discussion although I would be interesting in hearing constructive not destructive ways to improve our coverage of this television show. Catchpole (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are reverting me, your position why this content is justified is important. However, as stated that seems to be a personal issue against me, since you don't respond directly to the consensus policies and guidelines that I have adduced to substantiate my views and justify a merge. However, I can write that mediation is viewed by one editor involved in the dispute as WP:POINT or WP:GAME. Is that a fair characterisation? You write WP:FICT does not justify his attempts to gut useful content but WP:FICT clearly states that fiction-related articles on Wikipedia need to focus on the real world impact of the subject, backed up by reliable third party sources, so I am unclear how, exactly, to present your reading of the guideline to support your opposing view. Eusebeus (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am an eventualist. My view is that your actions are harmful as redirecting articles hinders future development. I also find shorter individual articles that make good use of the hyperlink far more useful (speaking as a reader) than a very long article trying to cover multiple different related topics. Catchpole (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, I've been agreeing with you in the latest rounds of discussion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. So I'll include you as supporting a merge based on my rationale? Eusebeus (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too active in this debate, but I thought I'd comment here, since it seems to be such a contentious issue. (FYI, I'm taking time off of my "Wikibreak" to comment here.) I can understand and respect the policy-based approach that Eusebeus is trying to take here. God knows that I tend to be one of the strongest policy advocates out there, and I have at times inadvertently irritated others by firmly standing by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, I believe that this is one of those rare situations where the policy of ignoring all rules comes into play. Eusebeus, you're bogged down in letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. You keep quoting the consensus at WP:FICT, etc. However, the consensus there has not taken into account the specific matter at hand here. The consensus here is opposed to merging and rather is in favor of slowly improving the Allison Cameron article and other articles. That consensus has to count for something. If you're arguing that the consensus that led to the WP:FICT, WP:NOT, etc. guidelines automatically overrules any consensus here, then you're forgetting the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I know that you mean well, but I'm afraid you're so bogged down in the letter of certain policies and guidelines rather than the spirit of them that you're starting to WP:WIKILAWYER. Remember that the supreme law of Wikipedia is WP:5 and the articles in question here abide by them. Sure, they do need work. But, they are not irredeemable and don't need to be merged. They can work as separate articles. So, let's talk about improving those articles, not about gutting them and merging them. (Also, please stop constantly quoting with Wiki-Acronyms. It gets hard to read and inadvertently makes you look like a WikiLawyer. For more on this, check out WP:WTF.) Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing some quick google news searches leads me to beleive that most or all of these characters are notable. On the other hand the effort hasn't been put in to prove this on the articles themselves. While you can probably brush off Eusebeus this time, people with a similar goal are going to show up periodically and wouldn't it be nice to put an end to that by adding reliable sources? To quote myself from a different discussion:

To kind of summarize how wikipedia works with fiction, references to reliable sources and info about it's creation are like currency. You can "buy" the existance of an article by providing a certain amount of reliable sources. You created this nice article about this book series, but if you don't "pay" for it, someone may come along and try to delete it. If it hasn't been fully "paid for," when someone tries to delete it it will be up to whoever notices to then "pay" for it or it may be deleted. It's a messed up system in a lot of ways, but it also seems to make people research their topics on the web a bit, which is why I think the system is kept.

I added a few sources to Lisa Cuddy and there's a lot more out there. I should have worked on the Cameron article I guess, but it's the same idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Let's end this merge discussion and go forward as you've suggested. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Error in 'Characters' Section

The Characters section listed the new team as "4.09-". This is incorrect - all of the new doctors were introduced in 4.02. All of the new hires were officially hospital employees in the Department of Diagnostic Medicine during the fourth season, and this page should reflect that. I understand that the games ended in 4.09, resulting in the establishment of a permanent team, but this in an in-show event - the characters page needs to show when they were introduced to the audience. Mention that they joined House's team permanently can be made in their invdividual character sections. I've edited the page accordingly. Demosthenes X (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Until 4.09, Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde, and Peter Jacobson were credited as guest stars instead of regulars. Starting from 4.09, they're credited as regulars. So, to that end, an argument can be made for having their start dates as episode 4.09. I have no preference either way. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point saying it should be told when they were introduced. However, I'm not sure if all three of these characters were even introduced in this second episode. Maybe they were shown briefly but I don't know if they were actually introduced. To that end saying episode 9 seems a more neutral approach but I see your point that this misleads as to when they were actually introduced. Perhaps just saying season 4 without an episode number would be the best way to go. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually though, above the character chart it has this sentence: "At the beginning of season four, House hired forty doctors which, as of "Games", he narrowed down to Taub, Kutner, and "Thirteen"." which makes it clear these characters were introduced sometime between the beginning of season 4 and episode 9. Because of this, keeping it at 4.09 may be the best way to go. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

LonelyMarble, all three played a fairly substantial role in 4.02. Taub introduced himself as a plastic surgeon, coming up with the idea to hide the patient's surgery by giving her elective cosmetic surgery. Kutner saved the patient's life (setting her on fire in the process), as well as being fired and coming back anyway, and Thirteen had a couple of scenes (one with Old Fraud, and one where House questions her and she rebuffs him). All of them were introduced to the show in 4.02. I find it more logical to list them from their first appearance, and include elsewhere information that they became the new team as of 4.09, then listing them as 4.09 and saying elsewhere that they were actually on the show before that. I the purpose of the table is to provide readily accessible, easily browsed information, then it should cite the correct information regarding their first appearance, not when they became permanent staff... someone looking at the page quickly would incorrectly assume that these characters first appeared in 4.09. The only reason I can see for listing them as 4.09 is that they were credited as Guest Stars up until then - but again, listing 4.09 gives the impression that that was their first appearance, which is not the case. Demosthenes X (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 updates

Added Cameron as a member of the budget committee as consistent with Season 4 Episode 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orinoco999 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that

• She quit the committee
  • She got fired.

Two reasons for it to not be there. This should be removed. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Caneron wasn't fired. Cuddy made that up. She did quit, though, but that doesn't change the fact that she was on the committee. So, it can go either way. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cameron wasn't even on the budget committee for a full episode. I'm not sure it really warrants inclusion. Demosthenes X (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?

What happened? I came on here to check out an episode page... and there is nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.110.14 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's fine now. The article was vandalise-moved around before though it's back to normal. Swanny92 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit attributed to my account

I would like to clarify that the vandalism edit made under my username to this article was not actually done by me. Somebody else had wrested control of the computer from me while I was logged in and had vandalised this article. The edit does not even reflect my true feelings; House is my favourite show! Apologies for any inconvenience caused. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 10:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

House Season Five

Both of these sources confirm that House has been renewed for, or is in production for, Season five. I don't know if they're sufficient evidence to include this fact in the page. Dan 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-westonhousecasting,0,7792168.story http://reporter.blogs.com/pilotseason/renewed-shows.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Tums (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is also confirmed on FOX' own page, that should be suffient: http://www.fox.com/community/askfox/answer2.htm Premiere is scheduled for 9/2/08 --213.39.175.125 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vicoden

What the hell is House really popping, I really doubt he is popping vicoden all the time and I don't think placebo is good all the time like that either. --67.41.26.1 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He is popping Vicodin all the time. It's true that in real life this would probably cause him to overdose, but this is dramatic license. --Hnsampat (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He isn't popping enough to overdose from the hydrocodone since his tolerance is really high by now but if there is acetaminophen in the pills too (which is true for Vicodin and I don't think it's possible to get pure hydrocodone pills in the US) this could cause liver toxicity and failure after awhile. I would think someone like him would be taking oxycodone (Oxycontin) instead since it doesn't contain any other drugs. But Vicodin is more iconic I guess and they take dramatic license about the acetaminophen toxicity to the liver, although I seem to remember House mentioning something about maybe his liver is finally failing so they are aware of that unrealistic aspect.

If you meant what is Hugh Laurie as an actor popping all the time then obviously some sugar pill or something and not any real drug. I think I read somewhere where he answered that but I can't remember right now. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the most likely thing which could kill him in the long run is liver failure due to combining drugs like alcohol/LSD/etc, but it won't be hydrocodone but paracetamol in vicodin. he sure uses the dumbest drug to relieve pain with Markthemac (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal- there is a version of vicodin which does not contain acetaminophen, you just have to ask for it. LSD

simply does not damage the liver. People who take vicodin can function quite well on it (not all of them of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i wouldn't touch vicodin with a 10 foot pole, but i guess it's like all those actors/singers using cheap drugs, instead of spending their millions on something more safe. Markthemac (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hydrocodone is just as safe as oxycodone or other pure opioids isn't it? It's just the paracetamol in it that makes it not safe for recreational or long-term use. Anyone in real life would not be taking Vicodin for long-term pain relief. They would be taking oxycodone or some non-narcotic pain reliever like ibuprofen. He seems to drink alcohol frequently so his liver would definitely be taking a beating combining that with Vicodin; I don't think the LSD would adversely affect him at all though, and he only took that once anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes he only took LSD once (and like two? years ago as well) so he won't have had any long term damage from that. Also. I don't think he drinks as much as you think: every time I remember seeing him drink, he drank the odd glass, except in the season 4 double bill when he got drunk and Amber fatefully came to help. As for the medical stuff, I obviously have no clue, I'm no medical expert at all, but surely with the pill popping being one of his main character traits, the writers wouldn't screw up the medicine for that and make him take something that someone wouldn't in real life? Deamon138 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No one would take Vicodin long term because if you take acetaminophen long term it will cause liver damage. It's just a dramatic license they take since the Vicodin is iconic to his character at this point. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you sound like you know your medicine, so I'm not going to argue that. Still you say "dramatic license" and yet its odd that with Vicodin being such an integral part of his character, I would've thought they wouldn't take so much license with it as it would be under more scrutiny. You'd think they would base his main personality in reality and only take the licenses with episodic information. Deamon138 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They take dramatic license with EVERYTHING on this show, since it's primary purpose is to be entertaining. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal because Vicodin is simply the name they chose to use. Choosing OxyContin would have been more realistic but perhaps they chose to not use that drug name since OxyContin has had big problems of abuse in the United States that the media has covered greatly so FOX thought Vicodin would be the better bet. But whether he is on OxyContin or Vicodin it would not change his behavior at all as these drugs are essentially the same, so nothing about his personality would change at all except that he wouldn't get liver damage if he was on OxyContin (or some other pure opiod) as opposed to Vicodin. House even said once on a show that maybe his "liver is finally giving out", so the writers are not idiots. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that, as smart as he is, House is taking something to offset the acetaminophen, or to "strengthen" his liver? I have no idea if that is even medically possible.--67.176.175.133 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but it's equally possible (and more likely) that this is just dramatic license!! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Milk thistle has been known to protect and improve liver function. So theoretically he could be taking that to "strengthen" his liver. Of course, simply taking a different kind of opioid that does not have any other drugs like acetaminophen added would be the smarter course to take. House does seem to like taking a lot of drugs so I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking some milk thistle along with the Vicodin and booze. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn it was a simple question so I thought... anyways, maybe hes running his blodd through a pig 5 times a day to help his liver, or to clean his blood. --70.58.50.215 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion. However, it's time to bring this discussion to a close now. Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article and are not a forum for general discussion of the topic of the article, which is what this discussion has pretty much been since the beginning. We all agree that the Vicodin-popping is dramatic license and so our discussion here is not going to lead to any changes to the article. So, nothing more left to discuss. Thanks! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New season 5 start date

Apparently Fox has changed when some shows will be starting again in the autumn, so I've changed the date shown (and source) to give this new information. Deamon138 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Question

In wikipedia espanish we have this doubt: What mean´s M.D in the title?--Franky Zando (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

M.D. is short for the Latin Medicinae Doctor, which means "Doctor of Medicine." In the United States, most medical doctors have an M.D. degree. (Some have a Doctor of Osteopathy or D.O. degree.) So, the show is called "House, M.D." because it's about a medical doctor named Gregory House. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Split infinitives

Hnsampat, I have heard of the idea that "to boldy go" should be written as "to go boldly", though I did not think about this idea when I reverted the previous edit. However, after looking at Split infinitive, I found out that, "Present reference texts of usage deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable in many situations", so while some scholars (more so in the past) find split infinitives objectionable, most current scholars are fine with split infinitives. I would guess that they would be most fine when if you don't split the infinitive, then you get something that sound awkward, as we have in this article's case. I think "to often self-medicate" reads a lot better than "often to self-medicate", as I'm sure you would agree. And since it seems that the majority of scholars are fine with split infinitives, I think it would be better to have this phrase in the previous version. If there was no "scholar majority", or the majority was against splitting infinitives, then I would accept that and feel happier that infintives shouldn't be split, but this isn't the case. What do you think of this? Deamon138 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It also seems someone has changed it to "often leads him to self-medicate". This does read better than the second version, although I'm not sure if it's better than the original or not. Still, thinking about it, does House "often" use other drugs other than Vicodin? It seems on the rare occasions when he's been deprived of Vicodin that he does this. Deamon138 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The section in question was speculating that House is more of a jerk because of his substance abuse and was saying "this leads him to often self-medicate." The first part is speculative and so I removed it. The second part is not only awkwardly written but it's also not clear what the "this" is referring to. So I reworded the section altogether. It should all be okay now. By the way, I don't care what grammarians say, the mission of the U.S.S. Enterprise is not "to go boldly" or "boldly to go" anywhere, it is "to boldly go where no man has gone before"! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah. Oddly for a self-confessed geek, I've never watched a single episode of Star Trek. One day I will, I'm sure. Anyway, back on topic, what you've done is fine. However, I would say that a lot of the characters (e.g. Wilson) speculate in-episode about what effect the drug(s) have on him, so maybe we could add something more specific like that (and maybe with specific episodes that this happens in for citations?). Deamon138 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spin Off

Just wondering if we should mention the details of this article on the page somewhere as it is about season five but also House in general in that it is a new show in the same world http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/a120107/house-creator-reveals-spinoff-plans.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.45.145 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should. I will put it in the House M.D. article. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image proposal

How about, in the characters table, next to each character, we add a small picture of each character? Deamon138 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about something like this too, the only problem would be every picture would likely be a copyrighted FOX picture, we could probably get fair-use templates for them but I know a lot of people like to limit fair-use pictures as much as possible. I think this is the main reason this hasn't happened yet. I'm not big on the copyright picture scene though, perhaps someone who is could weigh in. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah using a Fox picture might be problematic, and again, I don't understand all the legal mumbo jumbo. However, if we can't use those pictures, how about a picture from the character's article, or if not, from the actor's article? Deamon138 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, only Hugh Laurie, Lisa Edelstein, Kal Penn, and Olivia Wilde have totally free pictures on their personal pages, the other five don't have any free pictures. They all have a picture on their House character pages but all these pictures are copyrighted to Fox and are using the fair-use rationale to show the character the article is about. I think the same fair-use could be applied to this article since it would be beneficial to see images of all the characters in the main article, and all the images are low resolution, etc. I could make a test of what it would look like here on the talk page, it shouldn't take too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for doing that. Any chance we can get better fair use images of Wilson and Cameron (and maybe House as well) since I think when we have images this small, focusing on the facial area is the most important thing. Those pics are fine for their articles, since the pics are bigger there, but for Cameron and Wilson (and to a lesser extent House), a close up image would be better. Can we get hold of any for those 2/3 that we can use here (but keep the current images in their bios still)? Deamon138 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well now all those images are tagged for deletion... I will try to find a way to get acceptable fair-use images of the characters. If every other TV show can do it why not House right? For the main article, I think perhaps one image of the whole cast at the top of the characters section may be the easiest way to go. Hopefully an image like that could be acceptable. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. You can't have non-free fair use images of these people or anybody else if the person is alive. Images of living persons are almost always considered replaceable, and thus they fail the criteria for use on Wikipedia. This is a big problem on Wikipedia, but it is being dealt with. Asher196 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely, any non-free fair use image of a living person is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Let me help you out in this noble undertaking:

• Pretty much every single article on a Lost character: Characters of Lost, just click to all their character pages
  
• Almost all the main Heroes characters: List of characters in Heroes
  
• Most articles on The Office (US) characters: List of characters from The Office (US T.V. series)
  
• 4 cast pictures on Grey's Anatomy and almost all the character pages: List of characters from Grey's Anatomy
  
• A bunch of pictures of Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report
  
• All the main Scrubs characters articles here: Scrubs (TV series)#Main characters and the top six recurring Scrubs characters here: List of minor characters of Scrubs
  

That's a good start. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(replying to Asher196) I don't think you completely understand - you cannot use a fair use image to illustrate the article about the person, so long as they are living, however a character in a show is arguably different, if there is something distinctive about the character such that an image if the actor would not suffice. For example, you could argue fair use for an image of Columbo with his distinctive raincoat. In this case, I think an argument for fair use could be made for the individual character articles, but not for individual images in the cast list here. Much better would be an ensemble shot showing the whole cast, used once. Kevin (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is much misunderstanding on this issue even with administrators. I started this little crusade when I had my own non-free fair use character images deleted by admins. "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Asher196 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That policy is pretty open for debate. I would argue images of the actor in the look and clothes of the character they play serves a far better encyclopedic purpose than just a picture of the actor not in the look and style of the character. That argument would bypass the policy right there. Also you can make the same argument for a group shot of all the characters in a show, and a group shot is also pretty much impossible to replace even if all the actors are living. What Kevin said seems to be the defacto standard on Wikipedia because most character articles have a picture like I showed and there are many group pictures around. Deleting the individual images from this article I see the logic to. However, I would request that you not delete the images from this article that are also on their individual character articles. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty simple, really. The whole rationale here is that people who are alive are still around for us to take pictures of them and those pictures would be free media. So, the idea is that we should, for living people, use free-use images instead of fair-use ones. However, that is not the case here. In this article (and all of the ones listed above), the images are not being used to represent real people. The images are being used to represent fictional characters. The image of Gregory House on this page is not supposed to be an image of Hugh Laurie but rather an image of Gregory House. (The Columbo example fits perfectly here. In that article, we could not simply substitute an image of Peter Falk, because it is not an article about Peter Falk but rather the character he plays.) Now, here's the important point: fictional characters do not exist in real life. By definition, fictional characters are part of works of fiction. The work of fiction in this case is a television show, which is copyrighted. That television show and its copyright holders are the only source of images of these characters. (We can easily snap a free image of Hugh Laurie walking down the street, but we can't snap a free image of Gregory House walking down the street, because Gregory House only exists in the medium of television.) As such, it is impossible to obtain free images of the fictional characters. All available images of the characters will be copyrighted, unless the copyright is released by the copyright holder (which they won't be releasing anytime soon). As such, the only kinds of images that can be used to represent these fictional characters are those that are utilized via fair use. The overarching rule is to use fair-use images IF AND ONLY IF no free images are available, which is exactly the case here. The question of WP:BLP does not arise because we are not talking about real, living people but rather about fictional characters. So, I say the fair-use images can stay, provided that they have adequate fair-use rationales. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what's going on? Why are the images being tagged for deletion? They qualify for fair use don't they? It seems that all of a sudden, as soon as these images appeared in this article, they were suddenly not allowable, but when they were in their own individual character articles, they were okay. That doesn't make sense. Since when has a fair use image only been allowed to be used once? It says on the template: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." That suggests more than one is allowable. But of course, do these images qualify as fair use in the first place? Well yes they do, they fall into point 5 at Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles I reckon. I see no reason to penalize the House character images when these kind of images are allowed all over the other tv shows on Wikipedia. Deamon138 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Note the bits of that guideline you missed:

• Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images
• For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page

So the point is that an ensemble shot is preferable here, while the individual shots could be fair use in the individual articles. For your other argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kevin (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me: why has Image:GregoryHousePortrait.jpg been tagged for deletion, but Image:HouseGregoryHouse.png hasn't? Sure, we don't need two non-free images of House, but then the only image of most of the other characters has been tagged. And Image:Lisa Cuddy.jpg hasn't been nominated for deletion, nor has Image:Robertseanleonard.jpg, nor has Image:Cameron.a.jpg. Why not? Those four images are just the same as the images tagged. I say, keep the images of the ducklings ('cept Cameron), and keep the new images of House, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy, as they're better than the old images. Those four old images can go then, but why should any others go? Deamon138 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One has not been tagged because it is used in the main character article, and has a valid fair use rationale. The other is used in the character list and is not fair use there for reasons i have explained above. Same for the other examples you list, except Image:Lisa Cuddy.jpg which has now been tagged as missing a fair use rationale. It should be easy to fix that one though. Note that all of the other TV show articles listed here have ensemble shots in the list, and individual shots only in the main character articles. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, most of the images tagged ARE being used in the main character article, so why are ALL of these images being tagged then? As I pointed out, there are four images that aren't being used in the main character articles, so at most by this rational, only four should be deleted. I would prefer if the other four (the older ones) were deleted, as I said. The new ones are better imo.

Besides, I shall direct you to point number 4 on that section where it says, "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." So you see, repeating the use of the individual images is preferred over creating another non-free image of the whole cast.

As for "For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page" (which is part of the point that I directed people to), did you bother to read the whole point? Let's read on: "if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media." There you go. A significant difference. In my opinion, dressing as a doctor is a significant difference: I hardly think that Jennifer Morrison walks around in a lab coat at home, or Hugh Laurie walks around with a cane, popping pills. They aren't method actors!

Anyway, Other Stuff Exists is a valid argument here, when Featured Articles have non-free images of characters. See Wikipedia:FA#Media. An example of that would be Padmé Amidala. Deamon138 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, to make myself clearer, I have removed the deletion tag from the 4 images that are also used in individual character articles. Those same 4 have been removed from this article, because they have no fair use rationale for this article. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, using the individual shots in two different articles each is better than using the individual shots once each and using a non-free image of the whole cast. We are supposed to limit the number of non-free images. Having a non-free cast shot, along with the individual shots in their respective articles, increases the number of non-free images we are using. Deamon138 (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually getting pretty tired of apparently contradictory Wikipedia policies. From WP:NON-FREE "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" This one line seems to say that most non-free content is disallowed, at least in respect to living persons. Asher196 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well of those two questions, the answer to the second is obviously no. But with the first, it is more difficult. I would argue that the answer to that is no too, but it seems you and Kevin would argue yes. It all comes down to what is a "significant difference". To me, an actor in his character's doctor lab coat is one. But maybe to you it isn't. So, to me, this needs to be worked out via consensus, like everything else in Wikipedia. What, in your opinion, constitutes a "significant difference"? Where do you draw the line? Deamon138 (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need an image of Dr. House in a lab coat to show what the character looks like, since a free image of Hugh Laurie would basically do the same thing. I think people are trying to use the character image to try to work around policy, saying, for example, that it isn't really an image of Hugh Laurie, it's an image of Dr. House. Asher196 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The following comes from the talk page of User:Acalamari (an admin), to whom I asked a question regarding this article. Asher196 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Using your example, I started tagging and removing such images from articles, but I am running into much opposition. Take a look at the images at House (TV series) and see what you think. I need a clear explanation as to what is allowed and what isn't. Asher196 (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would remove those images in that list on the House article: there's no need for so many fair-use images (especially no need for so many non-free pictures of living people, which aren't allowed anyway), and free-use can be found to replace them. I'm about to go offline now, so if you have further questions I'll have to answer them later. Thanks in advance. Acalamari 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"

Firstly, I have swapped the new images for the old ones in those four characters' individual articles. Secondly, House doesn't wear a lab coat (except one episode). And no, the two images of House we have discussed are not images of Hugh Laurie: Laurie doesn't dress like that, House does, Laurie doesn't use a cane, House does. I mean, look at Image:Hugh Laurie Actors Guild.jpg, the image being used for Laurie's article. That is not House at all imo. Nor is the other actors' images representative of the characters (especially seeing as there is no free image for most of the actors anyway). Deamon138 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Asher's argument is valid for images of actor, but possibly not for character images. Although it would be possible to obtain a free image (sneak onto the set etc.) it is reasonable to assume that free character images are not available. As to whether a character image is replaceable, you would have to argue that the image is significantly different from a free image of the actor. For images showing a guy wearing a shirt and jacket, I cannot see how there is a significant difference. But I'm not arguing against these in individual character articles anyway. I am arguing about this article, which has a list of characters, and the fair use guideline recommends an ensemble cast shot, which is fair use, as it shows the cast together, in context. Kevin (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that there is too much room for interpretation in the policy. Asher196 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that you are okay with them in the individual articles, but seemingly Asher (and Acalamari by proxy) is not, so I was addressin his arguments. But as for their applicability in this article, I disagree, as you will see above with my comment to you at 02:44. Deamon138 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are missing my point - in a list article, which the character list here is, it is preferable to have a single ensemble shot of the cast. The guideline is clear on this issue. Significant differences are only relevant to the individual character articles, not here. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read points 4 and 5 of Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles and get back to me. Deamon138 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have, and have explained my position at length already. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point 4 is relevant to LonelyMarble's point below, while point 5 is relevant as it shows that "significant differences" ARE relevant to lists, which clearly makes "significant differences" relevant to tis point, which you disagreed with. Deamon138 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138 brings up a good point. I wouldn't have that much of a problem substituting the individual images for a good cast image. However, is it preferable to have two instances of the same fair use image, or one instance of one image and then a completely new fair use image? This question seems like a good question to me. Why is it so much more preferable to have a new fair use image on the main article instead of multiple duplicate fair use images from the character articles? Also, I think the deletion of any of these images should be delayed until we decide what is best to do, specifically which old and new images would be best to keep. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Non-free content criteria says that Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information, and so taken in combination with item 1 at Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, gives clear guidance as to what to do here - replace the individual shots with a cast shot. Kevin (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that conflicts with the 4th rule on that list. 9x2 duplicate images or 9 images and then 1 new image, which is preferable?. That's never really specified. I don't really care either way, I'm just explaining the vagueness of these policies, and why arguments like this happen. And Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria does not contradict anything, in fact it specifically says this: 7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss our point. Having a non-free cast image as well as the individual shots on the individual articles, is MORE non-free images than if those same individual shots are used twice. The non-free criteria has to be taken with the WHOLE of Wikipedia in mind, not just one article. Using you idea, more non-free images are being used than in my idea, so for "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", in this situation, read, "Multiple+1 items of non-free content are not used if Multiple items can convey equivalent significant information". The individual shots are already in use on Wikipedia. You are allowed to use non-free images more than once. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with using them in this article. Deamon138 (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These images are allowed, but only in this context. Basically, as they are representing fictional characters, a replacement cannot be found. The images however cannot be used on the actors biographies. Rationales for use must be provided for each article that the image is used on. However, given that there is already a picture of the cast on this page, it is unlikely a rationale to duplicate the images on this article would hold up. Result: Images not deleted due to fair-use concerns. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack image

1. "Critical" commentary is subjective, is there a specific definition of critical because if there is not then there is no way to resolve that argument without more opinions
2. For an understanding of the comparison of what "critical" means, what is the difference, if any, between the soundtrack image in this article and the use of Image:Simmonopoly.jpg in The Simpsons#Merchandise and the use of Image:Jackfigurelost.jpg in Lost_(TV_series)#Other_media. (these both look like the same situation to me)
3. The image cannot possibly be just for "decoration" as it is described in the text (with about as much detail or more as those two examples) LonelyMarble (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that it is subjective, and there is an archived discussion regarding this on the talk page of WP:NON-FREE. So it would seem that simple commentary is ok. Although the image use still needs to pass the "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." test, and I'm not so sure having an image of the soundtrack does that. Asher196 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The significance of use is also subjective. When I wrote the fair-use rationale on the image page one of the points was the significance of its use for the article. It increases readers' understanding of House merchandise because they get a visual of an example of what it looks like. The fair-use rationale I wrote explains all the points needed I think. Is removing this image really helping Wikipedia, because I think it qualifies as fair use under law and if anything would encourage readers to buy the soundtrack more, not less, so the copyright holder would not care. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Never before seen episodes during marathon

Ok... is it just me or have there been episodes playing during the house marathon that have never been seen before? because i've watched each season on the dvd collection, every episode, and ive tivoed house so that every episode that plays i get and some of the episodes that have been playing over the marathon i have never seen before. like for example, ive never seen the one about the leg injuries that had carmen electra in it... has anyone else only just seen that episode during the marathon? what gives? if there are new house episodes out there, i want to see them all! Spartan1168 (Spartan1168 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

The episode with Carmen Electra is episode 21 of season 1 (2nd to last episode of season), "Three Stories". So no, it is not a new episode. None of the episodes being aired are new. You might want to check List of House episodes for a full list of episodes and see which ones you have not seen. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Someone might want to archive the talk page; it's much too long. I would do it myself if I knew how to. 209.87.194.21 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

The least you can do is shove your edit through Microsoft Word and run the spellcheck. Otherwise, don't screw with the article if you've never gotten an "A" in English class. ShihoMiyano (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? What are you talking about? Belasted (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And gotten is excellent grammar, of course. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Like you don't use slang words when you're angry. Gotten would never be used in a [proper] Wikipedia article. I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but your point is invalid. And to Belasted, I'm talking about little mistakes that are everywhere and I'm talking to the people who change the article and make those mistakes.ShihoMiyano (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Be civil, don't bite, and fix it. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Or check sources before debating points."In British English got is the regular past participle of get, and gotten survives only in a few set phrases, such as ill-gotten gains. In American English gotten, although occasionally criticized, is an alternative standard past participle in most senses, especially in the senses “to receive” or “to acquire”: I have gotten (or got) all that I ever hoped for."[10] Incidentally, the Firefox browser has a built-in spell-checker, so errors are flagged as you compose your edit or comment. Final thought: perhaps it's better not to post when you're angry, but to save your thoughts somewhere and post them when you've calmed down. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotten was a not uncommon alternative British English formation until last century and remains grammatically OK. --Straw Cat (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was almost a believer... until someone pointed out your sneaky vandalism made at the same as your post. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)