Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Infobox

The "starring" section doesn't look too good, with all past cast members included alongside the current ones. My proposal is to subst it and tweak the parameters so that we can make the distinction. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to reflect the series as a whole, not just the latest season. Their time on the show can be listed in the body of the article, but not, in my opinion, the infobox. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yet it still looks inconsistent, in the sense that there are twelve people listed under "Starring", when there is never more than six in the opening credits of any episode. Also, the word "starring", being in present progressive, suggests that it is currently taking place. Instead of "Starring", it should read "Main cast (past and present)" or something similar. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be something to take up at the talk page for the template. I believe it's currently fully protected, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the word "Stars" would be a better word. You're right, "starring" implies that it's current. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Subst'ing is much more practical (since we're dealing with a specific case, rather than a general modification to a Wikipedia template) and less time/energy consuming. I've gone ahead and done it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
So what should be done when the series is over? It technically won't be "present" anymore. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... that's a tough one, but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I completely disagree with reordering the list. I'm fine with the designation being changed from "Starring", but the infobox is still intended to reflect the series as a whole. As it stands right now, half of the current cast is listed at the top, while past characters are in the middle and more current cast members are at the bottom. To me, that just doesn't make sense if you're trying to reflect current conditions. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
So... are you saying that we should completely ignore the fact that two of the original main cast members have left the show for good? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the infobox is not the place to put that information. I'm fine with "Main characters (past and present)" but not with reordering to a seemingly random order (I still don't understand why the people who are gone were put in the center and some of the current cast members were placed at the bottom). That's why the chart is given below; it explains who is currently on the show and who is gone. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I originally wanted to put all current members first, but I was reverted several times because editors insist otherwise. The "random" order was my idea of a compromise – if you insist on listing veteran cast members first, at least start with the people who are still on the show... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Putting my 2 cents in as I stumbled upon this. The infobox should really be reverted back to use to proper Template:Infobox television, instead of what it is now, which is unnecessarily complicated. The only difference is now that says "Main cast (past and present)" instead of "Starring". If you have an issue with the naming of the parameter, than it should be brought up on the talk page of the template, this article shouldn't get special treatment, as every television show and film article uses "Starring" in the infobox as per the template. The show's ending next month, so "past and present" won't exist anymore. That's why you don't, for example, move current members ahead of people currently not in the show. Because at the end of day, the order will be reverted back to chronological, because why would Charlyne Yi be placed before Lisa Edelstein. So yeah, just revert back the correct infobox. The cast order at the moment looks to be correct, so there's no reason using this custom infobox, as "past and present" won't exist anymore for this show soon, nor should you write about fiction like that anyway. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Drovethrughosts here. The only real difference is the "Main characters (past and present)", which I was mostly neutral, though a bit hesitant, on. Like he/she said, it's very complicated, and there's no real reason to make the change. I don't think anyone who has seen the show would be confused, and even if they are, they can look at one of the tables below for clarification. Like Drovethrughosts said, fiction shouldn't be written about like that; for the same reason, we won't say "House was an American..." in the first sentence this time next month. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We agreed that "starring" is not completely appropriate in this case, and besides – why is everyone "pulling the plug" a whole month before the series is over??? Why is it so important not to subst? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You never really addressed the new issues brought up. I hadn't previously considered the point that fiction should not be referred to as "past and present." Furthermore, if "starring" isn't the best word, "stars" is a much better alternative, as it does not imply any sort of time. Like I said, taking this up at the template talk page is a much, much better route, since this applies to a large number of TV series, not just this one. Basically, if this absolutely must be substituted, the word "Stars" is a much better alternative. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The MOS is very specific about both of these issues. The template should be used for a television show infobox, and all extant cast should be included (to avoid in-universe editing) not just current cast. The only exception that can be made, and only with consensus is to use current season cast, labeled accordingly, when the cast is exceptionally large (and we're talking ER large, not 12 actors.) Moreover, Hearfourmewesique, you don't have consensus for your alternative infobox; your repeated reverts can be viewed as edit warring and editing against consensus. Once your edit is challenged, you stop reverting and discuss. Kevin, present should never be used in an infobox; just leave the box blank, and you get startyear - (open space), which is correct in most written contexts. --Drmargi (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for a cancellation section?

It's now well known that this is the final season of House, yet this article fails to mention the cancellation. Isn't it time for a Cancellation section? – voidxor (talk | contrib) 03:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't cancelled; it was "concluded" or "ended" because it was one of those shows that "whose runs end due to a mutual creative decision by its producers and cast". See cancellation. This allows the showrunners to bring the show to some sort of coherent, meaningful ending instead of ending as any normal season would, i.e. "inconclusively" (as it were), vaguely, or abruptly. Breaking Bad is going to end after 16 more episodes, for example. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

... often construed as a misanthropic medical genius

   And who says he's not "a misanthropic medical genius"? I'm not sure where it says clearly (as it surely should) that a WP article ref-link can never point back into WP (!), but in this case the link is to Pilot (House) In "Pilot" (House), where he is called "misanthropic" (without qualification) but the word "genius" goes unmentioned. I'm eliminating "often construed as", and the ref, but {{fact}}- {{vague}}-tagging the phrase.
--Jerzy•t 23:41, 19th & 02:32, 20th; May 2012 (UTC)

    Oops! There is nothing wrong with the ref. Rather, i confused linking the name of the ep, in the citation, with citing our own article. I'm still concerned about our guidelines not clarifying that "third party" means "not ourselves [1st party], and not someone whose opinion about themself we are citing [2nd party]" (and it could thus perhaps be construed in its more usual sense, "someone -- maybe even us -- other than the two sides of the dispute we are writing about), but it was my error, and that it would be unreasonable (after recognizing my error), to construe this as a case of a WP implying that another WP article is an authority for this WP article's statement.
   I continue concerned that we are not told whether our contributor has observed that House
  1. consistently behaves misanthropically and exhibits genius about medicine,
  2. is treated like a misanthropic medical genius by every character he meets,
  3. is described as "a misanthropic medical genius" by at least one character, and heard by other chars who ignore opportunities to convincingly contradict that opinion, or
  4. is so described by at least one real-world key insider, without contradiction by a more or equally authoritative key insider. After it is reworded, we can consider whether whichever of those four was intended is adequately documented, by simply naming the pilot episode as a whole as the source. (As to a fifth possibility, i think we must reject the opinion of our contributor, and even the agreement of all their friends -- and probably also the consensus of the critics.)
    --Jerzy•t 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Snapshot info in table

Hi, I made some changes (series of diffs) to the table under the "Characters and story arcs" subsection. What it said about each team member's specialty was absent or wrong (except for Foreman and Cameron), and I fixed that (and referenced each edit). For example, Chase is not a cardiologist, but rather a surgeon with subspecialty training as an intensivist (critical care specialist). A note re IMDB: it is a reliable source in this case since the page referenced is not authored by readers. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Re IMDb, i take you point, but i would not know how to tell the pages that aren't by (IMDb-)readers from those that are. Could you share the wealth?
--Jerzy•t 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What is and what was

   Altho it is hard it imagine it will be come relevant in the case of the diff link i provided in the edit summary of my last edit to the accompanying article, i failed to anticipate the distinction between it (a URL that Wiki-blame found & provided me) and another that i derived from a history-page link that i located making use of a timestamp that Wiki-blame found & provided me. If you care about the possibility of the difference ever mattering, the odds are good that you've already learned enuf that you'll learn nothing more by reading further. If you don't see how the difference could matter -- but are nevertheless still curious -- read on:

The following is stuff i've never seen clearly documented, nor seriously tried to hunt down where (as i assume) that has been done, but it didn't take too much patience to learn just by experiments and imagining how what i've found could be worth building into the MediaWiki engine.
Each of those two URLs specifies two revisions, and in both cases the "newer" of the two is the same. The difference between them is that
  1. one URL specifies as "older" whatever revision of the page bears the next most recent time stamp for that page, while
  2. the other specifies instead a revision bearing a specific time stamp, whether or not that one immediately precedes the first in a list of timestamps for that page.
Selective deletion and/or undeletion of revisions can result in
  1. those two second specifications representing different revisions, with different content, and
  2. thus the two "differences" pages asserting different accounts of what content changes were made by the editor whose sig is on the same content.
The point of my providing a link to a diffs page is that the editor in question
changed two short words that are visible without starting an edit, within a page containing about 100,000 characters,
added four words only visible on the edit page,
whose intent is unclear without knowing what the two changed words were.
The URL in my edit summary will make all clear, only in the absence of selective deletion and/or undeletion, while the second URL i present above should suffice against any but very bizarre changes.

--Jerzy•t 05:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hard to document everything 174.114.11.60 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Critical reaction to season five

In regards to season five, the article had it depicted as being very poor. While I understand that there are criticisms in relation to some of the narrative strands etc. it was still generally well received, so I've add both aggregate review counts for Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, along with two review summaries. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 17:39, 08 February 2014 (UTC)

"The team employs the differential diagnosis method,[81] listing possible etiologies on a whiteboard, then eliminating most of them, usually because one of the team (most often House) provides logical reasons for ruling them out.[82] Typically the patient is misdiagnosed at least once and accordingly receives some treatments that are at best useless;[81] this usually causes further complications, but—as the nature of the complications often provides valuable new evidence—eventually these help them diagnose the patient correctly.[17] House often tends to arrive at the correct diagnosis seemingly out of the blue, often inspired by a passing remark made by another character.[81] Diagnoses range from relatively common to very rare diseases.[83]"

This leaves out that House sometimes prescribes the wrong treatment, or fails to prescribe the right treatment, intentionally in order to 'provide valuable new evidence'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.244.98 (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical Slang

Is there by change a list of Medical Slang/acronyms used on the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.244.98 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly a consensus against the original proposal, House, M.D. (TV series), and I would say that the calls for House M.D. are at about 'no consensus', but this RM has become slightly muddied as some have responded only to the original proposal. No prejudice against a new RM with House M.D. as the proposed title. And if anyone does start said RM, I would suggest they try to show that "House M.D." is a regularly used title in independent reliable sources – the official name is largely irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Thewolfchild's edit comment for his move says "The logo on the opening credits of EVERY SINGLE EPISODE states the show is called "House M.D."". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. - "Everybody calls it House" ...so what? Everybody refers to the city of Los Angeles simply as "L.A.", but the wiki page goes by the proper name. (I checked!) I haven't seen any real "consensus" on this, more like baseless POV-pushing by a handful of people. And, really, how can we even entertain any consensus to change the proper name of this show? Yes, there are many sources that refer to the show simply as "House". But I'll bet that in many of those instances, they are referring to the character, after all... he is the show. But for those that lazily drop the M.D., who cares? That doesn't mean WP has to. What is more definitive than the show's own title card? For this show, it reads "House, M.D.", at the beginning of every. single. episode. Some people say "I think Fox changed it", but obviously they didn't, and neither should we.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewolfchild (talk • contribs)
I hate to break it to you, but Fox calls the show HOUSE. Calidum Talk To Me 05:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but Fox calls the show HOUSE, M.D. - theWOLFchild 05:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
From the above: "HOUSE is an innovative take on the medical drama in which the villain is a medical malady and the hero is an irreverent, controversial doctor who trusts no one, least of all his patients." Troll harder. Calidum Talk To Me 06:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean the same "above" that shows the title as "House, M.D."? - theWOLFchild 16:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read this promotional blurb from Fox. Incidentally, we don't call the Batman TV series 'Batman, written inside a bat's wings with a man's head on it' [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
wow. Are you trying to be funny? It ain't working... - theWOLFchild 07:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I thought it was funny, to each his or her own. That page very clearly calls the show 'House' and not 'House MD'. The logo, however, has 'MD' in it, that was the point I was trying to make in a way that you did not find funny. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. See here, here, and here, for example. Calidum Talk To Me 14:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and got it wrong each time. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving to House M.D. per WP:NATURALDIS. It's true that "House" is the common name, but "House (TV series)" is not, and as long as we are forced to disambiguate (House being taken) it is neater to disambiguate with a natural variation. bd2412 T 12:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really want to badger everyone citing NATURALDIS, but as far as I can tell only IMDB refers to the show as House MD. So is it really natural if we're essentially making up a name based on a title card? Calidum Talk To Me 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Amazon calls it both ways. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the relevant source is the current distributor, USA Network, which refers to the show as House and not House M.D. It is common practice to disambiguate using the "M.D." in the logo, but the logo is not the same as the title. Muffinator (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So what? The name of the show is the name of the show. The logo IS the title. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The logo is a graphic representing the show. It happens to contain the title. There’s a difference here. If “House, M.D.” is the official title, then official sources use it not just in graphical form, but in print, as text. If this is the case, I’ll absolutely support this move. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: First, I have to correct those who are distinguishing the logo from the name. Yes there is a distinction, but the logo is (as best I can represent here): "[H]OUSEMD" ... (or, to spell it out: the capital "H" is placed in a box, the "OUSE" is underlined and also in block capitals, and the "M.D." is capitalized but written in an extremely tiny font. I agree that this should not be used as our article title.
Looking at a whole bunch of sources that talk about this show, it seems that the show actually has two variations on it's name... the sources refer to the show as either "House" or "House M.D." (and in fact, there are a few cases where both variations are used within the same source). The sources I looked at were a wide range of sources... newspaper and magazine reviews, websites, TV listings, the website for the Emmys, etc. and they seem to be very mixed. I don't find that one version is used significantly more often than the other (in other words... looking at the sources, I don't think we can say that one or the other is the WP:COMMONNAME... or perhaps we should say that there is no single WP:COMMONNAME). So... I don't think it matters which is used in our article... both meet our goals of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency about equally. Both are equally acceptable titles. I would, however, say that whichever is used, the other should used as a redirect. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NATURALDIS. Both variations of the name are common, so use the one that doesn’t require parentheses. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support straightforward WP:NATURALDIS. walk victor falk talk 21:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also note that when "sources" use just "House", it is just as often (if not more) a reference to the titular main character, than the show... - theWOLFchild 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can anyone here explain why wp:commonname should 'out-trump' wp:naturalids? - theWOLFchild 07:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought I would look at a few sources, such as the Emmys [2] and the entry about the show's Peabody [3] and both call the show 'House' not 'House MD' unless I am missing something. House, then, seems not just to be the common name, but the name of the show. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

possibly far?

Statistic needs update, most of them still only season 6, consider the show was finished more than two years, I think is best to do some rewriting, then this will be a stable article. But before that, this is not a featured quality article.

Hope someone could follow up, this is still a very good article.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie

He is NOT English, he is Scottish. Depending on one's political views he may be British, but he's DEFINITELY NOT English.

--93.196.128.56 (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think being born in Oxfordshire probably makes him English. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 41 external links on House (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Masters is not a doctor...

At no point during the show's run has she ever acquired her MD. Why is she still being listed as "Dr. Martha Masters" in the cast section? I keep changing it only for it to be edited back. 24.114.54.209 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A PhD is a doctoral degree. Apparently she had two. So really, she's Dr. Dr..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a PhD is a doctoral degree. However, the show never addresses her as anything but "Martha M. Masters" and it's ridiculous to refer to her as anything but. 99.252.82.219 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what difference it makes what she was called on the show. She had two doctoral degrees. "Dr" is appropriate. Meters (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on House (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_(TV_series)/Archive_6&oldid=1129981901"