Talk:Wilson (House episode)

Trivia

There should be no need for this section, but I am placing it here because of an editor's misunderstanding of my actions and Wikipedia's standards. First, the trivia in this article needs to be sourced. Secondly, the sourced trivia that remains needs to be moved out of a list of miscellaneous trivia and integrated into the remainder of the article, or it needs to be removed, per WP:TRIVIA. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the policy. For the fourth time there are already 3 sources for the insufferable trivia section just tell me how many it would take to qualify it as sourced. Second you placed the trivia tag, and I assume my opinion doesn't count in the matter so lets wait for other opinions. --Theo10011 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The trivia tag is appropriate in any section of trivia, regardless of anyone's opinion. Second point: regardless of number of sources (or the number of times you state how many sources there are), trivia sections should be temporary. The goal is to move the items to other sections of the article, or remove them entirely. The section cannot stay as it is in the article endlessly, with or without a trivia tag. This is Wikipedia, a serious encylopedia, not IMDb or Triviapedia. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First the section originally was called - Cultural references, you acting alone on some divine guidance decided that it should be renamed Trivia, I would highly argue against it. Upon your re-classification you call them to me moved or removed and only temporary citing WP:TRIVIA, when the guideline itself states -"This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." You are taking a great deal of liberty here, without having anyone else have a say in the matter with your standing based solely and purely on policy, does'nt anyone get a chance to voice their dissent here.--Theo10011 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling trivia another name does not negate the fact that it is trivia: a miscellaneous list of relatively unimporant information. The use of "Cultural references", although sometimes legitimate, has been a frequently-used technique to try to avoid the usual standards that should be applied to trivia. Secondly, don't try to bolster an indefensible position by selectively quoting a page of Wikipedia standards or name-calling (consider this your first warning for personal attacks in reference to your use of the phrase "divine guidance"). You conveniently forgot to include in your quote from WP:TRIVIA: "If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined". "In most cases" indicates that "temporary" is the general guideline and exceptions need to be agreed upon by consensus. You have not sought consensus to make this particular article an exception, unless you consider your response to my post here an attempt. And you are perfectly free to express dissent, contrary to your attempts to portray my following policy an attempt to suppress dissent. But your "dissent" does not constitute consensus; there is not consensus of one (and before you retort that I alone do not determine consensus either, I have not claimed such, and I have only abided by the current consensus). Even if you gained consensus to change the existing standards of Wikipedia for this article, that does not change WP:TRIVIA. If you want to change the way trivia is handled on Wikipedia, seek a general consensus at WT:TRIV or an appropriate policy forum. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So now your claiming to be familiar with "techniques to try to avoid the usual standards that should be applied to trivia" and that Cultural references though sometimes legitimate are part of a technique to avoid the standards of trivia. Are there any other such "techniques" mentioned in the guidelines that is usually used to avoid the trivia standards. I dont know how to proceed after your last reply, I am not sure I fully understand it. As for repeatedly warning me about policy violation or things that might culminate into a possible violation than please as I stated on your page by All means get anyone involved just stop threatening me with policy violations. --Theo10011 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have anything new to say about this particular article, then please say it. Otherwise, unless someone else weighs in, I'm finished pandering to you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed for once. just stop threatening with policy violation, either report it or don't.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I am not trying to restart the argument above, I renamed the section back to Cultural References from Trivia by the last editor, It was initially titled Cultural references, I strongly disagree with renaming it since I contributed to it and added those sources. However in accordance with the discussion above, I left the tag placed by the last editor in the section until another editor weighs in.--Theo10011 (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not own the article simply because you "contributed to it and added those sources"; in fact, you will never own the article. Read WP:OWN. It is trivia. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither do you. New IP address?, is there a guidline you can state that states cultural references sections should be renamed to trivia. --Theo10011 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said or implied I did own the article. You certainly implied some degree of ownership when you suggested that you have some unique authority or privilege because you "contributed to it and added those sources". Since you have seemed confused about other policies, I needed to clarify the issue of ownership. There is no guideline that I know of regarding whether trivia can be called "cultural references", "List of miscellanous things", "Fun Facts", "Things that Theo finds interesting", or any of a dozen other titles that are simply a re-branding of trivia. So you will not violate any policy that I know of if you change it back UNLESS OR UNTIL a consensus develops here one way or the other. The title of the section, however, in no way changes the fact that it is a miscellaneous list of relatively unimportant information, which is what trivia is. All the rules and guidelines of trivia apply, including the fact that the information eventually needs to be moved out of the trivia section (or "cultural info", "apples and oranges", or whatever you wish to call it). That point is non-negotiable because it is the standard procedure for Wikipedia, per WP:TRIVIA, unless there is a clear consensus here to do otherwise. So if you wish for it to remain where it is, you (or someone) needs to seek consensus here to do so. And "eventually moved out" doesn't mean three or four months from now or whenever the whim strikes you or someone else. Also note that having a source does not mitigate that standard either. If it sits in the "Cultural references" section and there is no evidence that anyone is trying to relocate it, it will be removed.

One reasonable solution would be to create a separate article that incorporates all cultural references or trivia for the entire House series, which would be linked in the main House article (but not in each episode article). That has worked in other articles, but it takes more effort than simply allowing a trivia section to gather dust in an article. If I see some effort being made along those lines, with steady progress, I can be patient about when it is moved out of this article. Otherwise, however, the trivia needs to be moved elsewhere in this article, or removed. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wilson (House episode). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930184706/http://www.fox.com/schedule.htm to http://www.fox.com/schedule.htm#week:2009-11-29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)