Talk:Here Kitty

Television: Episode coverage / House Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the House task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tie to Arrested Development?

Does anyone have any idea whether it is more than a coincidence that Judy Greer's character on the sitcom Arrested Development was named "Kitty"?

-- Nfscott (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. -71.193.191.187 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong!

"Morgan simply says, "Maybe he just gave them something to live for." and leaves House pondering her statement."

The scene doesn't end with House 'pondering her statement.' It ends with him rolling his eyes and calling her an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.110.87 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information

Since TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) refuses to discuss differences of opinion on talk pages, and I don't wish to edit war by repeatedly reverting his edits, I am opening up discussion here. I believe removal of sourced information is inappropriate, even if mentioned in another article, and even if TenPoundHammer disputes that a source is reliable. It should be discussed here, per WP:CON as well as common courtesy. Cresix (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only sourced statement in the whole article was "The plot is heavily based on the real life story of Oscar, a therapy cat from Rhode Island who was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine for his ability to predict impending deaths of residents at a nursing home dementia unit where he resides." The source used for that statement was an article that did not mention House in any way, thus making the statement blatant WP:OR. The rest was an unsourced plot summary; the plot is already summarized in the episode list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for others to comment rather than continuing to revert. Cresix (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TPH, in principle. Unless better and more numerous sources can be found, it should be redirected. That said, links here shouldn't be removed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that. My major concern is TPH's bulldozing approach to massive redirects without a word of discussion, especially if there is sourced info in an article. Cresix (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is House, one of the most acclaimed shows of the last decade. There are bound to be sources for nearly every episode that can be found through Google News or something similar. Removal of content like this should be decided by a content RFC at the House WikiProject page, or something similar. NW (Talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since WP:EPISODE says something about merging and redirecting, it is not appropriate to redirect tv show episodes without understanding what WP:EPISODE really tries to achieve. What WP:EPISODE tries to achieve is to ensure a certain level of quality for the tv show episodes, not to get rid of them. Most of the House episodes do not meet these quality standarts, however WP:EPISODE also outlines how to deal with this kind of articles and it is not to merge/redirect immediately but to allow the article to get mature. I believe the articles should be tagged for "call for improvement" and if doesn't work then they should be marked for deletion. If all these do not increase the quality of the articles then everyone will be ok for the redirects. I've been following the articles for the last couple of months and I know that this was not the case. Deniz Feneri (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]