Jump to content

Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Irony?

Can someone take a look at the use of the word ironic in the third paragraph of the Plot section. That use seems off to me... I could be wrong, in which case delete this item, but I think that that sentence could be rewritten to express the same thought without using ironic. Acq3 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Theme Tune

I know the article says the theme tune in the UK etc. was composed specifically for House, but other sources around the 'net state it as Jakatta - American Dream. It certainly sounds like it to me, I don't know if I'm falling for a common misconception though. 86.130.97.208 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro is Massive Attack - Tear Drop
Yeah, the intro is "Teardrop" by Massive Attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.96.117.152 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey, anyone know what the theme tune is? - Dudesleeper 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by theme tune? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siodine (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
The theme "tune" is Massive Attack - Tear Drop, at least that's what the closed captioning said. That should be on the main page. Unforgotten 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the theme tune is "Tear Drop" by Massive Attack. Could be wrong, though. Dudesleeper · Talk 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In Portugal (Fox), it isn't Teardrop, it's something else...

In India also House (aired by AXN) uses a similar but different tune ( i.e. it is not Teardrop).

--Indyan 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen various sources credit the theme music NOT in the US to Scott Donaldson and Richard Nolan isntead of the 3 currently listed on the site. Whats the dealio? Who actually composed it. bugsy2126 1:39 AM, 4 May 2007 (AEST)

There are two theme songs. One for North America, and one for the rest of the world. I do believe that the Series Premier used the theme that isn't teardrop.
The series premiere in the US used a different version that is much shorter, because the intro was shortned for the series premiere (like many shows now a days), which is different from the standard US theme and the standard International theme. The standard international theme was specially composed because there was a copyright/money conflict, or some sort of problem 99.243.247.227 02:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Any Other Name"

The entry in 'theme music' states that the song "Any Other Name" by Thomas Newman is used during melancholy moments in the show. That song is originally from the film American Beauty, and I have never heard this during the show, however similar-sounding piano music is used which may have led to this incorrect conclusion. Patriarch 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

House-enburg Uncertainty Principle

Is the "value" of this really necessary? I mean, does a phrase used at one collge/university have enough merit to be in an encycolpedia? Bbroach725 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • yes it is. Altho a trivial fact, this is the encyclopedia of everything.... so if we follow your advice why stop there? Why even contribute to wiki? or why not stop mentioning things that only happened once... WW2 only happened once should we get rid of that from encyclopedias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.52.253 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stacy: Wife or girlfriend?

Right, I've reverted enough edits so far. Let's get the quotes from the show which say they were married. Sockatume 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They were never married. I don't have the exact quotes right now, but marriage was never mentioned. They did live together for five years though, as stated by Stacy in Honeymoon. Bbroach725 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They were never married to our knowledge. In the episode Three Stories, it's specifically pointed out that Stacy is House's medical proxy -- not his wife. Your wife is automatically the one to make medical decisions for you in you cannot, so calling his wife a medical proxy would both be incorrect as well as redundant. Furthermore, when they broke up and he meets her again -- also in Three Stories -- they mention that she got married. Not re-married. They lived together for five years, broke up, and she got married to Mark. End of story. Callandor 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I see any quotes to the contrary I'm going to start editing it to read "partner". This goes for the Gregory House article too. Sockatume 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Partner? What, law partner? Dance partner? Bridge partner? Way too generic a term. We know that they were dating, as Callandor wrote it was never even implied that they were married, so stick with Boyfriend/Girlfriend. --Maelwys 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the format of the quotes very well, so you'll have to excuse that. But the episode I cited I sure felt was more than enough. But here we go, from the episode Three Stories, from this website -- http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/house/season1/house-121.htm

"House: Who am I looking at?

Stacy: My husband.

House: Who is suffering abdominal pain and fainting spells. No sign of tumors, no vasculitis. Could be indigestion, or maybe a kidney stone. A little one, can pack a lot of wallop.

Stacy: Did you think I wasn’t going to get married?"

Then later in the episode:

"Wilson: You didn’t think she was going to get married?

House: She asked me the same question."

And then the proxy part:

"Stacy: What happens after he’s in the coma?

Cuddy: We’ll obviously monitor his condition closely, and if he can get through the next forty-eight hours without another cardiac incident –

Stacy: I meant, I’m his health-care proxy, I get to make medical decisions for him if he’s not able to.

Cuddy: You should talk to him about what he wants to do."

And finally an episode I forgot to mention. From Sports Medicine, and the website -- http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/house/season1/house-112.htm

"Cameron: You ever been married?

House: [quietly] Well now, let’s not ruin a lovely night out by getting personal.

[They walk along in silence for a few seconds]

House: I lived with someone for a while. [Looks down at his empty cotton candy cone, then at Cameron’s] You gonna finish that?"

There's leeway to say that House was married, but it was clearly not to Stacy. Again, end of story. Callandor 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how this USA network source states it: [1]. Its not official as Fox but still shows that she was never his wife. Gdo01 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just play Cameron and define her by "The Women he used to live with"? Afterall, thats her Indian Name *lol* Diana Prallon
Yet if they weren't married theres the question of her being the medical proxy.. which is usually a family member. Im not saying it isnt the case that he appointed her as it but it is still an anomaly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.52.253 (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed factual errors

I removed a number of errors. First, the article stated that House's Hallucination in Meaning was the result of the absence of his leg pain in the beginning of Season 3, although CLEARLY House askes for ketamine when he wakes up.

In addition, it said that both House and Holmes refuse to admit that their drug habits are addictions. However, in the season 1 episode "Detox" House admits that he is addicted, but that it isn't a problem.

Ester Doyle's name was spelled Esther in the article. Although House did spell it "Esther" on his white board, the file says Ester, which can be assumed to be the correct name.

The article said that it was revealed in Meaning that House's shooter was to be named Moriarty. However, this was never stated during the show, but the shooter was simply named Moriarty in the script.

Bbroach725 03:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed some odd comments

"Very funny" from the end of Dr. Foreman's description, "Also cannot match clothes/wear anything tasteful to save his life" from the end of Dr Chase's, and "Has a thing for vests/pantsuits and hair clips" from Dr Cameron's.


Another comment that caught my eye; rarely anyone dies. I recall an episode where a lady was bitten by a bat and had rabies? I believe she died. but not to sure. Sorry if I made an error in typing this here, first time. huy2k 59.167.185.208 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can recall two episodes where at least one person died in the end, the Rabies/Homeless woman, and the College student/Radioactive material one. I've seen mosts episodes, and can't currently recall any others, and frankly don't feel like researching. If anyone can recall any other episodes bring it up, because this quip does seem to be an interesting point on the show and worth inclusion.D-rew 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, off the top of my head there's also the police officer who got Foreman sick, and the old researcher who wanted a physician-assisted suicide. Can't find a guide to how many patients have died, despite all the lists of other trivia out there... I haven't seen all the episodes but I also feel like considering how often patients are on the brink of death, not very many of them actually die. Which is to be expected; House and the team are supposed to be really, really good at what they do, and even if it's not realistic to expect them to solve every case, TV viewers would take failures as evidence that they just weren't that good. I guess it's worth noting that while the police officer died, they did still solve the mystery (and save Foreman). *ahem* Anyway, in my opinion it's probably worth including the statement that patients rarely die. --Galaxiaad 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the physician-assisted suicide guy: in the end they did solve the mystery before he died, and he got his wish because they found his disease was incurable. Could it have worked out any other way? ;) --Galaxiaad 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (who love, love, loves House, and damnit, I know Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, but I can't help myself)
I don't think "rarely" is the word. In edition to the homeless woman, the college student, and the police officer, there was also baby in "Maternity", the wife in "Babies and Bathwater", and both the mother and baby in "Forever". If this issue must be included, I think it should be "often" rather than "Rarely". SousaFan88 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also the patient that Foreman accidentally killed by treating her for cancer, when in actuallity she had an infection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.12.86 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First person voice in plot section?

What's up with the "I've never seen someone die" bit at the end of the plot section? 12.10.217.50 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Anony


Whoops, never mind. Was looking at old version.

yeah, I got rid of that. --RazorICE 08:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers?

On the character list it mentions two recurring characters:

  • Stacy Warner (Sela Ward) – Dr. House's ex-girlfriend and former lawyer for Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital.

and

  • Edward Vogler (Chi McBride) – Billionaire owner of a pharmaceutical firm and former board chairman of the hospital.

I've just bought season 2 of House and I'm working my way through it; AFAIK Stacy Warner is still the lawyer. If she become the 'former' lawyer is this not giving something away about what is to come? In the same way, stating that Edward Vogler is the former board chairman is both giving away that he will take over the role and that he will lose this position for someone who is working their way through season 1.

--Shastrix 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, and the characters list is before the spoiler tags. I suppose one thing we could do is just move the template up... what would you suggest though? If we leave out the word "former" then it wouldn't be currently true... --Galaxiaad 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The main characters are involved from the outset, so knowing about them isn't really spoiling anything; the recurring characters on the other hand turn up later in the series and may therefore reveal aspects of the plot. I think placing the recurring characters within the spoilers section would probably be best as editing the descriptions will make them inaccurate and removing them would render the section meaningless. --Shastrix 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I decided to move the spoilers tag to above where the recurring characters are mentioned. Even though this makes the format of the article less aesthetically pleasing, I feel mentioning details of the polt outside the tag constitutes spoliers. --Shastrix 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You could also remove them entirely as they aren't recurring characters anymore... Trcrev 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Empty Episode Deletion

Hey, if you've looked at some of the first season episodes, you'll see that I've started some of the episode pages but there's no real content there. I got a message saying that they would be deleted soon if they're not filled in a little bit. I'm not very good at that and I was wondering if you guys would be willing to help fill in some of the info to save having to redo the work again. Even basic info would keep it alive a little bit longer. Sorry for my incompetance :( --Sidewinded 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dubbing" section

Parts of the script are regularly changed in content during translation in order to make contexts understandable also for people unfamiliar with American culture. For example in the episode "Honeymoon" (1-22) Dr. Cameron asks Stacy about people with mental diseases in her husband's family. In the original version she answers: "His sister voted for Nader - twice!" while in the German dubbed version Ralph Nader's name is replaced by the one of George W. Bush.

Is that really necessary? I've always understood that that kind of thing is standard practice for dubbing TV shows and movies, and as such isn't unique to this show at all. --Switch 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 2 finale

{{spoiler}} Exactly how much of the season 2 finale was hallucinated? The article currently says "the entire episode" but clearly that isn't true, since he *was* shot... I'm still a little confused about the whole thing though, so clarification is welcome. --Galaxiaad 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can clarify it on the article. It's been a while since I've seen the episode, but basically everything between him being shot and seeing him wheeled in on a hospital bed was hallucinated, if I recall correctly. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It is almost impossible to establish exactly how much of the episode was hallucinated, so let's just use a qualitative amount. I would say most of it was except for when he got shot and the end when he woke up. I think that everything in between was hallucinated because in a season 3 episode, Wilson (or was it foreman?) says "They never caught the guy," which implies that he was never shot and hospitalized, which would make the whole middle part hallucinated. -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes-after he's shot and we see the shocked looks on the Ducklings, it goes to the theme song montage and opening and everything thereafter is a hallucination until we see him being rushing into the ER at the very end. Now, I think what you're talking about being "impossible to establish" would be the hallucinations inside the hallucinations (tricky people at FOX, eh?), which were somewhat clarified in various parts throughout the episode, but I'm not going to go through my DVDs just to find it. 72.184.172.77 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How many series are there?

I'm working on a request to improve the episode template, and I need to know that. I can't find it anywhere in the article. -Amarkov blahedits 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what are your opinions on adding a diagnosis on the infobox? That was the main request, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. -Amarkov blahedits 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the Diagnosis in the episode guide movement. -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There's only one series, if I understand what you're asking for, but we're now into the third season of that series. Those are the most recent episodes. And I agree, diagonsis in the guide would be good. Callandor 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant seasons, sorry. I'm going to go add a diagnosis parameter now. -Amarkov blahedits 16:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Added as {{{diagnosis}}}. -Amarkov blahedits 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

In the opening credits, the word House is displayed for a few seconds, and then M.D. fades in slightly to the right and below the line. Should this article be redirected to a new article that reflects the "correct" title? - Dudesleeper 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was debated in the Archives (top right). It was originally at House, MD I think, and moved here because Fox publicity material and schedules referred to it as "House".Sockatume 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see previous discussions here and here. The quick summary is that all "official" material refers to the show as "House" without the "M.D.", while some unofficial sites (such as IMDB) do use the "M.D.". There are plenty of redirects to this article, so no reader will have difficulty finding it. SuperMachine 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be labelled as a dramedy. House just makes wisecracks, that doesn't label it as comedy.

Some "official" material refers to "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" as DS9 other give it the full name. This is just another example of abbreviating the title. ≈ Seraph 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Ps. Don't flame me, I only speek the truth.

realism

House covers a lot of technical stuff and has very interesting and graphic medical procedures and diagnostic methods. But do they reflect real life? Do doctors in a high class hospital really sit in groups and discuss one patient like that, do they follow a similar method of deduction like with the whiteboards and guessing? Do they really do all the interesting things, like clamping that girls head and killing her for a while for a test in episode 2 of season 2? If anyone has access to a feature on these things, or is a doctor themselves, it would be brilliant to see a section talking about this on the House (TV) page JayKeaton 14:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Check this out: [2] . I posted that in the article a few months ago, but it was removed. It should answer your questions. dposse 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good article Dposse, it should definitely be an external link with the name "USA Today looks into the realism of House" or summat like that. JayKeaton 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is a good article. Perhaps we can put it back into the "reception" section, and put a small paragraph explaining that the ethics of the show are criticised as being low. dposse 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I work in a hospital, as a federally certified research coordinator. To answer your questions specifically:

1. Do doctors in a high class hospital really sit in groups and discuss one patient like that, do they follow a similar method of deduction like with the whiteboards and guessing?

Yes, they do. Local physicians will also refer cases, with accompanying pathology and tests, to hospitals to be reviewed by these boards. Medical care is increasingly so complex, that one physician or specialty cannot do it all. Typically these medical boards consist of Internal Medicine physicians (anesthesia, immunology, gynecology, oncology), radiologists, pathologists, surgeons, nuclear medicine physicians, and even specialized dentists. It depends on the anatomical area or covering area. In House M.D., the department is "Diagnostic Medicine." This would require systemic review.

2) like clamping that girls head and killing her for a while for a test in episode 2 of season 2?

I believe the test you are refering to is a glucose clamp, which is the only mechanism for determining an insulinoma. Yes, it is done. The body is titrated with insulin. A normal, healthy person would stop producing their own, and mobilize glycogen stores to stabilize blood glucose. An individual with an insulinoma does not have this control, and will go into hypoglycemic shock dramatically. Unfortunately, insulinomas are so tiny, they cannot be imaged by CT, MRI, or PET. The test then justifies the exploratory surgery.

While I read the article, and the discussion about the cane and masking during O.R. procedures is somewhat true, I can also tell you by working at a hospital, that you will see surgeons walking the halls in scrubs and booties, yet those are what go back into the O.R.

Hope this helps Kate St. John 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre: dramedy, drama, medical drama?

Would someone like to weigh in here on what the genre should be? A week ago, it was Drama. Now, it's dramedy. Should it stay the way it is, or change it? dposse 19:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. dposse 14:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's definitely a medical drama, but is disputedly a comedy because of House's wisecracks, as well as some minor gags. Would it be appropriately to call it a medical dramedy? -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately Medical Dramedy. I can usually laugh at while actually feeling involved. Stereocaster 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate the term 'dramedy'. It's a Medical Drama - dramas don't have to be entirely serious. Iorek85 06:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: the focus isn't the comedy. It's the medicine and the drama. It's a medical drama. The comedy is a less pervasive element. Callandor 04:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everyone saying that drama doesn't mean that it can't be funny. The oldest dramas and tragedies still had comic relief, consider Shakespeare. Medical drama is an apt and appropriate discussion. Shawn 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its a Medical Drama, that's it. Its funny to most people, but its possible that they aren't trying to be. So since theirs no obviousness to comedy factor (like in Scrubs), I'd have to say its a drama, not a dramedy. (Ack, I hate that word.) Unforgotten 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Balls and Yo-Yo's

I'm not exactly sure, but aside from the video games, he also plays with a bouncy ball with his cane. he catches it and bounces it off the wall, and in more than one episode he's had the Yo-Yo. I went ahead and added them. Stereocaster 05:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a thinking tool for House. He uses the bouncing ball to give him something to concentrate on when trying to find the answer to the puzzle. dposse 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I love it when he does that type of thing. But wasn't that already added? I might be late, of coarse. Sorry if I am. Unforgotten 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

House, M.D.

The name of the series is "House". At one time it was also referred to as "House, M.D." However this is no longer the case. Just because there is some text identifying that the character is an M.D., does not qualify it as part of the title. No official sources (press releases, awards-which are submitted by Fox, the website, etc.) refer to the show as "House, M.D." Therefore, it was originally referred to by that, but is no longer. Therefore, it is in error to refer to the show by that title. --Billywhack 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So why can't it just say "House, originally referred to as House, M.D." That way there is no condemnation for those who are wrong and still states that calling it that was correct. Gdo01 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually have no problem with that, but I am betting that somebody changes it again. It's happened several times now. I don't consider it condemnation but everything I wrote was still correct from an NPOV. If it makes everybody feel better, then it should be left as "House, originally referred to as House, M.D." --Billywhack 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. I'm only objecting to the 'erroneously' and the constant reverting (much the same as with the whole stacey wife/girlfriend thing). Also seemed a simple compromise since it was 'also' referred to as House, M.D. Though I'll point out that the Season One DVD I own states on the box "House, M.D", and Season Two also calls it "House, M.D" here. Maybe it still is? Iorek85 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in an extra bit of info, there's a downloadable pdf of the script for Occam's Razor (season 1, ep 3, I believe) here. And not an M.D. in sight.--Nalvage 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's referred to as "House, MD" frequently enough in TV guides and such for it to be included as an "Also referred to as..." or possibly "(also referred to as...)". Sockatume 03:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that using the word "also" makes sense in this case. Rray 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Dlong 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"Also" is a good word to use. It's *still* got an 'M.D.' next to the title in the opening, so it's not just 'originally' known as House, M.D. I realize it's not a really common variant name, but it certainly exists and is still used. Rarr 03:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "MD" is still used in the title card for the show, and on the two DVDs that Fox released. dposse 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "M.D." is actually part of the graphic, not the title. In the opening credits, you'll notice that the "M.D." fades in shortly after "House" (the title) appears. However, I don't see a problem with saying that's it's also referred to as "House, M.D.". SuperMachine 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The "M.D." is not used in any of the official literature, on the website, in TV guide, on any award shows. It's juts plain "House". Stop changing it. And in response to the "well it's in the title" argument: show me the comma!Billywhack 07:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I kindly refer you to NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Look - the M.D. is there on something official! If you have a problem with the comma then we can just make it House M.D. - though that's a lot uglier - but the point is that it's there in the title screen, it's there on the DVDs; it's there on the only representations of the title that anyone is going to remember after the show ends. Even though it is widely referred to as House, the title screen and DVDs include the M.D.; so it is, in fact, 'also' known as House, M.D. Rarr 08:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, for the umpteenth time, it was referred to by that name when it first started to make sure people new it was a show about medicine. It is no longer referred to by that name. Hence it is now originally known as "House, M.D." The fact that there is other text on the DVD is not "proof". Refer to Wikipedia guidlines. Billywhack 10:30 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the guidelines you're asking people to refer to. Rray 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to my comment on your talk page, I'd like to add that there is nothing in the archive to which you defer that has anything to do with the current argument. The name change from House, M.D, to House was discussed, but it wasn't about whether it was also or originally referred to as. In fact, during a read of the discussion, it shows that IMDB still refers to it as House, M.D. [3] Therefore, if IMDB still refers to it as House, M.D. then it is also referred to as House, M.D. I think you're assuming the also means that it is officially known by Fox as both House and House, M.D. It doesn't. Iorek85 12:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
By that argument, anything anybody ever referred to something as can be used on any entry. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to be cavalier. And IMDB is not a reliable, official source.Billywhack 13:27 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There seemed to be a consensus on the talk page that "also" was a good compromise. I don't think that sticking to your guns and saying things like "stop changing it" is the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding building a consensus and being civil. Rray 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Billywhack, building a consensus says that "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." You're being very stubborn and refusing to consider pretty much everyone else's viewpoint. Rarr 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not everybody. Nor is my position an "eccentric one". I have another example. When a woman marries, she often times takes her husband's last name. Is she "also known as"? Or originally known as? Same thing with say, Prince. Or other actors and actresses who change their names. Nicolas Cage for instance. --Billywhack 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In some cases when a woman gets married, she "is" also known by her previous name. Obviously the show is "also" known as House, M.D., or this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. (If it wasn't also known by that name the question never would have been raised.) Regardless, you should respect the consensus opinion here on the talk page and stop changing the phrasing. Rray 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a consensus. Tell me in what cases where somebody changes their name, do they become "also know as"? Unless it's a person using 2 different names concurrently (which is in and of itself odd). You should respect the consensus formed by the makers of the show, the network that airs it and ads for it and the award shows that nominate it and give it awards. Other examples include countries that change their names. Are they referred to as "also known as..."? Or "the former..."? It's the standard way of talking about stuff for the world. --Billywhack 09:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "House, or House M.D. as it is also known, is an American..."? The comma should be removed I think, as on the Fox website (closest House would have to canon) it's House M.D. without comma. And if you look at the International broadcasters section, they say Dr. House a lot, which is I'm guessing a reference to House M.D. as the M.D. probably doesn't translate to other languages. There seems to be an undifferentiated mix of the different titles, and I've yet to see anything referring to House M.D. as an original title rather than a main title, is there a reference we could put up to say it was originally known as House M.D. and later was shortened to just House? WLU 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

House DVD 1
House DVD 2
Yeah. The two DVD covers. The first DVD for House was released in 2005. The second was released a few months ago in 2006. They had more then enough time to change the logo and remove the "MD". They didn't. Thus, it is "also known as House MD". dposse 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that is absurd. It makes no sense if it is "House M.D." without the comma. That is gramatically incorrect. And once again, they don't have to change the logo to change how it is referred to. It is referred to by Fox, who ultimately owns the intellectual property right now as House. Their press releases refer to it as "House" as do the ads and awards. In other words, all official and canonical sources. The logo has remained the same. It was used originally to let people know that the show was a medical drama and not a show about a house. Nobody has still been able to show that the producer, the network or the awards (who use the name submitted by the network) ever refer to it by anything other than just "House" because all these sources say it is "House". Until they do and somebody can provide verifiable proof, it is "formerly, House, M.D." and should remain as such according to Wikipedia. --Billywhack 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You were asked earlier in the discussion thread to cite which Wikipedia policy you're referring to. Please provide a link to the policy you mean. Also, please stop edit warring, and don't refer to your edit as "fixing a typo", since you're clearly aware that this wasn't a typo. (You are participating in the discussion page.) Rray 14:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence curently reads "House, also referred to as House, M.D.,...", which I believe is the most accurate and verifiable wording. Although all official sites refer to the show as House, some non-official sites do refer to it with the "M.D.". It therefore makes the most sense to state that it is "also referred to as House, M.D.,...". Using the word "known" implies that the "M.D." has some sort of official standing, which simply is not accurate or verifiable. Does this sound like a good compromise? Can the revert wars cease now? SuperMachine 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more awkward than "known", but if Billywhack will accept it then it's a good compromise. Rarr 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There are official sites where it is referred to as "House M.D.", without comma - go to the fox website for House, click on the right-most link (newsletter), and on my browser at least, the pop-up window is titled "House M.D." no comma. On the same website it is repeatedly referred to the show simply as "House". It looks to me that even the network hasn't got a consistent name, mixing the quicker to say "House" with the more formal or official "House M.D." And I still think that Dr. House should be included in the initial blurb, as it is referred to by this name in many countries - though it is an American show, it is shown internationally and known very consistently by this name. WLU 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I will agree that "also reffered to..." is perfectly acceptable. However, last time I did this it kept getting changed back to "also known as..." and/or other terms. So is it finally agreed on that the final revison should be "House, also referred to as House, M.D.,..."? And that any changes to such without reopening the issue should be changed back to this? --Billywhack 09:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with the new proposed wording. Since there are several of us involved in the discussion here, it should be a pretty simple matter to keep an eye on the wording and change it back to this. Rray 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I feel compelled to point out that "also referred to" is just a bulkier way of saying "also known as". Rarr 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

SuperMachine, how are DVDs not official? Do you consider the DVDs fan created? 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The DVDs have the "M.D." in the graphic, not the title. It's similar to the opening credits of the shpw, where the title House appears and then the graphic of "M.D." fades in a second later. SuperMachine 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the most authoratative and reliable source is Fox's official website, specifically the show info page. The "M.D." is nowhere to be found. SuperMachine 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So, we are drawing a fine line between "graphic" and "title". How interesting. Again, answer my question. How are the DVDs not reliable? dposse 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the art on the DVD box. The title is House. The graphics includes the box around the "H", the line under the "OUSE" and the small "M.D." to the right of the line. It's true that I can't confirm this with 100% certainty and that means that the DVDs are not a reliable sources (because it would be an interpretation of what is title and what is a graphic). Therefore, we have to rely on official, authoratative sources such as the show info page. SuperMachine 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. It's pretty damn funny that after all the fighting, bitching and moaning, the page has been the way I originally proposed back in what was it, November? ANd it's been like this for at least a month. So I guess everybody agrees with me that it is no longer referred to with the , M.D.? I could be a gracious winner, but all of you who gave me such a rough time can suck it. Billywhack 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Matthew Fenton where did that come from? changed it here on the 10th (17 days before you commented), and I only just noticed it changed, and now it's back the way it should be. Anyway, his edit summary didn't make any sense. ("It still "is" House M.D. (seasons one and two) thus "also referred to" is incorrect.") So if it still is, then why did he put originally? Iorek85 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've kind of given up on caring which way it is... I think "referred to" as opposed to "called" somehow sounds like it's only unofficially called House, M.D., and "called" sounds like it is official, but we don't know if it is official or not. And of course "originally" implies that it isn't called that anymore, which we aren't sure about either. But I can't think of a more neutral phrasing. All I want to say is *please* don't mark these edits as minor. --Galaxiaad 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Having just reached season three now I discover the show is actually still very much titled House M.D. - can anyone provide any irrefutable evidence that it is no longer called House M.D. (I don't mean in general, i.e. the main website, etc.)? Matthew 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to wait till the third season is released on DVD to prove Billywhack wrong. It's obvious to me that FOX just shorten the title to House for purposes of effect in promos (especially voiced ones). - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really getting over this argument, but I'm sensing Billy is misunderstanding the point. I am not arguing the show is still officially called House, M.D, just that it is still called House, M.D by some. IMDB, the DVDs, the title screen, and all of these people. Since you can't reference a DVD cover, screen shot or google search, I thought the IMDB page, while agreeably not official, would be enough to silence this crap once and for all. If one of the largest websites on the net refers to it as House, M.D, then I think it is fair to say it still is referred to. Iorek85 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
IMDb may change the title to House if the third-season DVD is so named. Again, we'll have to wait. (No need to respond, I know you've had your last say on the matter.) - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the title confusion/edit wars started two years ago [4], so at that point it was already being referred to officially as "House" at least some of the time. I doubt the season 3 DVDs will change anything.
Not to go all math on you, but I think one of the problems here is that however many references you provide for the title "House", you still aren't proving that "House, M.D." isn't used... though I guess there are a limited number of official sources, and if you could show that none of them use the "M.D." you'd have a case.
I think the real question at this point is whether there is a difference between the logo/title graphic (like on the DVDs and I believe the show intro; clearly still uses the "M.D.") and the title. Personally I think that's a bogus distinction. (Edit conflicted! I guess that's another point: if "House, M.D." is common enough, does it matter if it's official? It's probably still encyclopedic.) --Galaxiaad 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well as House, M.D. is still in very common usage and this page has disambiguation then we would go for the "M.D." as the suffix is "un-needed disambiguation" Matthew 08:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just my two cents. As of now there are multiple incidents of both H and HMD on the internet, in TV guides, on TV, on DVD covers, etc. so even if it was originally just called House M.D. way back when, both uses are now extant and ongoing. If the back and forth on the talk page has shown anything, it is that both are still used in a variety of fora. So how about "House, also referred to as House M.D." - it's neutral, formal in tone, and apparently was acceptable to most editors.
  • I also think the reference after House, footnote one labelled as 'Show Title. Fox (2007). Retrieved on March 3, 2007.' should be removed as unecessary. No-one is contesting that it is called House and it takes you to the House website.
  • As a final note, Billywhack seems to have bowed out of the discussion. WLU 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous post. The "M.D." is used on the title graphic and it's commonly used on many sites. To use the word "formerly" without a specific reference to the title "House MD" being officially retired is giving an opinion that the title has been retired. Therefore, I believe "also referred to as" is the correct and proper wording.
The official site, which I linked, says "House". That's it. Therefore (follow me here, it's complicated) it was called "House, M.D." when it first debuted. Then, after it got popular, the ",M.D." was dropped because there was no need to differentiate. Ergo->It was originally called "House, M.D." but is no longer. Billywhack 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The official site says "House", yet the actual program title card itself says "House M.D." (and what's more official than the *actual program*?). Both are clearly still in use. Unless you can cite an official reference stating that "House M.D." has been changed to "House", you are stating your opinion that the title card means nothing and the official web site means everything. It's certainly your opinion that, "the M.D. was dropped because there was no need to differentiate." Just as likely a reason that they don't put it on the web site is that the "M.D." on the title graphic would be so small as to be just a blob, so the web designer left it off. That makes more sense to me than trying to read the minds of the producers in order to figure out their motivations. There simply is no first-hand evidence that the producers intend to phase-out "House MD". We all (including the web site) use "House" for short, but the official title card says "House M.D.". Nairebis 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It shows up on my DVR as House M.D. - the television show "House" is ALSO known as "House M.D." - frankly I was surprised when my search for House M.D. was redirected to just "House." Doesn't bother me that much, but there's my two cents (and not nearly as enlightening as the rest of your comments.)71.56.86.252 09:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked Fox about this and got the following answer:

The show is called HOUSE - when the show first started we at FOX added

the "M.D." in promos to tell new viewers that this was a medical show and not a home improvement reality show. Since then we've kept the "M.D." in promos. But the show itself is simply HOUSE
ASKFOX

Jackblack12 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter would be that e-mail doesn't meet WP:RS (sorry Jack, unless you want to post your password on the talk page!). However, I still think that this supports the current "also known as House M.D." There have been many examples where extant use is both, and the 'originally' would seem less accurate for this reason - both are still used. WLU 12:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nairebis. A website isn't more official than the actual episodes themselves. Websites are generally not run by the people who make the show. They generally hire a person to run that stuff, who's to say the sites webmaster simply didn't add the M.D. for appeal. Both DVD boxes and TV guides refer to it ad M.D. therefor it is ALSO known as M.D. You cannot deny that it is also known with M.D. in the name. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! The M.D. portion is a graphic. It's not the name. Anything official generated by Fox calls it "House". Now the official website isn't a reliable source? Don't you think the execs would have a problem with an official website not referring to the IP by it's name? Can anybody else find an official site that refers to a show by an unofficial name? That's ludicrous. It's like the difference between "Buffy" and "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer". The name of the the show is the latter. But does that mean an encyclopedia should say that people just call it "Buffy"? No. That's what also known means. Just because some people call it something doesn't mean an encyclopedia should say that. I'm sure there's 40 million other thing for everything on this site that people call stuff. Should we list for every sports team or player all the names Chris Berman calls things? Because that would be absurd. Nobody can find anything official that refers to this show with M.D. Meanwhile, there are plenty of official sources, including the official website, that use "House". Billywhack 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If only you'd stuck to your "You can all eat my dick. I'm fuckin done trying to make this site better and getting crapped on. This is the reason people become disenfranchised with democracy. The edit/rule nazis and bass-ackwards rules. Fuck you all very much." rant. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole title is a graphic. Are you arguing that the name is "ouse" since the H is enclosed in a box? And no, the official web site is not more official than the *program itself*, not to mention the DVD boxes. If I was really interested in being anal, I'd be insisting that the name of the article be "House MD", since that IS the official name. If the President of Fox himself said the name was House, I'd seriously consider ignoring it, since that's not what's on the title card. At least the President's opinion would be sourced, however, unlike your argument that the actual show is less official than some faceless web designer. Nairebis 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Some "official" material refers to "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" as DS9 other give it the full name. This is just another example of abbreviating the title. ≈ Seraph 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Ps. Yes I have put this somewhere else but this seems to be the place to put it now.
I agree, but this is just another example of us having to go along with People Who Know Better®. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

culture kid?

I was wondering if house could be a third culture kid?? please let me know..

Picture Vandalization

It looks to me like the picture of House on the page has been vandalized, since instead of a mild stubble he has a beard, a Santa beard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.197.104 (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


Yeah it does sort of look like that, I will check tonight when it comes on. Nftrot 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just the xray he is looking at, looks like it is some sort of xray of the upper body placed in font of him for a neat effect.--71.214.200.243 01:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Character traits section

The character traits section is rather lengthy and is focused almost entirely on House (the character). I think it would be ideal to have a short summary in this article and merge the more detailed information into the Gregory House article. Opinions? SuperMachine 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. This is about House, the series, not House, the character. Rarr 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag Placement

The spoiler tag in this article was moved up from the bottom of the article to the point just above where a discussion of season two begins. Perhaps it should be moved back down? I leave that to those who know better. 24.160.206.18 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Character List

I know the character list has links to each character's page, but shouldn't there be a little more info about the characters? I mean, more than just their jobs? Just saying...68.1.98.64 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Organization

This article needs a cleanup. There are few headings, and since when does 'Character Traits' come under 'Plot'. And the section on similarities between House and Holmes needs its own section. FruitMart 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Because House is a character driven show. The plot is directly influenced by the chatacters traits. For example, if it wasn't for Gregs leg, he wouldn't be taking pills and he wouldn't be in the mess he's in right now with that cop. Second, i believe that the holmes - house thing should be deleted as original research, but thats just my opinion. dposse 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Character traits should be moved wholesale to Gregory House. It'll fit much better there. If you want to give a brief summary of House, Wilson, etc you can do it in the characters section. Rarr 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


The Holmes-House connection is admantly not original research. It's a fact that the character of House was at least partially based on Holmes (see here), and the writers have recently said that have deliberately put House/Wilson undertones in the show to parallel the relationship between Holmes and Watson (see here, though I know it's not the most professional source). Certainly, though, it's clear that the House & Wilson/Holmes & Watson connection is intentional and highly developed throughout the show.
By saying that you believe the "holmes - house thing should be deleted as original research," are you implying that the article should not include any references at all to this connection, or are you saying that you think that the correlative details (i.e. House's Vicodin vs. Holmes' cocaine) should be deleted as original research? While I can see a case for the latter, the former strikes me as ridiculous in light of the clear evidence that this connection is an integral part of what Shore et al envisioned when they created House. (By the way, I can't remember my login, so I'm not signed in.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
The Holmes-House connection should certainly be mentioned, but unless a credible source can be found for all of the extra details, the bulk of what was there was original research. Rarr 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the connection should be mentioned (without going overboard). But the most recent edit wiped out the whole section. •JZ• 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

plot.

does anyone think the plot can be written a little bit better? dposse 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Gambling" section

Is this really relevant in an encyclopedia entry? It borders on fancruft. I'm going to remove it unless a compelling argument on why it is relevant can be made. TheKillerAngel 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At most a sentence could be added into the plot section. Certainly doesn't need a separate heading. Koweja 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be part of the plot section. Sure, it doesn't need a separate section, but calling it fancruft is a bad way of removing it. Rarr 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chase

I don't remember it being said that he is a cardiologist--Ut713 11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chase isn't. According to the official website, he's a intensevist [5] which makes no sense at all, but whatever.dposse 02:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps intensevist is a new speciality dreamed up by Fox. That, or they can't spell intensivist. --Limegreen 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, no one's perfect. dposse 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An intensevist is a Doctor specialized in ICU care, which makes lot of sense when we stop to think how often House patitents need this kind of treatment. And it would also explain why when he needs more money he starts working on NICU. It's stated on the Pilot of the seriesDiana Prallon

Airdates of House AfD

I have listed Airdates of House (TV series) for AfD. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

engagement

Does the info on the morrison/spencer really need to be in this article? Shouldn't this be posted on the individual actor's pages? WLU

I agree, so I removed it. If anyone wants it reinstated, we can discuss it here. --Galaxiaad 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacist

Should the pharmacist be incuded as a minor charater--Ut713 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No. If he ever becomes at all important, then yes, but as it stands, he's not important enough. Rarr 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he's as important as the head nurse. I mean, we know his name (Marco) and he's in quite a few eps looking disapprovingly at House... Then again, maybe neither Marco nor Brenda is really important enough. I don't know. --Galaxiaad 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ut713 and Galaxiaad. If the nurse has become important enough to be listed, the pharmacist should definitely be included. Perhaps it might even be mentioned that he has a serious distrust for House as (I believe it was) in Merry Little Christmas where he hesitated before giving House the Oxycodone for the dead man upstairs - the pills Cuddy lied about in Words and Deeds. (I am unsure exactly which episode House acquired the pills in, but I know it is around that point.) Occam's Razor might also be of interest; House rifles through every drug in the pharmacy with Marco standing over as he looks for the yellow pill Brandon had been taking instead of cough medicine. Limp Trizkit 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

holmes/house original research

this section has gotten out of hand. It has become every random IP's sandbox for every crazy connection they can make between a story made by a author over a hundred years ago and a medical drama made a few years ago. It's fun to make these connections, but it is far from encyclopedic. [6] dposse 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there has to be some room for compromise. It seems fair to mention the legitimate connection / homage, given the reference above, but I agree that it shouldn't turn into a place for people to speculate on all of the tiny similarities. Even one comment in a trivia section, cited, would be sufficient. Unfortunately, your most recent edit wiped out everything. •JZ• 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a wiki, my friend. Everything old can become new again. dposse 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt know where to put this but i was just watching House and I thought to myself as he pointed out the powdered sugar on the penis-loving diabetics pants that i have seen this kind of observation before, in Sherlock Holmes. Now many of you are saying, "well DUH!" but i was thinking could House's name be related to Holmes? So I thought of it like this Holmes(Home phonetically)---> A Home with no emotion(apathy) which is a House (self explanatory). You could also think of House as a Holmes with no family but I dont think Holmes had much of a family either. If someone stated this before me I am sorry but i just wanted to get my thoughts heard Berserkerxiii 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm someone posted my theory already but i dont think its a pun i still think its symbolic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berserkerxiii (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

here, i have another connection/allusion: the guy who shoots House is called Moriarty after Holmes' arch-nemesisBerserkerxiii 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 finale; we see the number on House's apartment is "221." Don't know if we've seen a "B" in previous episodes. burningchrome 6 june 2007

Why not have Vogler's duration?

I made a statement after the "Recurring Character" section on Vogler that he was only present in the second season. Why was this reverted? It's listed for Tritter... .V. [Talk|Email] 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vogler was first season; Stacy was the central recurring character in the second season. Rarr 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, snap. I screwed up. Anyway, could we have the corrected version in there? .V. [Talk|Email] 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

an idiot has vandalisd this page. Reverting...

Recurring(?) characters

Listing Volger, Stacy, etc. as "recurring" seems a misnomer. Recurring means they appear several times, but by that definition even House himself should be considered "recurring." How about renaming this section to "minor characters" or "other notable characters" or something to that effect? --Elgringo18 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Recurring is an often used TV term for characters which are major, but are not there all of the time, as well as more minor characters. Stacy is definitely a major character while she's on the show, for example, so calling her a minor character would be misleading. The pharmacist is a minor character, like Coma Guy. Rarr 09:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In other countries

The 'airing in other countries' section is getting rather long, and should be cut down to a paragraph or two with a link to a separate article for the list --Elgringo18 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be totally removed. Wikipedia is not a tv-guide. Garion96 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of merit to it, but could definitely be shortened. Perhaps combine places where it debuted on the same month/year together or something. Is there a good reason to include it? And the entire section on 'In North America' is absurd, moving it around 'cause of baseball? WLU 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a nice little chart previously, but it was spun off into another article (see this diff—unrelated, but can you link to a diff without using the full URL?), which then got deleted because Wikipedia is not a TV guide (see deletion discussion here). I agree at least to the extent that WLU does, but I think even what we might keep would be trivia at best, and would encourage people to keep adding their own countries. I think it's probably best to delete the whole thing (including the North America stuff—the start and end dates of each season are useful though). --Galaxiaad 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed it, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of House (TV series) where the consensus clearly was to remove that information, not to merge it in this article. Garion96 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening sequence section

The latest section just added (diff) is without a reference, and lacking one it really, really looks like original research. Does anyone (i.e. Nairebis) have one? I'm moving it to the talk page until a ref shows up. WLU 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

===Opening Sequence=== The opening sequence of credits that follows the first plot scene shows different graphics for each name in the show. This may give clues to the role each one plays in the series. In order of appearance, they are:

  • Dr. Gregory House – The Brain.
  • Dr. Lisa Cuddy – The Nervous System.
  • Dr. Eric Foreman – A beating heart.
  • Dr. James Wilson – The Cerebral Cortex, perhaps showing the seat of the conscience.
  • Dr. Allison Cameron – Scene of a calm river and nature, possibly indicating life or the soul.
  • Dr. Robert Chase – The Spine.
  • David Chase – A headless body.
The bulk of the post is based on the actual facts of the opening sequence. I was careful not to add a lot of interpretation, though admittedly I added a little bit with (also admittedly) some weasel words. If everything in Wikipedia had to be absolutely sourced before it could be added (and hopefully improved later), there would be no Wikipedia. I think that since the bulk of it is factual based on the actual (verifiable) show, it's a reasonable addition, and can be improved with time and hopefully some of the interpratation can be ultimately sourced. But I will wait to hear a few opinions before I re-revert your change. Nairebis 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are reporting the juxtaposition of the character (via the actor's name) with an anatomical feature/part/diagram/scenery (Cameron), something which is observable by watching the opening sequence, but adding the interpretation that each character and image are linked. Looking over the list they do intuitively make sense, but I still think it verges on original research. That being said, I'm open to being shouted down by everyone else - my one revert and this conversation is sufficient to satisfy my concerns. WLU 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, who is David Chase? His name is David SHORE. I think they got confused after writing Robert Chase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.70.153.75 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Oops. :) Nairebis 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that this is rather original-research-ish, and therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. If you could find something else backing this up, then that would be different, but I feel like these are your own interpretations of the title juxtapositions, and therefore your opinions. Others could certainly come up with different theories regarding what the titles signify, if anything at all. I appreciate your effort, and I think that if there is something documented about this, that it might be something interesting to add. As is, though, I don't think it's appropriate. --Twilightsojourn 08:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, the Gray's anatomy illustration ain't that of the cerebral cortex, but of the pituitary gland, the corpus callosum, and the frontal cortex - all leading credence to the conscience/emotional expression notion. Still unencyclopedic without references, but.... --moof 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

Hey guys, I was wondering if we could add a pop culture references column to the main article. House is a well known show and has been mentioned in several facets of entertainment like Mad Tv, Psych, and Scrubs.

Should go in those articles, not House. The page is already big and that could be a long list for such a popular show. WLU 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Nftrot 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Most other shows' pages have a pop references section, and i feel it would add to this article.

Font

Removed following: "*The font used for signage within Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital is Johnston Sans, better known as the font used for signage on the London Underground." pending reference and I don't know if it should go in anyway - kinda irrelevant. WLU 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Yes. Nice information to have? Perhaps! I personally think it wouldn't hurt to leave it in. Doesn't sound quite like an encyclopedia, no, but it could easily be tucked into a "trivia" section. Anybody else think this is a feasible idea? 71.56.86.252 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It should definately not go into those articles, it should go into the House article. If we listed every reference to other pop-culture House makes, it would take pages. Prominent mentions in other popular shows/books/movies should be listed here. For example, House says in one episode (paraphrase) "Uh-oh, better call Jack Bauer". That should be included here. Demosthenes X 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Screencap

If someone could take a new screencap and replace the one used on Who's Your Daddy? (House episode), which has pretty bad artifacts, I'd appreciate it. --Sopoforic 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Tritter (David Morse)

In my opinion, under "Recurring characters" the description of Michael Tritter (David Morse) should be better explained in this way: 

– Police officer who bears resentment against Dr. House in a third season story arc.

instead of 

– Police officer who bears malice against Dr. House in a third season story arc.

Clear, concise and the concept was stated by almost all the main characters (and most of the others). FrancoK 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 

—The preceding comment was added by FrancoK (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Why is House protected?

As far as I can tell, the House article has been protected for several days because of a disagreement between "originally known as House MD" and "also known as House MD". While the series is currently being broadcast, it is clear that we are missing edits from interested people. Can't this irrelevant issue be resolved and the article returned to circulation? cojoco 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article should not be protected due to a minor discussion on the talk page. Can the article be reverted back to its non-protected state as soon as possible? Stickeylabel 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request for unprotection. So hopefully the article will be unprotected soon. Stickeylabel 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that would depend on if a reasonable compromise has been reached on the first sentence - is it "House, also known as House M.D..."? That's why it was protected in the first place. WLU 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

So, with all the back and forth, can everyone agree that, irrespective of it's original or current title, House is also known as House M.D. in a variety of venues? By having the first sentence to the article as "House, also known as House M.D..." , it avoids what it was called originally, and acknowledges that it is currently known by both terms, officially and unofficially. Does anyone object? Can we request the unprotection of the page? WLU 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Galaxiaad 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. That's what we had before, though the only person objecting to it has apparently left. I'd moot 'sometimes' as an alternative as well. This page has been protected too long. Iorek85 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense - even if it changed its name it was known as House M.D. at one point so obviously it goes by both names. Koweja 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just happy we've finally unprotected the page, and hopefully we can keep it from being protected for so long in the future. WLGades 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though if we really wanted to be accurate, it would be "House M.D., also known as House". The title card says "House M.D.", therefore, that's the official title. I don't care enough about the issue to insist on the ordering, though. Nairebis 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Nairebis. dposse 02:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, before we could assert such a statement we'd need a reliable source stating that the official title indeed contains "M.D.". As it stands now, the official site's show info page is as close as we have to official information on the title and it never uses the "M.D.". I'm happy with the way it currently reads since I think there's little dispute that both names are in general use, official or not. ChazBeckett 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the following link from the Fox website: There are official sites where it is referred to as "House M.D.", without comma - go to the fox website for House, click on the right-most link (newsletter), and on my browser at least, the pop-up window is titled "House M.D." (pasted from my comments above). I'd say that House is the most common usage. I've never said "Let's watch House M.D.", so for me, House comes first out of simplicity. WLU 12:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cuddy=endocrinologist?

I think it was implied pretty clearly in "Insensitive" that Cuddy is an endocrinologist, but it definitely hasn't been stated outright like other characters' specialties have. What do others think about including this? --Galaxiaad 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen season 3, but I think the specializations which keep getting put in and taken out should be referenced or at least discussed. People who have been adding them - got an episode? WLU 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It was referenced on Cuddy's page, from which the same editor removed the specialization: Episode 3x14. House mentions that he needs an endocrinologist and then shows up on her doorstep. Granted, it does not come right out and post her resume, but it is certainly inferred. Kuru talk 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Quick google search shows a lot of agreement with C=E, and the Fox website show summary supports the inference that she is [7]. Is this source reliable, is it a valid inclusion given the sparsity of the data? It's as close as we'll get to canon without season 3's DVDs. WLU 11:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I vote yes. The episode seems to imply it very strongly, and the summary just serves to confirm that. WLGades 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Website Link?

Hi.

I have requests from my users from my website who would like to see <a href="http://www.house-boards.com">House M.D. Boards</a> listed in the External Links section of this article. I was informed that they have posted the link here before, but was removed (I suspect that my users did not get it verified prior to posting it).

I understand that I probably should introduce my site first: it is one of the most active fan-created international House message boards, and has been a round for just a little over a year.

So yea, that's about it. I don't usually do much requests, but this is one of a few exceptions due to popular...request by my users. While it would be nice to have my website link featured here, no hard feelings if it does not win the approval of the persons in charge of maintaining this article.

Regards, Colorito 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Short answer is probably not; it would have to be the most active fan-created MB. See WP:EL for details. WLU 11:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to Request that this link is added: http://www.five.tv/programmes/drama/house/

its the link to the UK official site with information on UK date, times and other None USA information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerobbets (talk • contribs) 23:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. All of the sources seem to call the show "House", so Wikipedia should follow suit. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

House (TV series) → House M.D. — The series (as stated above) is just as well known as "House M.D." (if not more so), the intertitle still refers to it as "House M.D." and so do the DVDs. The (TV series) is "unneeded disambiguation" and thus should be moved to House M.D. Matthew 10:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Strong support. There is nothing more official than the show itself. Wikipedia should reflect what's on the title card, which is the ultimate primary source. Nothing else matters as much as that. Or to put it another way, if I drop a DVD of episodes (and a TV rig) on the proverbial desert island to give the survivors some entertainment, what would they say the show is called? They would say it's called "House M.D.". They wouldn't say, "Well, we need to reserve our opinion until we see if it's called something different on Fox's web site." Nairebis 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Is there a guideline stating that title cards should determine the names of articles? Do title cards even appear on the DVD release (I actually don't know, do they?). ChazBeckett 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a guideline stating we have artistic license to change internationally copyrighted trademarks on a whim because it's what the 'average person' percieves the name to be even if it is correct? Your argument is logically flawed. Jachin 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. If we want to know the title of a book, should we consider the cover of the book a primary source? As for the DVD releases, yes, the title credits appear in the DVD, as well as saying "House M.D." on the DVD covers. Nairebis 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Personally, I think ther "M.D." in the opening credits and DVD logo is part of the graphics (like the box around the "H"), not the title itself. Watch an episode and notice how the "M.D" fades in a second after "House" appears on screen. My interpretation doesn't necessarily prove my point beyond any doubt, but conversely your opinion of the opening credits or DVD cover also aren't proof so much as interpretation. ChazBeckett 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    What is to say that all words on the title card are part of the title? If this were true, then Survivor ought to be moved to Survivor: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast, or some punctuation-based variant thereof. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, per my above reasoning, and Nairebis' reasoning. Matthew 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. As per this, and the desire to avoid parenthetical disambiguation when possible. Andre (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong support, for fun. Jachin 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support the DVD cover has House M.D. on the cover. Seems official to me. - Peregrine Fisher 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Absolutely not. I don't see why this is being rehashed yet again. The most reliable source we have is the official show information page, which does not use the "M.D.". See the archives (especially here) for additional discussions of this matter. ChazBeckett 11:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    The most reliable source we have is the show its self, "official websites" are often maintained by people that may not even be affiliated with production. Matthew 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    If Fox official site refers to it as "House", it's not up to us to decide that's wrong and rename the article. But if you're looking for a source that's more affiliated with production, try this one. ChazBeckett 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    If the title card refers to it as "House M.D.", it's not up to us to presume to read FOX's mind about what they "really" think the show is called. The title card is the most primary source. Nairebis 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    We don't have to read Fox's mind. Fox promotes the show as House in all of its promos. Fox refers to it as House in all voiceovers. Fox refers to it as House on its website. It's not up to us as editors to decide that the title card somehow overrides Fox's decision to refer to the show simply as House. ChazBeckett 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Networks regularly abbreviate the names of their shows in their promos. Not only for the sake of time, but to promote a "cool" short word among the viewers. "Today on Oprah -- men who take no shame in crying!" The full name of the show is The Oprah Winfrey Show, but they don't call it that in the promos. Nairebis 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Are there any abbreviated titles on Fox's site (in the "Shows" menu)? What about on NBC Universal's site? And take the case of TV Guide, which uses the titles "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" [8] (instead of "CSI"), "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" [9] (instead of "Law & Order: SVU") and "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" [10] (instead of "The Daily Show"). TV Guide refers to House without the "M.D." [11]. ChazBeckett 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    There might be more cases, or there might not (people *have* posted that they've seen "House M.D." in their DVR list). But that's not the question. The question is why you think some web site is more official than the show itself.
    It's not some web site, it's Fox's official web site. You seem willing to believe that the title could be wrong all over Fox's site, but the title card is beyond any error. ChazBeckett 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    It's not a question of "wrong", it's a question of whether it's abbreviated on FOX's web site. And do you really think they'll make an "error" on the title card of the show? I suspect that gets the most attention than anything else. Anyway, I think I've made my point. I'll bow out here and give you the last word (if you want it). Nairebis 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We can't figure what to make the first sentence say, let alone what to name the entire article. This is a long running dispute and we should come to a consensus before doing anything like this. I believe this is a lot of noise over something so relatively minor, though.--Viridis 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. Fox calls the show House (see the graphic above the linkbar on the show's website, as well as its text throughout); TV Guide calls the show House (see images linked on the official site here and here; listing for upcoming episode here); promos for upcoming episodes call the show House; my cable provider's television listings (both the tv guide channel and the digital guide) call the show House. The article belongs where it is. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - since we can't agree on if it's House or House M.D. for the first line (or even House, M.D. for that matter), a move is premature at best. Until we have unequivocally decided on how to phrase the first line, I think the move should not happen. Also, House (TV series) is the easiest navigation for wikipedia users. Final point - House M.D. is Gregory House himself (i.e. House M.D. is another way of saying Dr. House), so there could be some confusion between the show and the character. Not super likely, but possible. WLU 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Comment As another possible source, the Internet Archive can be used to view previous incarnations of the official House website on FOX: the only time the site displays a graphic containing the "M.D." was before the show premiered (October 11, 2004 archive) All the other versions (starting with the December 4, 2004 archive) replaced the graphic of "House M.D." with one of just "House". Granted, there are likely revisions in between that are not archived, but it is easily inferred that once the show began, the M.D. was dropped (full archive). —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - A redirect will be fine. I've never argued that the show is officially called House - that FOX call it House is all the 'officialness' I need. The show is also known as House, M.D, as you say, in the title cards and on the DVDs, and on IMDB. Therefore, the redirect is needed, as it is now. Iorek85 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Yes, there is a guideline stating we have "artistic license" to change an international trademark because the average person would percieve the name to be something else. WP:NAME. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Fox dropped the "MD" from the brand practically before the show started. The common name of the show is House. Wikipedia does not care about the "official" name of anything. – Þ  18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I think most people know it as just "House", and calling it House M.D. might seem confusing, as if we were talking about the character himself or some actual doctor. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In media discussions of the series, "House" is much more common than "House, M.D.", and thus the article should remain at House (TV series). The question of what the "official" name is is immaterial for Wikipedia's article naming purposes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per discussion above. Sfufan2005 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • What would Wikipedia be gaining by making this move? Anyone who types in "House M.D." in the search box is already redirected to the article, so there wouldn't be any improvement in navigation. The show is referred to as House as often as House, M.D., so it wouldn't make the article more recognizable. So what exactly would we be gaining by making a move? And if there's nothing to gain from a move, why even discuss it? ChazBeckett 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As per Chaz, I don't think wikipedia gains much from the move - though wikipedia should be accurate, it, by necessity (and by utility to readers), should be the most user-friendly and 'common sense' that we can make it. Beyond the heady debates of this talk page, I don't think anyone else really calls it House M.D. What about an agreement to re-visit this issue should we ever get anything official saying it is really called one or the other? And not our inference from page titles, but an interview with FOX that says "It's House M.D., House is just a short form we use in commercials." I think moving it at this point would just result in revert wars and acrimony. WLU 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not having watched the show, I can't speak as to the title card or the credits - so I'll hold off on voting. However, it appears that FOX, the Emmys, the Golden Globe Awards, and other notable bodies all refer to the show as "House". --Ckatzchatspy 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW anyone? No move. WLU 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's obviously a consensus to keep the article at its current location, but I'd support the discussion remaining open for another few days. WP:SNOW closures usually do more harm than good. I also hope this discussion can serve to deter future arguments over the "M.D". ChazBeckett 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital

David Shore's choice of nameplace is interesting because Princeton University happens to be the only Ivy League institution which does not host a medical school (and thus would never have a teaching hospital). Princeton Hospital is a real hospital (officially called the University Medical Center at Princeton). Plainsboro is also coincidentally a small town 5 miles southeast from Princeton, NJ in which the Princeton HealthCare System has recently (Feb. 2007) passed regulatory approval to build a new hospital[12]. -- Cowbert 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, there is no PPTH (onamonapeia for a raspberry?) - where are the overhead pictures taken from? 72.69.128.184 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This information is given in the article: exterior shots are of Princeton University's Frist Campus Centre (perhaps another reason the hospital is PPTH). Interior shots are done on a set. Campus shots are UCLA and USC. Demosthenes X 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

air days

Can this mention it airs on Tuesday. 70.104.16.217 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Characters appearing in multiple episodes"

I don't want to change this without a consensus, but it seems like a very awkward compromise on the recurring character versus major character debate. By definition, a recurring character is one that appears in multiple episodes.

I think a better solution would be to list these characters under the Spoiler tags, but still under the general heading of "characters". The current format makes it sound as though these are minor characters, which they are not. At the very least, they should be above recurring characters, since they are much more important to the story in their respective seasons...

Thoughts?

Demosthenes X 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the section because, to me, a recurring character is one that has a chance of "recurring" in a future episode, i.e., is an ongoing character, if not a major character. Nurse Brenda is a part of the series. Ali, Tritter, etc were just plot devices that happened to be larger plots than normal. I agree to some extent that the phrasing might be a bit awkward, but it's definitely inaccurate to say that Ali is a 'recurring' character in the same way as Nurse Brenda.
Something like "Characters that appeared in major plot arcs spanning multiple episodes that have since been resolved and that we'll never see again" seems wordy. :) I'm open to suggestions on better ideas, though. Maybe "multi-episode plot device characters" shouldn't be on the main page at all, except in the context of describing some of the major plot arcs of the series?
Nairebis 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see "The Filmmaker" changed the section; I re-added the minor recurring characters under the heading "Minor Characters". I think this is a good alternative. Demosthenes X 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I removed what is now called "Minor characters" because it's lack of notability. I am an avid viewer of the series and I own both of the DVD sets. I cannot remember "Brenda Previn", the supposed Head Nurse. I could be wrong, she could appear more than once with one line per episode in three or four different episodes in the entire series. However, she obviously has never advanced the plot in any way and is therefore not prominent enough to be included. Coma Guy has appeared in what, two episodes? He was mentioned in an episode involving "Vegetative State Guy"? The character appeared two scenes of the series and did not have any lines. Finally, Steve McQueen. It seems like an inside joke to include him has an actual character. He's a rat that appeared in two or three episodes. He's not a character, he's a prop (albeit a living one). If we include him, we might as well include House's cane and the ball he throws around as characters. Does the rat really have any more personality? The Filmaker 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we're back to the problem we had before -- we have unlikely-to-recur characters (Ali, Tritter) under a section called "Recurring characters". If no one else cares about it, I'll leave it alone. I'm reaching my limit of caring about the issue. :) Nairebis 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully having the 'former recurring characters' should solve this one. Iorek85 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A recurring character is a recurring character. As in the character has recurred. There is no need for separate sections for former and current especially considering that we are (for the most part) guessing as to which characters may or may not return. Keeping all of the said characters under one section is the best bet. The Filmaker 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've no problem either way, and I agree with points made on both sides. I just thought it would make a reasonable compromise. Iorek85 04:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are oodles of review sites. On this article we already have for normal reviews the tv.com and the TV Squad site, one too many imo. This site [13], which Matthew removed twice, actually adds to the article, medical reviews about every house episode. Which passes Wikipedia:External links easy. Garion96 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - Criterion 2 and 3. Matthew 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That one you need to explain further. (2) Misleads the reader? How? (3) Links mainly intended to promote a website, If you see this site as that, you must also see the TV.com site as that of course. Garion96 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out where it says he is a physician? Also, in regards to TV.com, this seems like an argumentum ad ignorantiam (a poor one at that), also I'll assume you mean the TV Squad link.. and on that point I'd happily see it removed, it also fails the criteria (imo). Matthew 08:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here for instance. Regarding criterium 3, it's just too vague of a criterium. And yes, I would prefer a more professional site, but it is not used as a source, just an external link for (quote from WP:EL) "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)". Garion96 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it that it qualifies as a worthwhile and informational link. It's not just a typical review site, and based on the number of blog comments, it's quite popular. Nairebis 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not super-familiar with the implementation of the EL policy (it seems like frequently the only links allowed to stay are official websites, which are often badly designed and uninformative), but I'd like to see the link stay. It's unique in its thoroughness and written by an M.D. I don't think anything about it is misleading, and I think the "promote a website" applies more to forums trying to recruit members, or sites with ad-driven revenue. The medical reviews exist to inform, so I feel like "promoting" them is an odd concept. I agree that it's better likened to a link to a news article. --Galaxiaad 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good grief - whoever removed the House Medical Reviews link - cease and desist. The reviews there are sui generis reviews of _medical accuracy_. Something highly relevant to House which as a 'medical mystery' is premised on its realism. I certainly have found the link helpful (as I'm sure many others have). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.114.207 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I also love the medical review site. I noticed right away when it was missing and had to look up an old version of the House page to find it again. Wikipedia links to many unofficial (and many not-so-well-done) fansites - this one is actually better than most as far as content and information go. And the design isn't bad - it's just simple (and there's no reason for it to be otherwise). 209.94.128.69 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How about the episode recaps on Television Without Pity? DS 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

DVD releases

House_md#DVD_releases: there is written the First Season DVD set is in 4:3 format and The Second Season DVD set, on the other hand, presents the show in its original widescreen format in all regions.. That's not completely true. I'm from Italy, and my first DVD box (1st season) is in 16:9, while the second one (2nd season) is in 4:3 Pan&scan. --213.140.6.97 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

House Wikiproject?

I don't know if it's okay for me to post here but Wikiproject House is being considered. Please express your thoughts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#House, M.D. mirageinred 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

House/Holmes; Wilson/Watson

Why is there no talk about the House/Sherlock Holmes connection. I remember hearing David Shore talk about it in some interview on television, although I haven't been able to find it yet.

Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker St., and in episode #207 (Hunting), it's shown that House's address is 221B, although we see no street name. Holmes used cocaine, House uses opiates. His name is House, and his best friends name is "Wilson" (Holmes' was "Watson"). It's fairly obvious, I think obvious enough to be included in the wiki somewhere.

Well even though these parallels are obvious, you still need a source to cite before putting anything down - otherwise it'd be considered original research (regardless of how obvious it is).Bockbockchicken 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Source regarding House/Wilson and Holmes/Watkins is right here. But it doesn't mention the specifics of how House/Wilson exactly parallels to Holmes/Watkins. It's a start though=). mirageinred 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/house_isnt_wait.html
In the interview, Robert Sean Leonard says the show was originally focused on House/Wilson as a Holmes/Watkins kind of duo. You have to scroll down a little. mirageinred 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

reference's 4,5 and 6

I guess regular editors of this page ought to know that reference's 4,5 and 6 are dead links, they're the ones about the next season--Jac16888 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if you find things like this feel free to make the modifications needed. While there are many "regulars" that monitor specific pages like this one, nobody here is a professional House editor and your (quality) contributions to the page are as welcome as anyone else's. To remove the references, locate where the references (the "a/b/c/d" things next to the references themselves) come from and edit that portion of the page. You'll see the reference tagged in text like this:
<ref>[http://link.to.article/ Description of article]</ref>
or something like:
<ref name=article6>[http://link.to.article/ Description of article]</ref>
followed by repeated references listed as:
<ref name=article6/>
Sometimes the reference format used will be more complex, but it should be fairly obvious what needs to be removed and/or updated.
Thanks for your contributions, I thought you'd find it useful to know how to fix this kind of thing yourself rather than wait for someone else to pick up on it. Best, Squiggleslash 13:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
oops, i forgot about this, i did intend to add to fix it, but didn't have time, so i wrote it down here to remind myself, and tell others.--Jac16888 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_(TV_series)/Archive_3&oldid=1192635650"