Talk:List of House episodes/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about List of House episodes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cleanup

I removed the cleanup tag, since I don't see any issues on the talk page which haven't been addressed. If there are issues, please revert my last change and post here with whatever objections you have to the current content. ~ Jess (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The clean up tag is there because the page still requires referencing, copy editing etc. i would need to sit down and look through the article throughly to lsit htem all but it does require a bit mroe work and hopefully once done it can be peer reviewed and then resubmit for feature list candatie.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned up this page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the David Foster linked is not the same David Foster as who wrote episodes for House, so that needs to be cleaned up.

can you find the link to the proper one and leave it her ei will update it--Andy Chat c 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I porpuse we add a coloum for episode ratings and maybe viewers. thoughts? but this will have to be sourced before added--Andy Chat c 07:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

does anyone have a soruce for season 4 and 5 ratings that is not subsription based?--Andy Chat c 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe a better source for season 3 too--Andy Chat c 07:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am jsut wonder what people thoughts ar eon adding a coloum for each 2episode invidual ratings?--Andy Chat c 20:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

I think we should list all possible problem with the article that needs to be sorted before gettign it reviewed again.--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Below is the list i think needs done--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.

Requirements

3. Each season have a brief introduction of the season and referenced (short overall descritpion of season need with references)
5. Copy edit the entire article
7. Fix the lead with summary of the entire page and remove reference that are referenced elsewhere and refeence anything that is not meantion elsewhere (just needs to be checked)
8. Fix any broken or wrongly directed internal links
12. centre all informaiton in tables
13. fix table width to be better for each coloum
15. Spelling checked (decide if spellign it to be american english or not)

Comments on the above and any other sufggestion owuld be great--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm not totally sure we should have season summaries in this article. This is an issue I had intended to bring up earlier. The season summaries are already present in the season-specific lists, and a general synopsis should also be present in the general House page as well. Do we really need the synopsis covered a 3rd time here? Having a brief synopsis would help differentiate the seasons from each other (thus adding relevant info to the list). However, summaries are also redundant, and implicitly off-topic given the title of the page (indicating a list, not major details).

I think there are two possibly solutions:

Make each synopsis as brief as possible (covering the major facts, but deferring subplots to the other pages), and standardize the length of each season, so there isn't such a large disparity between sections.
Remove the synopses all together, deferring facts about the seasons to the season-specific pages already linked.

There seems to be a stronger precedent for option 2. Check out List of Seinfeld Episodes and List of Simpsons Episodes which are both featured lists using that format. Since the info is already described elsewhere (and linked from this page), and given precedent, I'd say the season synopses should be removed from this article. ~ Jess (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure: List of Lost Episodes is a featured article formatted in the 1st way. We definitely could do things that way too. Personally, I just think it would be redundant and unnecessary, but I can also see some benefit. ~ Jess (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you i certainly do not want to be giving full details of the season summary, just a brief overview and i mean brief, say for season 4 house after his team quit few months prior has to get himself a new team who can work as good or if not better than previous team. The rest of the summaire si have done jsut meantion the start and end date and for seaosn 1 meantion what the critic said, season 4 meantion it was cut due to the WGA strike etc. i think jsut maybe another line or two at most in each seaosn with references and there done----

going on the recent peer review we will need ot do it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_House_episodes/archive3

12. I think the tables, as they are now, are formatted properly. Episode titles don't appear to be centered in any other articles. Again, check out the Simpsons and Seinfeld. The latter is left justified, while the former is formatted exactly as we have the article now. IMO, either left justify all the info, or leave it as it is now. ~ Jess (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, just something i thought would look visial better, and jsut because nothing else has done it yet nothing to say not to set out a new standard that people might like.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

13. I'm not totally sure what can be done about the column width problem. If you have any suggestions, go for it... ~ Jess (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

my best suggestion is to play with teh width until we get a size that best present the information without one coloum overpower others, but i think it bes tot wait and see if people think we should add a episode ratings as a coloum if they do then we could fix the tables then.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

15. I think typical precedent is American English on WP. Am I wrong? This is also a U.S. show, set, filmed and primarily aired to the U.S. The only British influence I know of is Hugh Laurie, but the particular accent of one character shouldn't change the spelling of the show's WP article... ~ Jess (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong in that it is not precedent, the english langaugae to be used it spefic to the article, as you say this a america show so personal i think it shoudl be american english, however the reason i brought it up was because i write in british english other might write in canadaian english other another english so before getting it reviewe di think we should have the entire article cheked by someone in the english we set out to make sure it only that one type of english throughout if that makes sense--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything else you need ot know from me let me know i will try reply the best i can, also this is just a list of thigns i think might need done from wha ti read in the peer reviews, and feature lsit reviews and also compare it to feature list critia but it does nto mean i ma right.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Production code if we can find a source
2. Rating for each episode as long as it can be sourced (found a source for this so just need to know if we shoiudl add it)
3. Change any episode article to be appended (house) that currently do not have one
4. Add some images different parts of the article
5. add 18-49 ratigns for seaosn 3-5 with realible non subscription sources

Comment on the above and and other suggestiond would be great--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed your bullet points above to a numbered list, so we could discuss point by point. ~ Jess (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem i just found it quicker and easier to make a list at the time esicpally since i was gettign ready for bed--Andy Chat c 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiny improvement necessary, but I was told that the Season colors are changed in accordance with the DVD cover art. The Season Five cover art has been released as dark blue.

Please sign your post IP user, i will update it if it not right please feel free to modify it to the right colour, in the season overview, season 5 and dvd release sections--Andy (talk - contrib) 10:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis/Summary

Who the hell wants the final diagnosis spoiled for them? I know spoilers aren't illegal, but they are unnecessary trivia for this article. A whole column for "final diagnosis" is really unnecessary. I DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED because of TRIVIA. Feedback ^☎ 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The column surely isn't miscellaneous trivia. If you don't want to be spoiled, don't visit the page. From WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." The diagnosis list is actually really useful. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This was sorted when the split happen however wikipedical reverted it back why i dn tno and even borke the reason for splititng ie remove the summaries, as the diagnostis was then ont he serparate seaosn article and the list could have remained without it--Andy Chat c 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just about spoilers. The information does not belong, and the changes made by Andrew and myself did not delete any information or make the House pages any less useful. Furthermore, the way things are now goes against precedent set by countless other long tv show articles, it's hard to navigate and use, and gets complaints constantly from the community - making it less usable to a sizable portion of WP. This debate has been going on practically forever, and the last change (prior to your revert) was agreed upon by everyone involved and solved the issue in a way which conformed to WP policy and standards.

I also see no mention of any reason for the revert in the talk pages (or archive), nor an explanation in the comment for your change. You unilaterally undid an agreed upon change to the page format without discussing it with the community, undoing *lots* of hard work.

You archived ALL of the relevant discussion on this topic, so I'm not rehashing the whole debate all over again. Please read through the topic in the archive page (3) to see history.

I'm reverting it back, as was agreed upon by the community. Please discuss this on the talk page BEFORE making huge changes. Thanks. ~ Jess (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter of spoilers. How does spoiling the final diagnosis and spoiling the climactic outcome of every episode add to the comprehensiveness in this article? Feedback ^☎ 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As i said below i am open to adding the diagnostic coloum back iun just need to udnerstand why it shiuld be included there seems to be no need for it here ona luist of episodes, i completely agree it should b e in the serperate articles just need to udnerstand the reason for here, its not the spoiler reason i thought it hsould be removed just has no bearing on list of episodes, but i wont deny it solves the spoiler debate because the house season articels have them so complying to wikipeida policy but this doesnt so people who cokmplain will not any more. but the summaries can not come back because it then breaks the wikipedia policy on size and easiness to read--Andy Chat c 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize these are maintained on the smaller pages for each season, but I think removing these columns has made this page less useful. Previously, you could use the page to quickly find an episode by its description, or see in which season a particular event occurred. While I haven't extensively compared this format to other TV series lists, the first three others I checked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman:_The_Animated_Series_episodes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scrubs_episodes, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_office_episodes) all use the format that this page previous used.

While I understand the desire to make the page more compact (despite this not being the case with a number of other similar articles), I feel this is just a stealthier way to remove "spoilers" from this page. The related pages summarizing the episodes of each season contain all of the information on this page, and more, obsoleting the page. We already have this page, a list of over 100 episodes of a series - we don't need to remove information from it just to create 5 other lists of 20 episodes each, identical except that they also contain the removed information. --RandomPrecision (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but, personal i never agreed to it to settle the spoiler row, however it does settle it, i agree and suggested it because having it a list which the article is makes it easier to follow and read and also brought the page below 95kb which is the size for splitting in wikipedia policy. i would semi support the diagnostic coloum goign back but this will have to be discussed and said why it really revelent but the summary needs to go for reading and size sake--Andy Chat c 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have been awesome if the relevant discussion hadn't all been archived, since this has been discussed ad-nauseum since the inception of the article. For anyone "new" to the topic, please read through the (extensive) discussion in the 3rd archive. You'll also notice other similar points were brought up in the 1st and 2nd discussion, and these views were expressed by wiki editors in the numerous reviews for promotion to a featured article.

The reason this doesn't have anything to do with spoilers is simple. Wikipedia is an encyclopia. It is not tv guide. Therefore, it doesn't censor any relevant information. If the final diagnosis belongs in the article, it should be included.

However, it simply doesn't belong in the article. The article is a list of house episodes. It is not intended to contain every detail about every episode -- those details are deferred to the individual episode pages. Further summaries are also included in season-specific descriptions, which do (and should) contain information relevant to the events of the particular season.

Regarding precedent, you'll notice that Batman (linked to by RandomPrecision) is not only marked for cleanup (and a wholly unweildy page), but it's also a very short series -- sporting only two seasons. Scrubs and The Office have both very recently hit the same length this article has, and are in a very similar position (the page is becomming unwieldy, and should be cut down). However, if you look at most episode lists which exceed this size, many have been split the way this page has. The Simpsons and Extreme Makeover are prime examples.

Here is a short list of other problems the prior format had, which I voiced in a previous discussion (now in Archive 3):

Lots of people are obviously pushing to move certain information away from this page. As it stands, this page is clearly less usable to a sizable portion of its viewers due to that information.
The page is becoming more unwieldy over time. It's already a minor pain to find the season/episode you're looking for quickly. As the show progresses, this will only become worse.
Lots of the information shown on this page doesn't relate to its intended purpose. The title suggests a list of episodes - not a synopsis of every event occurring throughout the whole show.
The format of the page is substantially different than numerous other TV show lists on WP.

These are all examples of long shows which were split in order to provide a useful episode list, while maintaining detailed information about individual episodes in the season/episode synopsis. There are countless others.

The question is not "hide information vs show information". It's about making the whole "House category" more informative and useful to everyone. Repeating synopsis information on every house-related page does not make it more useful. It makes it burdensome, long, unwieldy, and needlessly overinformative.

Split the info, as has been suggested, and we've eliminated the concerns of nearly half of the discussions on this page. In fact, I'd be happy to do it myself. ~ Jess (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are any new concerns, of course feel free to voice them. However, the current page adheres to WP policy and precedent, does not eliminate any information or censor, addresses the concerns of the vast majority of posting users, is more feature complete, and is easier to navigate and use. ~ Jess (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping those episode descriptions does too make the page more useful, and three lines of text at most for each episode is hardly what I would call cluttered or "overinformative". The entire reason Wikipedia exists is to provide information, and removing relevant information simply to add a minimal semblance of order is a poor choice. Wikipedia may not be a TV guide, but it should be user-friendly and allow people to quickly find what they need. Zorque (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The information is still there but in a serpate article why are people complaing so much this is how all tv articles get done.--Andy (talk - contrib) 08:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Zorque: Did you read through the archived discussion, and my full post? The episode descriptions make the page less useful, cluttered and "overinformative" to a sizable portion of this page's readers. It's also contrary to precedent, and goes against WP guidelines regarding page length. Further, the information is still available in useful season-specific lists, all linked to from this page; No information was "removed". You didn't respond to any of these issues, nor bring up any new points which haven't been discussed ad-nauseum for the past 3 years. If you have new points, I'd be happy to hear them, but otherwise, going against a community decision, sidestepping WP precent and guidelines to duplicate irrelevant information into an already long page doesn't sound like a good move to me. ~ Jess (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Majority of the references are unreliable, we need to merge Music's workpage and clean this up

This article currently references House M.D. Guide for the majority of references. This site is simply a fansite, it is not reliable. Even if the information is correct, it is not a good quality reference as it's simply a fansite. Furthermore, there does not have to be a citation after every single thing in the tables, it looks extremely messy and is unnecessary. One single citation in the text introducing the season's table is sufficient. Basically, I understand people have put some effort into this article, but as it stands it's pretty messy and is referencing a fansite for the majority of the time. Music2611 has been working on this list here: User:Music2611/House eps. I think we should simply copy the article he has been working on there over this one. Then we can add in any useful information that was lost back in by using the history and differences. The main things the page currently has that Music's workpage does not is information on the DVD releases. So any suggestions or comments about how to merge Music's workpage and the current page? LonelyMarble (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Every fansite is unreliable" is a fallacy. Outpost Gallifrey is a fansite, but it is an acceptable reference because it does fact-checking. Said reliability being upheld at FAC and AFD again and again... Sceptre ^(talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say every fansite is unreliable. Most are though, there are few exceptions. Usually if a fansite will be held as reliable it will most likely have some fame, and therefore probably have a Wikipedia article on it, as is the case with the example you gave. I have looked through this particular fansite being used in this article, it doesn't have enough notability and I don't see any indication of the "fact-checking". And shouldn't we cite the direct source, so whatever place they are getting their facts from should be the citation Wikipedia uses. The same information can be referenced from more reputable and reliable places, there's no need to reference a fansite in this case. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability doesn't make a source more reliable; e.g. WorldNetDaily for politics news: notable, but not reliable. All we need to do is to evaluate the fact-checking. Which, I agree with you, appears to be non-existent in this case. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only talking about fansites. I think in the case of fansites, there's a good chance any fansites deemed reliable are also notable, but I guess that might not always be the case. I can't really tell where this particular site is getting their information, it is probably just getting it directly from the DVDs, which is fine. It would be better though to just cite the DVDs directly instead of through the fansite. I would think it usually wouldn't be necessary to cite a fansite, since the information could almost always be cited from a more direct source, or a source that holds more authority in reliability. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly will not be happy if all the work i put into the season overview and dvd release get deleted jsut to merge music page, it took me some time to do that work and ti provide more information that is useful to a reader than currently is in music page but music season description are top notch as with his lead, but some information currently in the lead shouldnt be deleted as it provide other informaiton not in music page, tell me how to cite a dvd and i will change all the epsiode citeations--Andy (talk - contrib) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You've done a nice job on the Overview/Ratings and DVD tables. That information won't get deleted. None of your work will ever be lost, it will always be viewable in the history section to easily put back in, and I wasn't suggesting we remove those tables. We can also merge the leads so any useful information isn't lost. However, regarding the lead, the first two references are to fansites, they are not valid. We also already argued about what the "official" title was on the main House talk page (I remember you there), and the conclusion was to keep it as House and mention House, M.D. in an "also known as" format, so that should be what is done in this article as well for consistency. Other than that we can merge the two leads.

As for the episode citations, Film.com can be used as a replacement for the House Guide fansite. I asked about Film.com on the House featured article candidate discussion and it was deemed reliable. I think maybe we should just list the Film.com link in a "general" section under references. I don't really like having a reference after every single fact in the tables, it looks messy and unnecessary to me. Perhaps we could add a reference for each individual season from that site in the text of each season summary somehow. That way the references for all the information is present, but they are not in the table, which would remove the clutter. More references doesn't necessarily make an article better, it is the quality of the references, just make sure in the future the sites you reference are reliable, which means most fansites and blogs are not. To cite a DVD the best citation template to use would be Template:Cite video. Citing the DVDs may not be necessary here though as there are reliable online sources that could be used such as Film.com or other ones, it's just that the House M.D. Guide is a fansite and doesn't have any reliable authority at the moment as it's not exactly how their information is compiled. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad it will not be lost :) would be really annoying putting the effort in ot improve it it just gets removed. To be honest i was goign to reference at the top of coloum header for each season but housemd site only provides the information within each episode hence the multiply references. This is concerning to me because in another page i work on List of Time Team episodes another user told me fansite are realible as long as it can not be edit by mass users liek tv.com, so i might have to go and remove the references they put in for that page but that another matter. I will look at film.com tomorrow when i have go out of bed and work otu hwo the informaiton is present and see if i can reference at the top of the table and remove the other one. As for house m.d. i was part of the discussion but i missed hte conculsion and or discussion it wa snear when my final exams where so i was not active on here much then and missed a lot. i have no problem reverting that back to it prior state i was more concern with the global audince share and the this "The Pilot Episode was produced by David Shore and Bryan Singer and premiered on Fox on November 16, 2004. After the pilot episode attracted approximately seven million viewers, it was quickly picked up for a full season of 22 episodes. House gained high ratings and critical praise after it was placed in the time slot following American Idol during the spring of its first season." as i thought it better describe the informaiton rather than the previous way of havigbn it in first paragraph but i think music information should also be included there as it better and more references. the rest i think was not great but i tried my best to improve it from the former way (my english is mince due to dsylexica). i will happily rereference the entire page with film.com or cite video and remove the other source--Andy (talk - contrib) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i also think the delinkign of multi internal link to the same thing should remain as i foudn from other article i have worked on i have always been told linking to same actor 10 times does not add anything to the article but makes it messy--Andy (talk - contrib) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started merging musci2611 informaiton into the article and removing the unrelible source and replacing it with film.com but this time using the coloum header for source. i will slowly work through each seaosnj--Andy (talk - contrib) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything but ratings for the epsiode has been merged i also corrected a mistake musci2611 made ont he summary for seaosn 4 foreman and cameron quit , they nevr got fired only chase got fired. i will do the seaosn 3-5 ratigns tonight and tomorrow--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I added in the season references from Film.com to the column headers. This is good enough as a reference for all the information in those columns in my opinion. Most of these lists don't even have a reference for this basic information, since it is just basic credit information. The main things left to do is finish adding the ratings for each episode. Season 5 also needs a brief plot summary like the other seasons. After that I think the list is pretty much complete, I'll go through the article and make any necessary copyedits once those two things are done. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will get the ratings finished by tonight :) season plot i can try do but if oyu could do it that be better--Andy (talk - contrib) 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ratings are now done--Andy (talk - contrib) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a major concern that mgith prevent the article goign feature list, season 3 epsiode 12 merry little christmas, i have added the source that Music2611 sandbox has, but i was inspecting it like i normal do and getting the ranking for the episode but i have noticed a major flaw, eith witht he air date which i thikn is the major flaw or the ratings listings. basically the listing say they cover up to the 10th december but merry little chriustmas aired on the 12th apparnetly to soures if that si correct how could they have the ratings for a episode that never aired, because there is no episode aired on the 5th december.--Andy (talk - contrib) 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.

Requirements

3. Each season have a brief introduction of the season and referenced (short overall descritpion of season need with references)
5. Copy edit the entire article
15. Spelling checked (american english)

Comments on the above and any other sufggestion owuld be great--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm not totally sure we should have season summaries in this article. This is an issue I had intended to bring up earlier. The season summaries are already present in the season-specific lists, and a general synopsis should also be present in the general House page as well. Do we really need the synopsis covered a 3rd time here? Having a brief synopsis would help differentiate the seasons from each other (thus adding relevant info to the list). However, summaries are also redundant, and implicitly off-topic given the title of the page (indicating a list, not major details).

I think there are two possibly solutions:

Make each synopsis as brief as possible (covering the major facts, but deferring subplots to the other pages), and standardize the length of each season, so there isn't such a large disparity between sections.
Remove the synopses all together, deferring facts about the seasons to the season-specific pages already linked.

There seems to be a stronger precedent for option 2. Check out List of Seinfeld Episodes and List of Simpsons Episodes which are both featured lists using that format. Since the info is already described elsewhere (and linked from this page), and given precedent, I'd say the season synopses should be removed from this article. ~ Jess (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure: List of Lost Episodes is a featured article formatted in the 1st way. We definitely could do things that way too. Personally, I just think it would be redundant and unnecessary, but I can also see some benefit. ~ Jess (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you i certainly do not want to be giving full details of the season summary, just a brief overview and i mean brief, say for season 4 house after his team quit few months prior has to get himself a new team who can work as good or if not better than previous team. The rest of the summaire si have done jsut meantion the start and end date and for seaosn 1 meantion what the critic said, season 4 meantion it was cut due to the WGA strike etc. i think jsut maybe another line or two at most in each seaosn with references and there done----

going on the recent peer review we will need ot do it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_House_episodes/archive3

12. I think the tables, as they are now, are formatted properly. Episode titles don't appear to be centered in any other articles. Again, check out the Simpsons and Seinfeld. The latter is left justified, while the former is formatted exactly as we have the article now. IMO, either left justify all the info, or leave it as it is now. ~ Jess (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, just something i thought would look visial better, and jsut because nothing else has done it yet nothing to say not to set out a new standard that people might like.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

13. I'm not totally sure what can be done about the column width problem. If you have any suggestions, go for it... ~ Jess (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

my best suggestion is to play with teh width until we get a size that best present the information without one coloum overpower others, but i think it bes tot wait and see if people think we should add a episode ratings as a coloum if they do then we could fix the tables then.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

15. I think typical precedent is American English on WP. Am I wrong? This is also a U.S. show, set, filmed and primarily aired to the U.S. The only British influence I know of is Hugh Laurie, but the particular accent of one character shouldn't change the spelling of the show's WP article... ~ Jess (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong in that it is not precedent, the english langaugae to be used it spefic to the article, as you say this a america show so personal i think it shoudl be american english, however the reason i brought it up was because i write in british english other might write in canadaian english other another english so before getting it reviewe di think we should have the entire article cheked by someone in the english we set out to make sure it only that one type of english throughout if that makes sense--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything else you need ot know from me let me know i will try reply the best i can, also this is just a list of thigns i think might need done from wha ti read in the peer reviews, and feature lsit reviews and also compare it to feature list critia but it does nto mean i ma right.--Andy Chat c 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3 mostly done jsut need seaosn 5--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

7 done just needs checked--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

just copyedit needs done now--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Production code if we can find a source
3. Change any episode article to be appended (house) that currently do not have one
5. add 18-49 ratigns for seaosn 3-5 with realible non subscription sources

Comment on the above and and other suggestiond would be great--Andy Chat c 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed your bullet points above to a numbered list, so we could discuss point by point. ~ Jess (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem i just found it quicker and easier to make a list at the time esicpally since i was gettign ready for bed--Andy Chat c 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiny improvement necessary, but I was told that the Season colors are changed in accordance with the DVD cover art. The Season Five cover art has been released as dark blue.

Please sign your post IP user, i will update it if it not right please feel free to modify it to the right colour, in the season overview, season 5 and dvd release sections--Andy (talk - contrib) 10:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Season five colour is currently grey, is there not a dark blue available? Boxart is a darker blue than season one. I'm not sure how to change it myself? A change, or instructions on how to change it myself would be appreciated. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Do oyu know the hex colur for it? if so post it here i will change it, if you want to change it i willd etail what you will need to change.--Andy (talk - contrib) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Acutally its not dark blue either, its a grey, but not the grey we have, but certainly not blue--Andy (talk - contrib) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection, you're right. Sorry to trouble you for no reason. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ur

There no trouble at all, you best to query things, i rather be goign checkign and making sure it right than assume it is before this goes for feature list review. but i am still not sure what grey it is--Andy (talk - contrib) 10:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2 is mostly done--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

4 still need to decide on te best image--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Title of Season 6 Episode 1 -- "TBA"

It is unclear if "TBA" is literally the title of this episode. Assuming that it isn't, I think the quotes should be removed. Would anyone disagree? Ben Boldt (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue with Template:Episode list - discussion transferred appropriately. Ben Boldt (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 Episode 3 (or 2)??

Source [1]. "112 (6-02)" is not correct. --Itay Alon (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And there is plnety of source that state it is only one episode, this is the same problem as House and House M.D. both are correct but only one gets referes to and it refered to only one epsiode--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So House main site does not count? --Itay Alon (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It does but when you have other offical source stating it as one episode then you have ot draw a consesus on it. also it isnt the offical site it just wikipedia hosted on fox so i aint sure how realible it be coutned as--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot of sources mention that this episode is count as 601 and 602, in addition the primary source (fox) write it. I believe that the writers in other big sources dosen't see the episode or read about it before, they just add the information they got, and don't care about it, they won't see it or read about first episode of house. --Itay Alon (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You last comment makes no sense, there is plenty of the relaible source that state it as one episode not two, the production code might be 601/602 but it still oen episode and acutally there a few source that meantion it as 601 and 602 but also refer to it as jsut 601 in the same story that is written as you put it. and again the fox wikipedia siote mgiht nto be realible as per wp:rs, you seem to be new editor :) and new editor are welcomed to try make tihng write but you giht want to read up on wikipeida guidelines a bit as you seem to be unaware of things like realible source, source and manner o style, please dnt take this as somethig to put you off just that i think you should udnerstand wikipeida more :) and also understand consesus has to be made liek there was one made on teh title of the show either ot call it House as the source call it or as the on screen title card says House M.D.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak English as well as others, it's why my arguments were no sense. The official source usually dictates how to write something, or what he have to be. Unlike Fox, MSN editors or others unofficial sources editors not thought about it, and don't care about House, so they just add the episode as regular one, and because they got a longer episode they count it like 1 episode but longer, without check it in Fox (the primary source). Maybe it just me and I need to read more about wikipedia style, but I think that "epic fail" needs to be 603. If "broken" will be 601 or "601 / 602" it's another discussion. --Itay Alon (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct msn is like that but there schedule are not done by them but by the broadcaster they provide them with the schedules and the ifnormation. however i will comment on the below comment form ip user this shoudl allow this to be cleaered up and fixed permently :), your english wasnt bad btw just i amdsylexic and foudn it really hard to make it out.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the official site, [2], listing "broken" as 601 (2 hour episode) and "epic fail" as 603. 77.56.101.194 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is a good enough source with sky 1 as well to now fix this permently, as it offical site then it can be used. :) i will make amendment ot the apge eitehr tonight or tmorrow :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So where is episode 602? On Fox's website is says: 601: Broken (2 hour episode) that is 1 episode that is 2 hours long, and 603: Epic Fail. The way I saw it; episode 1 is "Broken" and has production code 601/602. "Epic Fail" is episode 2 with production code 603. And fox's recaps refer to the production code, otherwise there is a missing episode. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox aired it as one epsiode but sky oen uk is airign it as 2 parts it just that two episode but fox done the premiere as one, as i said iw ill fix it later--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It can caused by the program (example: save int as episode number) --Itay Alon (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What program? it jsut because fox decide to air ti as one epsiode instead of sky oen who aired as two--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong to divide the episode "Broken" in "Broken: Part 1" and "Broken: Part 2": in the official website Broken is listed as the No. 1 and "Epic Fail" as the number 3 (consequently the episode 2 corresponds to the second part of the episode "Broken"). However, it is incorrect to divide the episode into two parts, because contrary to what was done with "Euphoria" of season 2, the website does not indicate the subdivision. In my opinion we should put the episode Broken in only one section of the table, indicating 111, 112 (60-1, 60-2). --RanZag (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the note it states otehr coutnries break it up because it two part epsiode jsut fox decided to air it as one epsiode to gain mroe rtings in fact the ratings for it split into two rea the reference for them--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i tried to do "rowspan=2" (for: Title, Director, Writer(s) and Original airdate) but didn't go as well. I think that break it to 2 parts is bad solution. --Itay Alon (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It be bad solution if it was not two parts, but it clearly is, and when i get a chance i will use different source ot show it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally i favour the view that 601 was 2 hours, long, as do TV Rage. but more importantly this page is out of line with the season 6 sub page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.195.6 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox's official website lists production 6-01 as a "two hour episode". The fact that the next episode has production code 6-03 is irrelevant since episode counts and production numbers can and do differ. Further, the fact that it was aired in two parts in the UK is irrelevant. The original broadcasting country, which is Fox in the US, aired it as one two-hour episode, and therefore that is the "official" count. One source says season 6 will have 22 total episodes, so when the season is over the episode count might be more clear, but right now the evidence points to counting the two-hour premiere as one episode. Therefore, 113, not 114, episodes have aired so far. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can not say another country is irrevelent, the fact the production code jumps to 603 means it meant ot eb two epsiode but fox premiered it as a two epsiode. There sources that state it as two epsiode, i said the same as you until other sources have came up so you will have ot prove it not two epsiodes.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that it took up the resources of two episodes to create. Which, seeing as it's twice as long as normal, I would hope so. It's like ABC ordering fourteen episodes of Lost for season 4. It aired over thirteen weeks discounting breaks, but, for administrative purposes only, the finale is counted as two. For all other purposes, such as marketing and the finished product, it's counted as one. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was counted as one it would be aired as one, however only america at this moment seems to eb doign that, and for reruns porpuses it might not be, i think you forget premiere and finale will be aired as one for ratings only, however the ratigns are split up for two epsiodes as well so ther emore suggest it two epsiode than one. This is english wikipedia not American wikipedia as lonelymarble seems to think, you can not ingore sources as then it original researh. I am happy to admit i am wrong and i was right when i agreed with what you where saying about 4-5 weeks ago if it proven by dvd release and reruns or other countries airing it as one that it is one but jsut now there two main sources suggest otherwise.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Only America seems to be doing that"... and, as America is the country of origin, we should go with that. We do that for any other TV series. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And you discontuied my comment abotu reruns, channels often air program out of order for rtings or air double episode for ratings,. all the sources show it two epsiode even the americna ratings. it impossibel to have ratings for two epsiode if it one--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-runs don't matter. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we treat episodes in their original broadcast format: as one two-hour episode, as opposed to two one-hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

UNIDENT

Well this is goin to be a lovely one to explain, sinc the original broadcast run is different depending on where you live, you do realise peopel come here to udnerstand what something is about, and if someone froma coutnry othr than america comes ot the english wikipedia they wont udnerstand why it is broadcast as two epsidoe, and i think rerun do matter as with otehr coutnries this is english wikiepdia after all, and wikipedia is meant to display thing the way it meant to b and the wya source say, and not to copy other sites and goign on what there it seesm everyoen jsut wants to copy other sites--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If some countries air this episode in one part, and some in two parts, then the format Wikipedia reports should be from the original broadcasting country. The original broadcasting country aired it as one 2-hour episode. Ratings being split up into two parts is irrelevant here, that is simply for commercial research purposes, and has nothing to do with how many "episodes" this is. The "original" broadcast run is definitely not different in different places because there is only one "original" run for any TV show, and in this particular show's case it is the one in the United States. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 Episode 7, 8 and 9

The titles for the three episodes after 'Brave Heart' have been confirmed as 'Known Unknowns', 'Teamwork', and 'Ignorance is Bliss'. --81.132.249.18 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Source http://www.house-md.pl/en/2009/10/15/opisy-nadchodzacych-odcinkow/ Sorry, I don't know how to add them myself. --81.132.249.18 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is a fansite, and it is not clear wher ethey got the information from so cant be added withotu a realibel source--Andrewcrawford (talk -

contrib) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

SpoilerTV reported it as well, not sure if you're familiar with it, but it's more than reliable. http://spoilertv.blogspot.com/search/label/House

Again spoiler tv is not a Realible source so it cna not be added yet, even though i trust it myself and there normally 99% right unfortnally wikipedia rules state it unrealible since it a blog site--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now TV.com has it listed. Reliable enough? http://www.tv.com/house/show/22374/episode.html?season=6&tag=list_header;paginator;6 --81.132.249.18 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

tv.com is unrealibel source as well as anyoen can edit it as proof as they have added it, once the broadcaster or sometihng liek yahoo or msn tv listings have it then it can be added--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Katie Jacobs confirmed on Twitter that the episode after Brave Heart is "Known Unknowns" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Again this is not a realible source anyone could set upa acocutn and pretend to be katie jacobs, although i know myself as a fan because of some of the sites above are accurate it not for wikipedia we need a press release or tv schedule--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a realible source now says it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 5 and 6 summary

Is anyone able to make a summary of season 5 like season 1-4 and a summary of seaosn 6 so far?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 Episode 3 (or 2)??

Moved to Season 6 Episode 3 (or 2)?? since it more appiorate theree please discuss there now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing Credits

Could someone update the writing credits? Some of the links to David Foster lead to the Canadian producer/songwriter. Could someone verify this and correct? 209.53.189.42 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Ben

Rank

Great job to I think Music2611 and Andrewcrawford for getting all of those rankings on the page. They really help to give the reader perspective. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode Numbering Season 6

Could someone please change the episode numbering as it is wrong. Season 6 episode one part 1 and 2 are the same episode. Just broken into to parts aired in the same night. According to the Fox.com website the numbering is WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.161.42 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

firstly it is not wrogn adn fox own site more a less confirmes it, secondly fox is primary source so shouldnt be used to verify things. everything at the monet poitns to two epsiode if you have some relaible third party source that proves it one way or another please post it as it will finally put a close to the long discussion about this.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Broken" split in 2 episodes?

It was not cut in two. It was run all at once. So, besides the length, where did you get the idea that there were 2 episodes there?

Even further, in the external links on this post [[3]] appears as House Official Site And I don't see where it more a less confirmes broken are two episodes. But I do see that "Ignorance Is Bliss" is the 8th episode, not the 9th like it's post here.

So why shouldn't we use House Official Site to confirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturd (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For the reason stated many times, realible third party soruce state it as two episodes, fox site is primary source so can not be used for sourcing, the fox site list borken as 601 and epic fail as 603 so did 602 not get made? until a realibel third party soure is given that proves it one way or another then wikipedia goes by the soruce and sources say two epiosde, oh this is not american wikipedia as you keep saying fox fox fox--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about fox, just making a point, since this post recognize that page as the official site. And I'm still not seeing epic fail as 603, don't know when was the last time u checked it.

P.S. I'm not the sameone from "Episode Numbering Season 6" I'm from Buenos Aires, couldn't care less about fox or NORTH America(continent including Argentina) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturd (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a offial site it is recongise and put in as a external link as per MOS but since it a primary source it can nto be used for verify things. I will need ot double check that then sicne the last tiemi checked it had epic fail as 603--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

it still says it http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/s6_e03.htm and her eis broken http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/s6_e01.htm select formt he list at the side for season 6 and oyu will find ther enot 602, that ebcause borken was suppose to be aired as two partsin america but fox deiced to get the best from the ratings by airing it as a two premiere, it done in the uk a lot by channels liek sky 1 etc it all about ratings but in rerunrs they air the way there meant to. it just liek teh arguement of a show that airs teh death of character in epsiode 4 but in epsiusde 5 an 6 there alive, a channel sometimes for weird reasons airs out of orde rand story lien for ratings and in this case there aired in two premeire for ratings the sources are ont eh page to show it two parts but people keep saying everyithng abotu fox and do not provie realible third soruces which is on the list jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford: You are correct that FOX's site shows "Epic Fail" as s06e03, but as you can see there is no episode 2. I believe that FOX's production codes count "Broken" as two episodes, but I believe it is clearer to refer to it as one episode, as this seems to be the consensus among everyone in referring to the episodes. Here is a list of reliable third party references: http://www.tv.com/house/show/22374/episode.html http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/house/episodes-season-6/100213 http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/house/broken_3.php http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/house/episode-guide/EP00688359 http://television.aol.com/episode/broken/house/11456636 Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tv,.com and tvguide.com are unrealible soruce according it wp:rs television wihtout pity does not state it is one or two epsiodes. the otehr two are tv listings which can be used to verify but ther not cler jsut like msn tv listings. Just because other sites have it as one episode does nto mean wikipeida has to copy. This is english wikipeida and not american wikipedia and most peopel keep saying that it only matters it airs in america first that is incorrect that only matter for air date but the if the show is meant ot be towo parts and fox website the offical one basically confirmed then it has to be lsited as two until a relaible source can prove that it meant to be one episode and not two and explaisn the weirdness of produciton code the fact otehr coutnries air it are two epsiode etc then there no justication to merge it, if oyu notic ei havent split the borken article because ther eno need but the episod list is different--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell from Wikipedia's reliable sources, TV Guide would definitely be reliable. Furthermore, according to Television Without Pity (which you have not contended to be unreliable), season 6 episode 2 is listed as "Pwned," therefore implying that episode 1 is the whole of the episode "Broken." I do believe Wikipedia should conform to the standard set by the rest of the television community. Episode lists should also conform to what has taken place in the television show's home market, as the producers and network have the most control over the way the show is aired there. The fact other countries air it as two episodes is because it was produced as a two hour episode (also explains the production code), and this does not take away from the fact that it seems to be intended as one episode. If you cannot provide a clear reason why it should remain as two episodes I'll be changing it. Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provide clear reason why it should remain two as there sources there to back it up, even the ratigns on the night back it up there where two serperate ratings for each half but normally when a show airs for two hours it one rating not two. Wikipedia does not copy other sites it is based on realible thurd party sources, and if television without pity descalres episode 2 as pwned then it means it episode 1 as well but never aired serpetaly. If oyu try to change it wihtout a conesus you could be warned as at the moment there is no conesus either way.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode list should not conform to the original broadcast location it jsut means that is mostly the original way to broadcast but does not mean it is, you have not provided enough proof to jsutify it being one, there is neough proof to have two epsiodes on the article now you provide enoguh to have it as one and it will be done telvisionwithoutpity is the only you have provide that does sort do that and i have said before the dvd release will confirm it one way or another and if i am worng i will happily merge it and leave a note the otehr way round but the sources suggest this is the correct way.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fox.com's video player shows "Wilson" as season 6, episode 9. This is clearly in line with "Broken" being counted as a singular episode. This being FOX's official site, this looks to be the way it will be listed on DVD releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.102.145 (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again i say it fox is primary source so it not realible source for verifcation, secondly you really think a video player site is a realible source if so youtube woukd be.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I read [4] it is not that primary sources are unreliable, it is that they should only be used as descriptive research and not interpretive. I believe that using fox's websites (the video site should count as it it not editable by the public, and comes directly from the producing company, unlike youtube) is not out of line in providing a description of the episode. When the website plainly says "Season 6, Episode 1," there is no original research done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.102.145 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

unident

i agree its nto origianl reaserach, and would be more relaible, but fox is primary sorue and can not be used for verifcaiton.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anywhere that it says this is unacceptable, perhaps you could provide a source for this? 74.98.140.181 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the whole point about primary sources. Primary sources can't be used to prove notability. However, primary sources, especially in the realm of the production of fiction, are very reliable. We can use primary sources for sourcing facts; the one thing we can't do is apply our own interpretation of them. There has never been a blanket ban on primary sources. For simple facts, we cite primary sources all the time; Universal Declaration of Human Rights to un.org, Roe v. Wade's holding to the US Reports, etc... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up multiple times and Andrew Crawford is the only one arguing to call the premiere two episodes as far as I can see. I tried in the past to argue for it as one episode and it seems multiple people in this discussion are as well. So I would say the "consensus" is that it is one episode. The facts also point to it being one episode but I'm not going to repeat myself and other users. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly i am nto the onyl one toe oppose it, ther ehas been others who has oppose it, secondly, your so called agurement have never provied third party realible source to prove it, thirdly ther eis no conessus a few people sayng they wan tit here doe snto make a odcnesus. This arguement has be ongogin for long time for one reaosn there no real answer to it as of yet fox give own wbesite give two answers both contrdict each other and fox is primary source so can not be used for verifcaiton procourse as a ssource but can be uised as a externel link. I am fed up keep proving how this is two parts so i suggest we take this to mediation and allow a neutral part to judge teh facts and soruces and make a decision would oyu object?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me but I don't think this is that big of a deal. I agree with you that we can probably get a final answer once the DVDs come out. One thing is that we can use a "primary" source for things like TV episode numberings, read Sceptre's comment above, he is correct. However, on Fox's website I guess it's not that clear, to me they list it in one entry as a "two hour episode", but they also skip production codes from 601 to 603, which causes you to interpret the two hour episode as two episodes. So the primary source isn't crystal clear in this case. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, if it never aire din other countries as two parts, if fox website never jumped to 603 and the ratings were not split for eahc half of the epiosd ei would have agreed competely tha tit was one episode if you look in the histroy of this lsit i reverted changes from one to two epsiode back when onl the source was msn t vlistings which made it one episode only but since more source have came up then as per wikipedia we do not copy otehr sites and use the sources and provide the information as per realible third party sources, acutally primary sources can nto be used for verifcaiton propruse as i found out a few months ago. The reason been the primary source can disort the information ot there own ends although i agree with what your sayign that its only aist techically we cant uise but as you have pointed out fox own site is cytrrtsal clear and the only true way is to wait for the dvds, that why i never split the borken article if i am worng which i could be then it cause mroe work but if i am right we can split that alter if decided. i will start compiling information to take it to mediation for now informal but i wont do it until after the new year i do havea lot on jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally the places where you can buy the episodes (iTunes, Amazon, …) sell them as two episodes. Meaning you have to pay for both part 1 and part 2. Unlike double length episodes (like Heroes Season 4 premiere: Orientation (Heroes)) which is a single file and sells for the price of one episode. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep repeating the "we can't use primary sources" argument when it's demonstrably false; Roe v. Wade, for example, is an FA and uses a primary source (the US Reports containing the holding) liberally. The official policy line is that we can use primary sources, but we have to be careful to not add an interpretation that isn't there to it. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is wha ti have been told after problem with rangers fc article using the club as a source they can be biased and nt publish things that damage them so i was told primary sources can no tn be use dfor vercation it wa not me that said that it was some at wp:rs--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

unindent

You should read WP:RS again, then, as there is no blanket prohibition against primary sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter either way if we use it or not fox own site is not cytrsal clear ans lonely marble has said it is ambiotugous deending on hwo oyru iterupt it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ok this arguement is now closed if other parties agree to this the producer gre yaitanes has poste informaiton on when each epsiode airs 611 airs in janauray and that acutally is how we have it on the page please have alook on here, although we cant use this for referencing we can use it to show anyone who might nto beleive borken as two parts a source to where we can now show it http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes i weill still take it to medition if we cnt agree--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pslit over other talk pages see this dicussion as well Other discussion--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is history as well Archived talk--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just change it so that is not split into two until we see whicg way adds up to 22 episodes before the season finale as a one part is more easily confirmable than a two part because there was no "To Be Continued" sign and no one has actually said that it was a two part. Neo136 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

and the same can be said for having tow episodes, the sources point to two episodes relaible and unrealible but relaible and unrelaible also point to one episode but there is fewer of them, if you really are disputing this i will take it to mediation and then a netural part can judge, also a lot of peopel keep saying the twitter page shoudl be used for airdate but if we are goign to do that then it remains are two episodes as the arguement is then closed as if oyu look at when the producer has said 611 to 622 air it acutal fits with how it is jsut now with broken as two parts--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB and every torrent site think it is one episode not two, and Wikipedia is causing needless confusion. It's obvious that it should be listed as a single episode. Climb down off your horse, back down, and admit the truth. Make the change. (I know that no one will, though, as some douche will just revert it.) 70.53.109.183 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia is the only place that is correct and since we have used the produicer twiiter site to cinfirm ep 22 then it confirm broken as 2 get over it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)