![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. Feed back ☎ 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Source [1]. "112 (6-02)" is not correct. -- Itay Alon ( talk) 14:39, 29 September 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)
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)
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)
contrib) 20:06, 15 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
unindent
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. Feed back ☎ 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
This section is for all information regarding cleanup of the page, in order to have it promoted to a featured list.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Source [1]. "112 (6-02)" is not correct. -- Itay Alon ( talk) 14:39, 29 September 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)
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)
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)
contrib) 20:06, 15 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
unindent
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)
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)