Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 5

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Notes section is a de facto trivia section--integrate it with the text, references, or delete it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   Several sections are unreferenced--Theme Music should be. Awards section is under-referenced. Production and Series overview sections could stand additonal references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   The free image of Laurie could be better... but at least it's free.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs much better referencing to be GA. ON HOLD for up to a week for improvements. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes section

Regarding the notes section, it clarifies things in the text which would be tedious to explain in the main body of the text. It clarfies why there is two theme songs in the infobox, it clarifies what episodes two quotes in the text come from. The set decorator note could be taken out and the note about Princeton University could be incorporated into the text I guess or just taken out but I don't see how it's trivia. The other notes seem important enough for clarification. They could be put in the references section but I put them in their own notes section since they aren't exactly references. The bullets make it look more like trivia, I will fix that. Regarding more references, I agree with that. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen other GA's which incorporates both 'notes' and 'references' sections like this? It's not common in my Wikipedia experience, so my impression is that it's not a usual or customary way of doing such things. I'm open to being persuaded that I'm wrong, of course. I wouldn't see an issue with collapsing notes into the references section, either. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some astronomy-related featured articles had this same layout, such as

WP:Layout used to directly say that if explanatory notes were in the same section as references it should be titled "Notes and references" or maybe just "Notes" (which was the title of the section in House before I changed it). So separating the two avoided that. That page doesn't seem to make section naming regarding that clear anymore and I agree the style on House right now isn't that common. It's not really a big deal, I did initally see it in those featured articles I mentioned, it was in a couple others too I think. What would be your preferred way of incorporating/naming these sections? LonelyMarble (talk

) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If an FA uses that convention, keep it. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I've added more sources in the music and the award section, I've also merged some minor sections. Please comment. --Music26/11 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments will be forthcoming this evening--earlier if I get a chance to focus on this article for a sufficient length of time. Thanks for your edits and patience. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all those references Music, it looks good. I just took out that general reference you added to the Emmy website because it didn't seem that relevant to me. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, it just saves some work finding Emmy Award references for the "Awards" section.--Music26/11 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And I found a good enough reference I think that says 2008 was his third nomination so everything in the Awards section is referenced now. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing that still looks like it could use work is the referencing in the "Series overview" section. I know everything there is common knowledge to those who've followed the show, as I do too. However, I'd like to see a minimum of one citation per paragraph--dig back for some first season reviews in the trade press or newspapers. EBSCOHost or ProQuest, if any of you have access to either database, are like Google News on steroids. Keep up the good work, you're getting closer by the edit! Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for most ot the paragraphs, finding references is almost impossible since they describe what happens in almos every episode. So, I'll try to find some more references, but I don't think it's possible (unless you want to reference every episode) or necessary.--Music26/11 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack image

This image was for a long while in the merchandise section next to the soundtrack description: Image:Housemdsound.jpg. There is a fair-use rationale on the image page for this article. One editor felt it failed fair use and took it off the article, but fair use is pretty subjective. Any opinions on this from anyone reviewing this for Good Article? Is it a legitimate fair-use image for the merchandise section of this article? LonelyMarble (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't question fair use criteria as part of GA, unless they're obviously BS, which that one is not. Having said that, I'm not too much of an image specialist, so I won't make fine-grained distinctions. If you call it fair use and it passes a sniff test, I'm not going to gig you on it. There are plenty of examples of outright ludicrous taggings on images--those, I call. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I don't mean to intrude, but the lead is too short for a GA. You all know it should summarize the whole article; try having a look at the lead at Heroes (TV series) for inspiration. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good point. It should be expanded--good news is, you don't have to include references in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It could use a little expanding but the lead in the Heroes example is pretty long. The Heroes article is over 3 times bigger in size than this article so the lead would be longer. This article could probably use one more paragrah and expand the other two a little if possible. I think we are pretty good for references now though so the lead would seem to me the last thing to work on. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Per

WP:LEAD it should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this size. There's plenty of material to include. Jclemens (talk

) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on the lead, tell me what you think.--Music26/11 15:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a great job. I've reverted someone else who trimmed it inappropriately, and that looks like the final GA criteria to me. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro Too Long

I don't know what it was like before but as of 2009 the Heroes article really stretches the recommended four paragraph limit for an article, and note that's the limit not a target. House too had developed a very long intro with four very large paragraphs that easily broke up into to more paragraphs than that if grouped a bit more topically. I've shortened the article intro as best I could but it needs more work. (I'd try to fix the Heroes intro that too if I had time.) For example it is sufficient to mention House is an award winning show and give few examples, but ratings details are overly specific for summary/intro. House winning an award for "sexiest doctor" shouldn't have been included in the summary when it wasn't even included in the body of the article. Still the introduction could stand to be shorter, the introduction for The West Wing a show that ran for seven seasons is quite succinct. -- Horkana (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia:Lead section. Each time you edit the House article it begins with a suggestion that as an article of over 90k it could be shortened. I would encourage any interested editor to try their best to shorten the article as a whole. -- Horkana (talk

) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Put in substantial effort to shorten the intro but it was reverted. I was told to seek consensus here but the person who made the revert didn't make a single comment here. See below for my edit which only moderately slims down the intro. With this much resistance and hostility to a small change it looks like a huge task to bring the article within 90k. -- Horkana (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

House, also known as House, M.D., is an American television medical drama. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH).

House has similarities to the detective

Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), and Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn

). Along with Foreman, the other members of the original team still appear in the series.

House is critically acclaimed and the show has received

Peabody Award, two Golden Globe Awards, and three Primetime Emmy Awards

.

House debuted on the FOX network on November 16, 2004. In May 2009, House ended its fifth season; it has been renewed for a sixth, due to start airing sometime in September 2009.

Please note carefully that a paragraph is not just layout but a logical grouping. The airdates and renewal form a logical grouping and in good writing style should be in a separate paragraph however editors are avoiding putting it in a seperate paragraph because they don't want to hit the recommended four paragraph limit for the lead section. -- Horkana (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the information in this section is interesting I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm these sentences:

With the second season, this was replaced with a similar track by only Ehrlich and Roberts. This theme tune, however, is only used in the televised broadcast. In the DVD release (Season 2), the original (American) theme is used. In Italy, opening themes for season 1–2 and season 3 are switched, so that the original "Teardrop" is used for season 3, while both seasons 1 and 2 use the edited version.

I anybody can confirm this with reliable sources feel free to add them and replace the sentences back into the article. --Music26/11 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dr. Hadley" was mentioned again in the third episode of the new season without any preconditions like "you don't even know her name". It seems this is definitely her last name and the latest episode is enough of a source to prove that. FOX.com has been at "Remy" since the fifth season started as far as I have noticed. I was in favor of keeping it at just "Thirteen" until more confirmation on the show happenened, but I think the third episode was more confirmation. I think it should either be "Thirteen"/Dr. Hadley or "Thirteen"/Remy Hadley. Her last name is definitely confirmed now and the FOX website doesn't seem like it's playing any more games with her first name. Plus, even if the FOX website is still playing games, citing them for Remy is still the best kind of verifiable source. So does anyone disagree? LonelyMarble (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should at least do "Thirteen"/Dr. Hadley (or Dr. "Thirteen" Hadley). I'm also fairly confident that her name really is Remy Hadley. If we do that (and move

talk

) 04:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the leading

reliable sources. If the information can satisfy that criteria, it should be included. --Evb-wiki (talk

) 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, FOX.com obviously just had a poor website team or whatever managing the videos and the site itself when it came to getting Thirteen's name right. They haven't changed it from "Remy" in quite some time and it matches up to the shot of the ballet paper in that Season 4 episode. If we were to change it right now though, I would keep her article at Thirteen (House) for the time being, and move it only if she starts being called Remy Hadley or Dr. Hadley or whatever by all of the main characters in every episode (in other words, pretty much erase all usage of "Thirteen"). The character list in the main article should have it written as "Dr. Remy Hadley/"Thirteen". Just cite this page as a source for Thirteen's first name. As long as there's a source, then it should be fine. Swanny92 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Or this more direct link. I'm not seeing why that wouldn't meet

WP:V. Even if the show website isn't an independent source, it's not being consulted for matters of opinion, but for basic facts like a character name. Make it Remy Hadley, cite the FOX website, and let's have done with it. Jclemens (talk

) 05:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Already did exactly that, so seems like everyone is in agreement. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be cool if there was subsection / secondary-page listing and summarizing the main medical conditions/disorders the show mentions. This could include an analysis of the accuracy of their representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzkelley (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean like List of House episodes? Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This comment brings up a good idea though. A section about the medical accuracy of the show could be a nice addition I think. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is always suggested that a patient has sarcoidosis, but they never do. Anyway, if this list is made, sarcoidosis goes on the top. Belasted (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

it be cool to mention the Lupus recurring joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.0.61 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

wasn't there an episode where it actually did turn out it was Lupus (hidden by other factors)? I think it is better to mention these kinds of things within the episode listings, add substance to the articles. It is better to have generic lists like People/Characters/Episodes/Books rather than having lists specific to just the one tv series, keeps things more consistent at a higher level across wikipedia (arguably more "encylopedic") and it means deletionists cannot isolate the list as fancrufty and have excuses to delete it. -- Horkana (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be moved to "House M.D." While it is often colloquially referred to as "House," even in network commercials, IMDB has it clearly listed as "House M.D." and as far as I know its main title screen still includes the "M.D.," however small it may be. Prezuiwf (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but this has already been discussed for a few minutes in the past (see archives). -

Talk

11:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at it, really don't see any reason not to move it to "House M.D." At WORST, the show used to be called "House M.D." and then changed names, making its original name House M.D. At best, the show is still called "House M.D." (it's obvious that FOX refers to it colloquially as "House" to make it easier to remember) and the title should be changed either way. I wish an administrator would finalize this and move the article to its correct home. Prezuiwf (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMDb has absolutely no official merit whatsoever, Wikipedia doesn't even accept IMDb as a source in most cases. The M.D. in the title is simply for art purposes. Look at this official site: [1]. It's clearly always been called House, the burden is on you to prove that the "official" name is not House, because all evidence points that it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if the "official" name would be House MD Wikipedia suggests to use the most easily recognised name per

Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which in my opinion is House (without MD). Arnoutf (talk

) 13:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the official title, in the US, is House and has been so from the beginning.4.159.11.190 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd be wrong, random IP address. Look at the title screen and the DVD covers. They still all say "House, MD". dposse (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox says and writes the name of the show as House every time. The M.D. is probably just part of the art, part of a doctor's door, the House part is the only part that is trademarked, if the trademark is House and Fox calls it House every time, where's the evidence the M.D. is part of the title? LonelyMarble (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoints. It's got nothing to do with Americans being lazy, right? -

Talk

09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good insight, Americans' laziness is really getting out of control, they don't even want to say or write the full title of their TV shows anymore. lol ttyl. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. -

Talk

02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really wanna get technical, the show is actually known as Dr. House in European areas. But yes, the official title here in the US is indeed House, M.D. However, House is more recognized and I don't think we really need a title change (though I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article House, M.D.) Though I think someone should stick "Dr. House" in the "also known as" section on the right and put a quip on the main article about how the series is known as Dr. House outside of the States. GaeMFreeK (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is there any evidence of an "official" title? The show is written on the DVDs and title screens with the little M.D., that's true. However, only the House part is trademarked, the show is referred to simply as House on the official site, and on TV it's always referred to as simply House. You could have an argument either way but I don't know of any evidence that shows what the "official" title is. House writers like to screw with names as evidenced by the "Thirteen" thing, they are probably having a good laugh that we are arguing over this. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the M.D. goes beyond artwork. The box around the "H" in "House" and the line are artwork. The title cards are artwork. M.D. means something (Medical Doctor), it's part of a doctor's title (his full title is "Dr. Gregory House, M.D."); ergo, it's part of the title. It's text. Ergo, it reads: "House, M.D.". The fact that it's colloquially referred to as simply "House" says only that it's easier to say "House" than "House, M.D.". An unbiased encyclopedia should not shorten the title simply because it's convenient to say. It should report the title as given on the show's title card, which is collaborated by the DVD packaging. It's a TV show and its title card clearly identifies it as "House, M.D." and it's sold as DVD boxed sets, clearly under the name "House, M.D." Shortening it is never anything but convenience in any context. NathanJ1979 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source,(response to IMBD not being reliable and accepted as a Wiki source. 'House' was originally scripted with the title 'Medical Investigations' It was later changed to 'House, M.D.' which is the official title, it never aired as 'Medical Investigations'. Most people just call it 'House' but, honestly, if you're looking it up and you get it wrong they offer other pages to check out. And anyone whose going to look at the Wikipage anyway is usually a fan and it shouldn't make a difference what the heck you can the wikipage."VicodinVodka - www.houseisright.com and www.fox.com/house-" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.154.93 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The last two comments by NathanJ1979 and 24.209.154.93 are simply conjecture and their opinions. It is simply your opinion that the M.D. is part of the title and not just part of the artwork like the square around the H, it could just as easily just be artwork. You give no proof otherwise. To the anon. IP: 1. please stop spamming websites at the end of your posts, it's rude, and 2. please show me on the official website where it explains that "House, M.D." is the official title. Here is exactly what it says at the bottom of the official website: HOUSE, ™ © NBC Universal, Inc. All Rights Reserved. There is no M.D. in the trademark or copyright statement. If the M.D. is really part of the official title it would probably be in those statements. I don't care what the official title is, I simply want accurate information, and no one has yet to provide any reliable sources or evidence of what the "official" title is, they are simply giving their own opinions which are just conjectures. Therefore we should simply go with 1. what the most common title is and 2. the trademark and copyright statement on the website is also good evidence I think, so these both point to simply calling it House, which is what we have been doing for a long time now. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if completely renewed the page, adding much more sources and putting the sections in a different setting. I've removed various unverfied claims, but may have overlooked other stuff, please, if I did something wrong, tell me. Note: the stuff about the main title licensing issues, I couldn't find a reliable source for that, so I've deleted it. Have a nice day everybody. --Music26/11 22:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The pilot episode, and maybe a few others, I'm not sure, had a different theme song than Teardrop, with the caption saying '(new age music)' and nothing else, and those captions also appeared on some later episodes with Teardrop as the theme song, until the captions said Teardrop. Could this be referenced in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.28.242 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the same song, but it was changed in Season 2. The pilot and Season 1 had a calmer theme, but it was still credited to Massive Attack. The song, Teardrop, has lyrics; the theme is a mashup of the beginning and end. Perhaps the new theme is simply mixed differently, or remixed. The theme was most certainly changed however, and the new theme started with the first episode of Season 2. NathanJ1979 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "The show won the People´s Choice Award for Favorite Show-Drama in 2009." from the Spinoff section because I believe it refers to House, not the spinoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.179.2 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

House is on global, not fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.46.3 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in its country of origin it isn't. House airs on FOX in the U.S. kingdom2 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, kingdom2. Global is one of the many affiliates which run reruns, such as USA, also in America. It's like WWE content which airs on Sky Sports in the UK. Sky Sports doesn't own it, they merely lease it, as does Global with House. NathanJ1979 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems entirely valid that a re-release of one of the show's DVD, in which the original aspect ratio will be restored, is just as relevant as the other DVDs that have been released. It isn't an ordinary occurence for a TV show on DVD, and is relevant to the show's life on DVD which is documented here already.

On the issue of international markets, they are relevant. One user's opinion was that they were not, perhaps because he doesn't buy international DVDs meaning they're not relevant in his world. The fact the studio behind the show and behind the DVDs thinks it right to correct the mistaken aspect ratio, which was, I should add, even worse on international copies where the show wasn't even presented in widescreen (perhaps the studio takes the same line as the content chopper who thinks foreigners don't matter), should add credibility to the argument that it does matter.

Here was I thinking an article on House and its DVDs would be well served by the fact that a DVD is being reproduced, an almost unheard of occurence for a current show. 90.206.72.9 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In medias res isn't exactly an accurate description of House in my opinion. Some quintessential examples of in medias res include the Aeneid and the Odyssey. These stories quite literally begin in the middle, chronologically speaking, and then go back to explain what happened earlier afterwards. (In the case of the Aeneid, for example, Aeneas arrives in Carthage and then tells the story of his travels to Dido in a lengthy flashback). House doesn't have this in it: it dives right into the action (fitting the description of a cold open), yes, before rolling the initial credits, but the action that is shown at the beginning occurs (chronologically speaking) before everything else on the show. If, for example, the show started with a huge climax as the patient is about to die, and then went back and explained everything, that would be in medias res. This...isn't.

So can we remove that description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.36.140 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Should details of his demise really be in the main text? Surely just saying he appeared season 4-5 is better as it avoids spoiling the plot. The level of specific detail also doesn't fit the rest of the article. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER is not a good reason to remove the info: people who come to Wikipedia are treated to encyclopedic topics, not spoiler-free fansites. However, I agree that the clause discussing his suicide gives undue weight to one recent event and does not belong in the lead for the entire TV show. Jclemens (talk

) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is another kind of fan site which specifically focuses on spoilers. For example those who spoiled the new Harry Potter books as soon as the books came out (or before, in the case of a leak). While associating Wikipedia with a fansite is indeed undesirable, I believe that being an anti-fansite or spoiler zone is less desirable. While it is true that an encyclopedia should be unbiased, posting clear spoilers is itself a bias. It's quite literally biased against those who did not see the episode when it originally aired. (Why they are here, then, is beside the point.) However, to build upon your alternate viewpoint by which you came to agree with the person above you, it could be said that the final diagnosis is not the most important part of the episode, particularly to viewers who do not practice medicine when the diagnosis is something obscure and bizarre. A diagnosis of cancer or leprosy would be a spoiler, but if it's a condition you don't know, knowing the final diagnosis would not affect the quality of the first viewing. NathanJ1979 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

-how many people really care? if you come on a wikipedia page, your just looking for spoilers. If you're gonna do it be prepared, it's bound to happen - vicodinvodka - www.houseisright.com and www.fox.com/house and www.fox.com/kutner (for obituary page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.154.93 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about you guys, but when I come to wikipedia, I only come to get further clarification on something I already watched, as in a scene I might not have understood. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any policy against Spoilers, true. It is reasonable to want to include all relevant plot points and give a full summary of a work, fair. However the lack of a Spoiler policy is not an endorsement for '*griefers*' to give away important plot lines, bad. Keeping it chronological helps a lot, the best written articles allow you to read a little and a little more to know a good bit about the article without spoiling the endings or major twists until much later in the article. Details about Kutner should be included but not in the summaries or introductions but in the plot summary roughly the same was when it is revealed in the storyline. -- Horkana (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that the section on the show's distribution outside the US has been removed with an edit summary of "removed DVD and International broadcast info per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#DVD Releases". This guideline does not disallow inclusion of DVD or international broadcast information. It's quite common in Television articles and encourages a worldwide view of the subject. This section has been restored under the more standard name of "Distribution". I'd like to hear more opinions on it's inclusion.--RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a section is not manditory as the guideline states. Look, I have been working on the article for FAc for a long time now, and the DVD and International broadcasting is something I stumbled on. I simply found it too hard to write about the issues. I have no problem with them being in the article but now the section consists of only two tables and a really small amount of text, I think we should either remove the full section or change the tables to text (as in the Lost FA for example). Another thing we could do is keep the section away from the article and bring the question up at FAc.--Music26/11 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RadioFan is right, it's not there, but just because the MOS doesn't list it doesn't mean that it cannot be in an article. The MOS cannot cover every possible section that is included in a page. The MOS is for the basic structure of an article. Some articles have more detailed sections, and some do not. The MOS doesn't say "cover myths and theories related to Lost", but I would argue that's an intrisicate part of that television series, and if reliably source by third-party sources it should be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Channel or Network details are valuable information for people who haven't seen the show before, or who are unaware that the channel has changed as in the case of UK moving from Five to Sky1, or who want to download it or who for any other reason want to find out where to view it. Also I don't understand this desire for only including information in the form of text - there's nothing wrong with tables. Wikipedia is not a piece of literature - it is a source of information. Tables are in many ways easier to grasp than reams of text. Personally I think the way that the Lost article presents the information on DVDs is utterly absurd. I read Wikipedia to obtain information, not to wade through somebody's idea of beautiful text. Hoav (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. If more than two users disagree with me, I guess I'm outnumbered. Do you think the DVD releases should be moved to the Merchandise section, or is the way it look now okay with you?--Music26/11 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think DVDs are really just another distribution channel for viewing the show, so should stay in the same section. Hoav (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, DVDs work well as a subsection to distribution.--RadioFan (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the distribution lists are not notable enough for an encyclopedia, admittedly I have found it useful myself but as a show ages and goes into reruns it becomes increasingly irrelevant. Perhaps most this information, especially the DVD information would be better included with the List of House episodes? -- Horkana (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other countries

How about a collapsible table to include other countries in the channel list ? Hoav (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Music26/11 disagrees with my addition of a comparison of Gregory House's investigatory methods with Sherlock Holmes, and removed it, first on the grounds of being "redundant" (though there were no other references already in the article); and now allegedly on the grounds that there is no third-party source of House's methods. On the contrary, there are scores: like the other Holmes similarities noted already in the section, in the episodes themselves! - as carefully documented in List of House episodes and the WP summaries. As noted in the intro to that article, "House and his team use differential diagnosis to arrive at initial diagnoses, which are often wrong". If you look at the WP article on differential diagnosis itself it explains that it involves "first making a list of possible diagnoses, then attempting to remove diagnoses from the list until at most one diagnosis remains": Holmes says several times in the stories “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. (In the WP Holmes articles it is suggested Conan Doyle may have got this and much else in Holmes from his anatomy teacher at Edinburgh, one Dr Joseph Bell, I believe - perhaps the true original of House?) Looking at the WP episode summaries of House: almost all of them involve House ingeniously "doing a diff"; this is where much of the programme's and the character's fascination and drama arguably lies; I have restored the edit, and there it should stay unless a case can be made that it is more trivial or less notable a parallel with Holmes as any of the other Holmes similarities cited. We could take out the whole Holmes thing as trivia, but I believe it is a valuable contribution to the understanding of one of current television's most intellectual fictional heroes, and therefore encyclopedic.--Straw Cat (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

For now, I won't remove it because I'm not in for an edit war (especially with FAc now) but I think you misunderstood me. You could be right, I don't know, I have never read a Sherlock Holmes novel in my life, but the references in the section indicate that all the info (except yours) is actually based on Holmes. All you do is simply comparing the two methods, without providing a source that indicates that House's method is based on Holmes'. It will problably be picked out by FA reviewers. Note: next time you add info, please put the ref after punctuation, and cite it correctly.--Music26/11 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the information is correct as David Shore read a lot of Sherlock Holmes apparently so this part of the storyline would be based/similar to Holmes as well, but a third party reference saying this fact would be nice. Another perhaps interesting note about this information is that sometimes his method of eliminating diagnoses through medical tests backfires because sometimes the tests give back incorrect results such as when a tumor is too small to show up or if the disease is cyclical or in some other way hiding and thus doesn't show up on the test, this happens in a few episodes. But the basic information is accurate because House does narrow down the diagnoses and when he only has one left a lot of times he will simply declare that the patient is lying (if they deny traveling to some place or something) since the symptoms and tests have to be correct and there is only one disagnosis left.

By the way, you've done a great job with this article Music2611, and I'll try to give it a read and copyedit/comment on it sometime, I've been pretty busy lately. It looks pretty good right now though. I just read the whole featured article discussion, which was basically mainly about that cast image. Personally I don't really care whether it is in the article or not, I can see both sides of the argument. I think it definitely adds a lot to the article because knowing what the characters look like is basic information, but I understand the side that wants to keep Wikipedia articles completely free if possible, it's supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Maybe a free image of the cast will be available eventually. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you say - and it is well referenced in the article - David Shore was to some extent inspired by Conan Doyle, who was a doctor before he turned to writing full-time, and to anyone who is familiar with both the Holmes stories and House the resemblances are striking.

Not every parallel in the Holmes section, e.g. House's being a musician, is referenced from a third party, but to hopefully satisfy Mr. Music I have added the same reference used elsewhere for noting House's elimination (i.e. differential diagnosis) method.--Straw Cat (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

- it has been mentioned several time that house is parallel with holmes, by the actors, the writers, directors and in "House and Psychology" -vicodinvodka @ www.houseisright.com and www.fox.com/house —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.154.93 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the data about the number of viewers in the table in the relevant section is not the same as in the text above the table. Ran.rutenberg (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read on TVguide.com that House has yet to be renewed for next year (http://www.tvguide.com/News/Fall-TV-Schedule-1005618.aspx) I know that the original date is 2+ weeks ago, but they do seem to be updating it. Does someone have a Reference to back up the renewal statement? WildWildBil (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

just saw it today (5/19) and it has been officially renewed. 76.106.5.202 (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Source? I haven't found anything saying that explicitly...

talk

) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The slure is the one above it says it renewed--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the subsection, Conception, it notes that "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his background as an inexperienced young doctor at a teaching hospital", suggesting Shore studied medicine and was at the very least a junior doctor. I can't find any evidence that this is the case, with the notation [8] being traced to an article that, at the most, states an experience of Shore seeing a doctor 2 weeks after a hip injury of his had subsided but saw the doctor anyway, noticing that the doctor was incredible nice and understanding despite Shore feeling that he was "wasting the doctors time", therefore being an inspiration towards making a character (House) who was entirely translucent in front of his patients. I can only find evidence that Shore was a lawyer, not a doctor? --Devitius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.36.70 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the track for what the end theme of House is, it's not Teardrop. What is it? 72.191.116.59 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead section says the show has won three Emmys. The "Awards and nominations" section lists only one. What's right? DocKino (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added info regarding the directing win of 2008. However the third Emmy the show won was a creative arts Emmy, which is less notable.--Music26/11 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added it in a brief sentence. It's a basic structural rule: If we say three Emmys in the lead, we have to show three Emmys in the main text. DocKino (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no sign at all that the Lucas Douglas spin-off is happening. It should probably be dropped from the lead and the small section devoted to it cut as well--with a sentence or two about the aborted plan added to the "Recurring characters" subsection where Douglas is described. DocKino (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change. See what you think. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's okay with me, I've been looking for more info regarding the spin-off for a while, but couldn't find anything recent. As long as there's no news it can remain merged with the recurring characters section.--Music26/11 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved some material out of this section that didn't really fall into the category of "critical reception." it could and probably should be beefed back up with some more reviews, or excerpts from descriptions in top 10 lists and the like, from later seasons. With just one exception, every opinion currently quoted in the section is from season 1. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I could not care less about the title, but, should the movement of an article not be discussed? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall a policy or guideline where moves would be different that any other change - although there's so many, I could've missed it. As far as I know, it's okay to

be bold and rename an article, provided that renaming fits within existing policy and isn't likely to have issues with guidelines or be otherwise controversial. If it's disputed and/or reverted, then discussion should take place. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At least move it to

House, M.D.. No need for extra disambiguate. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk

. 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -

Talk

10:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be House, M. D. (note the spacing), according to Wikipedia's policy. -

Talk

10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Point is the show is acutally called house m.d. in various locatiosn from dvd rleease to the hsow own page the article page naem reflect what its called not what peopel refer ot it as but i am only making a point here not saying where it should go back or not--Andy Chat c 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be a point in favour of renaming; but I agree that is not the point here. The moving was overly bold in spite of a clear non-consensus to do so on this talk page. It should be reverted.

However, the guiding principle of Wikipedia's article naming conventions is to use

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

).

Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a simple move. The old name was the most recognisable; the new one is arguably the official name. My preference would go for the most recognisable. Arnoutf (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Point is as long as it redirect house tv series to house md tv series then the recongise is there because if someone search for house tv series it will bring that page up adn automatically redirect them to hosue md, i agree with what youa re saying but i also agree with the original point of moving it both have there pro and cons and weight for having it that way. What has ot be establish is what policy should hold more wieght over the other.--Andy Chat c 11:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm willing to concede that "House" is more recognizable than "House M.D.". Certainly you might see House as shorthand more often than "House M.D.". I'll just point out that the entry for The Oprah Winfrey Show says, "The Oprah Winfrey Show (often simply referred to as Oprah)". That seems applicable to the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No there a difference the vast majority of places refer to house md as house and it the most recongise term for people lookign for hosue md. I agree with what youa re saying that it should be house md but i also agree with other about it should be house, as i said the wikipedia policy that should take the most pirioty here needs to be establish to determine whether it should be the right name or by normal name convetion of what people recongise. as i said already a redirect from house ot house md would sort of solve the problem. You also do not seem to have

NPOV to the discussion you only see your own point which althougha vzalid one you have ot see others points to--Andy Chat c

15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue the M.D. is part of the name then the correct article title would either be "House M.D." or House, M.D." The TV series should not be part of the name in that case and that is why I have reverted the move as at least "House (TV series)" is an acceptable title. You also moved a page when there was already a discussion happening on this talk page. In that case it is disrespectful to "be bold" and instead you should join in the discussion first. Please read the section above on this talk page: Talk:House (TV series)#Title of the show. The last comment in that section by me pretty much sums up my opinion on this matter so please read that. And reply to it in this new section I suppose. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And "Oprah" is probably what most people type in when they're looking for The Oprah Winfrey Show (and Oprah actually goes to the biography entry). As for NPOV, the *articles* should be NPOV, not the editors. We, the editors, are obviously going to have different opinions on how things should be. I understand the point others make about this subject. They're just wrong. :) Seems to me that a lack of consensus ought to mean that we use what's on the title card of the show itself, rather than an unverifiable slang version that's arrived at by original research and individual opinion. Nairebis (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No editor have to take a npov as well they have to be objective and lok at everything not jsut wha thtye want, i haev alreasy said you are right as well as other but you have to look at both sides, i am not saying editors should not have opinions and thoughts but take a neutral point of view when it comes to discussing things like this and understnad both sides of the arguement then give a unbiased opinion on it--Andy Chat c 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm the one who brought up "be bold", let me say sorry about that. But, I wanted to point out that even when I brought it up, I mentioned exceptions: "... provided that renaming fits within existing policy and isn't likely to have issues with guidelines or be otherwise controversial". At the time I posted that, I hadn't reviewed the history of this talk page ... had I done so, I would've realized the move was controversial and would have reverted it (or requested that it be reverted) myself.

Now that I think that I'm caught up on the discussion, I wanted to add my opinion. Namely, that the correct name for the article is "House (TV series)".

My reasoning is that it does indeed appear to be the official name for the program, as well as the commonly used name. When looking at the official website, it shows "HOUSE, ™ © NBC Universal, Inc. All Rights Reserved", which establishes an official name - which is also the name that is shown on FOX's own broadcasting schedule chart that can be viewed from the official website. While a different name may be officially recognized in other countries; this title seems appropriate for the country in which the show is produced. Other potential titles should redirect to this one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That pretty sums up my opinion too Barek. Let me talk a little about what I think is pretty much the main reason for wanting to include the M.D. – the title card. Other than the title card, which is present on the DVD covers too, everywhere else that I'm aware of (in the United States at least) the show is simply written and spoken as "House". If there is some place else the M.D. is included please let me know. I'm not sure if the M.D. being present in the title card is proof in itself as it being part of the title because actually, in the opening credits of the show the title card starts as simply the H with the square around it, then it goes to simply being House, and then finally the underline with the comparatively small M.D. appear. I realize that because the M. and D. are letters one would think it automatically makes it part of the "official" title, but isn't assuming that just synthesis and original research too? There is a lot of special effects and artwork going on with the title card, but it makes it pretty apparent that the big and bold House lettering is the main attraction. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The name house md appear on the main page of the house offical website by the broadcaster howevre it also refers to it aws just house so when the broadcaster refer to both versions and various sources refer to both sources it makes it hard to make it right because both are right but most people will refer to it common name jsut house--Andy Chat c 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it does appear on the main page of the official website, but it only appears in the House M.D. title card artwork. If you do a search for "MD" or "M.D." in the text of the website on various pages I didn't find any instances. It only appears in the title card artwork, so the basic arguments remain. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another observation I noticed: if you hold your mouse over the House M.D. logo on the official website, a tooltip box appears that simply says House, which I'm assuming corresponds to the title card for that website (in the top bar of browsers), which also just says House. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Info" tab on the official site also only uses "House" in all text areas. Also, for third party confirmation, the show received two

Golden Globe Award in 66th annual awards, and they also list the show as "House" in their awards announcements. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All of this "original research" is great and all, but they are not official statements or verifiable references. Until you have one of those, IMO the ONLY absolutely, 100% verifiable source we have is the title card of the show itself, as well as the DVD boxes, and that indisputably is "House M.D.". I quote from

WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." That the show uses the shorthand version on their web site (probably for trademark reasons, since they obviously want the shorter version to pass trademark muster) means nothing and is original research. Nairebis (talk

) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the DVD boxes simply contain the title card artwork, so they are one in the same. Secondly, it's simply your opinion that the title card is better evidence than the trademark and copyright statement. Should we include the box around the H in the title also? Should we make the M.D. text much smaller than the House text as it is in the title card? I realize the M and D are letters but I don't think that one fact should trump all the other evidence of what the "official" title is. If FOX thought the M.D. was important at all in their title card artwork they would include it in their trademark and copyright statements. Clearly there is no "official" title. For some reason people have a problem that dropping the M.D. is somehow the lazy and shorthand way. That doesn't make much sense. I don't object to the M.D. out of laziness, I object because FOX treats the M.D. as artwork pretty much, and as such there's not really any reliable evidence from any source that concludes the M.D. is "officially" part of the title.

If FOX came out and said tomorrow that the M.D. is officially part of the title then I would concede to you, but I also wouldn't really think I was wrong in this argument because FOX hasn't shown any desire really, except for the title card artwork, to include the M.D. as part of the title. I think the M.D. was possibly thought of as "officially" part of the title at the very beginning because maybe they thought just "House" would be ambiguous or something, but when FOX saw how fast the show was becoming popular they concluded just having the title as "House" was fine. Even that might not even be true though because this reference, which is in the article in the conception section, says the title was changed to "House" at the beginning: [2]. The reference provided by Barek of the Golden Globes is also certainly verifiable evidence of the show's name: [3]. So even though what I have been saying is mostly my opinion, I just gave you two references which back it up. What you are saying is also just your opinion. Given that we are both just giving our opinions (although I just gave you two references so your original research claim is not true), Wikipedia policy in this case would probably just default to the most common name, which is definitely simply "House" in the United States. I have not heard anyone call the show House M.D. outloud in speech on TV possibly ever, from what I can recall, have you? I wish I could remember what FOX called the show in their first promo commercials for it before it aired. I remember seeing those commercials many years ago but I can't remember if they called the show House M.D. back then. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with LonelyMarble here. It is interpretation of the title card that constitutes original research—one person can look at it and say the title is "obviously" House; another can say that it's "obviously" House, M.D. That obviously gets us nowhere. The fact is we do have multiple "official statements" and "verifiable references" and they virtually all give the title as House: the trademark, official network websites, leading awards organizations, books published by respected publishing houses, and many, many mainstream newspapers. The case has been made for House, M.D. and it has lost by an overwhelming preponderance of the verifiable evidence. Those who made the losing argument in this case might be well served by refamiliarizing themselves with our WP:Verifiability policy.—DCGeist (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "often" gets used a lot in the article, which less than ideal but a matter of style. Unfortunately in two cases it gets used twice in the one sentence which could be better. Rather than take continued grief over my changes by people apparently unwilling to do more than revert and criticise I note the issue here for others to try and fix. The duplication occurs in the introduction and again in the body of the article where that sentence is repeated.

Dr. House often clashes with his boss, hospital administrator and Dean of Medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), and his diagnostic team, because his theories about a patient's illness are often based on subtle or controversial insights.

This assumption guides House's decisions and diagnoses and^[1] because his theories about a patient's illness are often based on an epiphany or controversial insights, he often has trouble obtaining permission from his superior, hospital administrator Dr. Lisa Cuddy, to perform medical procedures he considers necessary.

Often reading aloud can make you more aware of the quality of the writing. -- Horkana (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know a source that is realible which give the ratings for the seaosn for 18-49 ranger? just need it to update the articlea bit, i have got seaosn 1 and 2 jsut need 3-5--Andy Chat c 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently it redirects to the entry House. However, if you search for it on Google, Yahoo, or Ask, the results are so mixed in regards to the Wikipedia entry on what gets first precedence. Fox's site for House (the TV show), on the other hand, receives the top result on all three. It does not seem like there is enough weight to give any entry on the "house" disambiguation page the default article.Ukvilly (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know what the budget is for this show? I'm just curious to find out how much money they pull this off with.67.189.162.43 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask DocKino to please stop changing this. There's plenty of evidence that he's a geneticist. Unitanode 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence. A lot of substandard sources assert that he is. But there is not so much as a hint in any of the episodes in which the character appears that he is a geneticist. Nor is there any official Fox communication--press release, online bio--that says he is a geneticist. Nor has a single newspaper critic, so far as I can find, described him as a geneticist. Do not restore this "information" again until and unless you find a source to support it that meets our Wikipedia: Verifiability standards.DocKino (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why so unfriendly? You've been making massive changes to this article, I change one, point out that there are sources supporting the assertion, and -- in lieu of actually engaging in discussion -- you decide to give me orders, and just revert again. Unitanode 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I was discussing. But it doesn't appear there's much to discuss. My "massive changes" are based on proper sourcing. Your "one change" is not. I'd be more than happy to see Cole's occupation identified in the article. I searched very long and hard for proper sourcing for it, and discovered none. Why don't you take a crack at it? DocKino (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Proper sourcing", in this case, isn't limited to newspaper/magazine reviews and the like. Blogs and such may be used for minor points such as this. Recognizing this, I've readded the material with just such a reference. There are many such references scattered around the net. Unitanode 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see you have put the pseudo-information back in with the bizarre edit summary: "readded with ref. blogs are acceptable for minor points like this, per

WP:RS." That's a ludicrous assertion. There is nothing at all in the guideline to support it. The number of "references scattered around the net" is irrelevant. There's a lot of entirely baseless pseudo-information scattered widely around the net. That's why our policy demands proper sourcing. What you've provided isn't even close. I'm not going to revert as I'm flirting with 3RR here, so I'll have to rely on one of the other responsible editors of this article to do so. DocKino (talk

) 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Doc is obviously right on every point. Unitanode, if you want to resolve this, here's a page that will link you to transcripts of every episode Jeffrey Cole appears in: [4]. He appears in Season 4, episodes 2 through 8. Go through the transcripts, find (if you can) where it indicates he's a geneticist, and we can cite the episode itself.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have done as much research as I care to do on this point. If there's consensus to remove it, I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps it is an "urban legend" as Dockino referred to it. I certainly am not going to read through seven transcripts to look for it. I just don't have that kind of time. Unitanode 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I've already read through those seven transcripts yesterday and found no hint whatsoever he was a geneticist. First I did a simple search of "genetic" in all the transcripts and found nothing. Next I looked closer at the conversations and found no evidence. I did not look as closely for the last couple episodes he is in but I did searches for keywords in all 7 episodes and found nothing. I have the season 4 DVD and as I have not watched season 4 in a long time I plan on rewatching the whole season sometime soon. Once I watch all these episodes again I will confirm here whether it is mentioned or not. But I have already looked through transcripts that have been posted online as well as done google searches and have found no evidence it is ever mentioned that he is a geneticist. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work—I was going to tell Unitanode that the research doesn't require reading every single word of each transcript... In fact, if I recall correctly, there's some evidence that Cole is a surgeon. Don't he and Chase collaborate on a surgery at some point?—DCGeist (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that too, although anyone can help out in a surgery but not necessarily have a specialty in that. His specialty/occuption does not really matter much for the show anyway. The main thing that mattered was that he was a Mormon and House mocked him for this. That kind of detail isn't really necessary for this main article though. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

When looking through the transcripts I saw two possibilities as to why this "urban legend" might have started. First is that the patient in episode 3 has a genetic disease. Second is Thirteen's Huntington's which is a genetic disease. Why this got transferred to Cole I don't know. Other possibility is the producers simply mentioned somewhere not in the show, maybe in the season 4 DVD extras. I'll eventually watch the extras we'll see if it's mentioned. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have placed a note at Doc Kino's talkpage apologizing for my part in this kerfuffle. I was clearly wrong here. Unitanode 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I solved this mystery, and Unitanode is partly to thank. After looking at the blog reference he gave [5] I remembered that after the three new characters were added they had a list of the 9 main cast members on the official FOX webpage listing their names and specialities. I remember exactly that Kutner's specialty listed on the website was "Rehabilitative & Sports Medicine" (as seen in that blog). Now I don't really remember seeing the fired contestents on the webpage but I don't think I actually looked at the website at all during the time the contest was first airing. So I'm pretty sure the official website had the info of name and specialty for all the remaining applicants listed on that blog. Therefore the source for Cole's specialty of "Genetics" actually does come from an official source.

Unfortunately I tried to use the Internet Archive to achieve a snapshot of the page at this time (October 2007), but the FOX page denies access to most of the content, and the content was presented within flash effects so I'm not sure if it can be accessed. If anyone knows how to get an archived screenshot of the FOX House page in October 2007 that may be the only possible reliable source for this information. At least in this case it seems this "urban legend" started because of correct information, just really obscure information that is not even available anymore.

And finally, I give you the edit to this Wikipedia article that first put in the information on October 7, 2009: [6]. Thankfully, me not being able to sleep led me to check the "references" Unitanode gave for some reason and this mystery is solved. Maybe I can sleep now. LonelyMarble (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this edit was just stylistic changes, mostly having to do with references. It looks like most the changes were good ones. There are two problems. Firstly, he moved all the reference citations that essentially had two references in one, each into their own citation. This increased the references seen from 213 to 231. This was the way it was because of the FAC discussion. I personally don't really care which way it is, I think it's a little weird to have two references in one, however it does make the article text a bit messy to read. The alternate also would be to just delete the extra references that aren't needed, and I much rather keep the references and have them in the same citation, which was the way it was. The other problem is he removed all the underscores from the episode citations for the links to the Wikipedia articles, which broke all the links. So basically I didn't want to just revert his edit because it looks like he spent a fair amount of time on it and it had some useful changes. But it also has these two problems which will have to be dealt with. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can the edit not be reverted, and then the good portions selectively restored, using the diff function? Unitanode 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That can obviously be done. The good portions look to me to just be stylistic changes to the references that don't really have any effect on the article so, I guess the best thing to do would be to just revert the edit. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I reverted the changes. I'll leave a message on Bovineboy's talk page. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

      Sounds good. It's always a shame when good-faith edits have to be undone, but your points above were well-made, and the article is better, which is all that really matters. You've done some really great work on this article, LM, especially on the research side of things. Unitanode 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information everyone. I didn't mean for the links to break and I too thought the two refs in one was a bit awkward and maybe even excessive. I'll keep these in mind for future edits! BOVINEBOY2008 18:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that this article is featured, it would be cool to get it on the Main Page at some point. My thought was a good day to propose for that would be for the season 6 premiere. Fox's website currently says that's scheduled for Monday, September 21, [7]. Almost three months away, but the timing would be good. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good day for it. I'd like to extend a thanks to everyone who got this article to featured, also, it's a great read :). RichsLaw (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"with a damaged leg arising from an incorrect diagnosis and an addiction to painkillers" ... Literally means that both the diagnosis and the addiction caused his leg damage, which is doubtful. First time I've seen the show, so:

If the addiction was caused by chronic pain from the leg condition, "... with a damaged leg arising from an incorrect diagnosis, and a resultant addiction to painkillers"

If unrelated, one way to clarify: "... with an addiction to painkillers and a damaged leg arising from an incorrect diagnosis."

Or: "... a cynical medical genius who suffers from both a damaged leg arising from an incorrect diagnosis and from an addiction to painkillers." Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. However, I believe that it was due to a previous addiction to narcotics (which was explored in the second to last episode of season 1) that his leg was not diagnosed correctly. i.e. he came in screaming for meds and the clinic took this as drug dependency and did not pursue it further. I'd have to rewatch the episode to be sure. - Stryyder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.52 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed Laurie being mentioned as an executive producer because the reference for the statement did not back it up: [8]. It just says "producing credit" and there are a lot of producers and co-producers, but not necessarily executive producers. The info page on the official website does not list Laurie: [9] (last paragraph). Finally, I happen to have the season 5 finale still saved on my TV's DVR, so I went and watched the opening credits that happen after the theme song. Along with the other credits for that specific episode, all 7 of the executive producers are credited as executive producers as well. Laurie is not credited at all. Laurie being an executive producer would make sense, but I can't find any sources to back it up and he's not credited as one in the actual show as the other 7 are at the beginning of every episode. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the intro to 503 for example. Hugh Laurie has been an executive producer on a number of episodes. I am going to re-add him to the list. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This was resolved, he was executive producer for 5x02 and 5x03, only those two episodes. This is mentioned in the production team section. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Merchandise" mentions t-shirts for charity, however the link given is likely not the site where these are sold. Housecharitytees dot com appears to be a collection of advertising links. T-shirts for charity connected to House MD have been available here: [10], though I am not sure they still are.Neufer (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This entire section sounds like a big advertisement. Do we really need to know how much it costs to watch an episode online? No other episodes have this type of entry. Rozzychan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

there should be a spoiler warning. There isnt one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.197.71 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 59.44.39.17 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia rarely, if ever, uses spoiler alerts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS

.

Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules prevent me from adding a spoiler warning but it isn't a free license for griefers and trolls either. We can still be subtle about the details of Kutner or any other cast member leaving the show. I've tried before to minimize the impact of the summaries in the episode list but there are others who are determined to give away the whole episode making it difficult. Keeping it chronological helps, makes it easier for readers to read a little bit about a character or episode and only go as far as they have seen on the series. If there is a particular bit of text that bothered you please try to indicate it and we can see if there is a way to rephrase it so that maybe readers have a better chance of not stumbling on the spoiler accidentally. -- Horkana (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else recognize this chin? -- Steved424 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly should be included in the starring list in the infobox? I really think it should be the actors listed under the main characters section

If you only include the current cast there is absolutely no margin of original research. I don't know what the precedent is for this. This must have been discussed for other television shows in the past, anyone know what was agreed upon before? Let's say the show ends after season 6. A logical thing to do then would be to only list the original 6 cast members in the infobox as they have been in every episode, far more than anyone else, and they are the only 6 cast members in the opening sequence. Right now the current cast seems to make the most neutral sense to me. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am worried that it isn't neutral. Right now, it is saying the "current" list of starring characters is more important that previous stars. Also, current is something that should be steered away from with works of fiction. It gives more precedence to a season in production currently to seasons of past. I'll scour through talk pages, though, to see if I can find any precedence. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The most neutral thing then would be to only list the 6 cast members that are actually credited as stars in the opening sequence. However, including the other two current stars does not seem to hurt at all and is useful to most readers. Including Penn along with the two current "also stars" is not as useful. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Found some former discussions:

A question is, should Dudek be included if Penn is, she had more starring time than other recurring characters. Neutral might be the wrong word, but at least a current cast list is not arbitrary. Including Penn but not Dudek could be argued as arbitrary. Extended beyond that, including Dudek but not other recurring stars could be argued as arbitrary as well. There should be some clear reason for inclusion in the list and current cast is a clear reason. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait...did you just ignore everything I wrote. There is a clear consensus not to list current casts in infoboxes. Maybe it would be easier to link to the casting section. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Those discussions were very short and not too helpful considering every TV show is unique. It happens to be for this show that the current cast is also the 8 people that have been in the most episodes. If there was a character that was in more episodes than the current cast it would make sense to include that character as well, but that is not the case for this show. Having one link saying "see below" also completely destroys the use of an infobox, so maybe that would be helpful to a rare exception, but that does not need to happen here. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Yes those discussions were very short, meaning not many people have challenged them. And that suggestion of the see below link comes from the

manual of style for infoboxes in television series. I don't know why you think this series is such a big exception. If anything, Jacobson and Wilde should be removed, Dudek readded, or linking further. Those are the only viable options that I see. BOVINEBOY2008 :)

23:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jacobson and Wilde removed or Dudek added too since she has been a star for over a season. Linking further I don't like. Listing the 6 stars that are in the opening sequence is the most neutral, but listing the 4 other stars from the last two seasons I wouldn't have a big problem with. If someone looks back on this show 10 years from now, the 6 stars will always be important, it's impossible to say how important the new stars are going to be, that's why this discussion has happened. This show is an exception because the current cast is also the cast that has been in the most episodes. This is not the case for a lot of shows, thus a current cast for one show may be inappropriate, but for this show it does make sense. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the starring box for Star Trek: The Original Series. It lists only the three names from the opening titles (William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley) and leaves out those who are not listed in the opening (James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig), no matter how big a role they have. What's wrong with doing that? That being said, I prefer either the cast in the opening credits or the current cast, and older characters can be listed in the article. BAPACop (converse) 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There was a big debacle over

Sabine Schmidt or even Top Gear Dog should be listed. In the end, it just went back to what the credits said - the main three, plus The Stig. In these things i think you should go by the credits, anything else is opinion. -mattbuck (Talk

) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The first 6 cast members listed is the order of the opening credits. After that there are countless "also starring" members. It just so happens that the current cast with the additional two "also starring" members also have been in the most episodes as any other recurring member. Thus a current cast list for this show is also a cast list of characters that have been in the most episodes. That is why a current list makes sense here, because if you want to include other stars other than the first 6, it is somewhat arbitrary. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So if "articles should reflect the entire history of a series," does that mean we should add the other four names to the TOS box? Seems to me that whoever the producers of the show consider as "starring" are the ones we should list. Technically, it's POV to consider anyone as starring who is not listed in the show (a very reliable source) as starring, because the show reflects the creator's position. And if they're not in the credits, the producers obviously don't consider them to be starring. The infobox should reflect that, and then the entire cast (past and present) can be listed in the article itself. BAPACop (converse) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, if I watch a repeat of an episode and Actor Y is in the credits then he's starring. Just because he isn't "currently" starring doesn't mean he never starred on the show. Again, if the show ends how can you make claims of "current"? You cannot. It's about historical accuracy, that has been a staple of Wikipedia since it began. To answer your question, yes, all of the starring cast members should be listed in the box of Star Trek. It's misleading to suggest that those other actors were not stars of the show. You are giving preference to the most recent people, which goes against

undue weight to timeline of the actor on the show. Wikipedia should remain neutral in all aspects. Given that we write fiction in the present tense, because when you watch it it's always "happening in the now", instead of in the past, the same would be true for actors. They will always be in a "starring" role for a series, they just might be in the a starring role during season x, or season y. And given that our guideline actually says that we should represent the historical accuracy of a show, it would suggest that they should all be listed. That, or do the "see below" option that is also listed on the guideline given the number of actors that have starred on the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Every single episode has a guest star. This show has had the same opening sequence every season, therefore those 6 members should be the only members listed in the infobox. The last two seasons these 6 members have not actually starred, but I guess this doesn't matter. There really is nothing else to discuss, listing the 6 cast members in the opening credits is the only way to go. It would be funny if the show finally changed their opening sequence. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't every episode also say, "Also starring..."? I could swear that even though those three (two now, since Kal Penn left) are not in the pretitle sequence, they do receive "starring" credit right after the sequence is over. And since they separate "Starring" and "Guest Starring", I would say that that is sufficient evidence to suggest that they deserve to be given the "starring" credit in the infobox just the same. Regardless, given the "complexity" of the crediting situation, it may be even more of a reason to "See below" on this page. This way, you can remove any form of interpretation of "starring".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It only makes sense to make a link so readers can read about the casting rather than making a opinionated judgment call on who is "starring". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that as long as the list doesn't get ridiculous, a historical list is fine. However, if you list every person listed as starring, the list will be longer than the actual article (because of the guest stars). So where do we draw the line? Which starring people are more important? BAPACop (converse) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Starring" and "Guest Starring". A "Guest star" is someone who appears once, or maybe a couple of times (possibly recurring). A "Starring" role is someone who receives a contract that spans years. You'll note that Olivia Wilde is listed as a "Star" and not a "Guest Star". The fact that she isn't in the pretitle sequence is irrelevant to her status on the show. The Shield doesn't have a pretitle sequence, just the image of a broken shield. If I am interpreting your theory correctly, we wouldn't list anyone in the box, because no one appears in the pretitle sequence. Everyone is listed after the fact. Just go with "See below", it's a safer bet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Chi McBride, Sela Ward, David Morse, and Anne Dudek are all listed as guest stars (Sela Ward is listed as a "special guest star" but I don't think this makes a difference). Peter Jacobson, Kal Penn, and Olivia Wilde are all listed as "also starring", which is a difference. Kal Penn is sort of the odd one out since he is the only one not on the current cast, but at least the "also starring" as opposed to "guest starring" is a good reason and is not an arbitrary line. I would be fine with either keeping the current cast or adding Penn back in as well. Adding one link to the casting section I don't like as it defeats the purpose of the infobox; surely we can agree on a list of names instead, there are not that many. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to add Penn back, but since there has been such a fuss here about the term "starring", it would make more sense to link below. It doesn't defeat the purpose of the infobox and is, in fact, suggested by the MoS which I have already explained. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the infobox is to get quick information. If you just include a link for below you are turning the infobox into a table of contents, and there is already one of those in the article. And if the reader for this particular article is linked to the casting section there is not a clear list of actors like you currently get in the infobox. The Smallville infobox is also not that good of an example, in it 11 executive producers are listed but no cast members, which does not seem ideal. The MOS says you "might" want to do it if the list is too long, 9 actors (including Penn) doesn't seem that long. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The executive producers are listed because there isn't a section listing them all like there is for the cast. If there was, there would probably be a link there as well. Unfortunately, there isn't so we have to list them all. But notice that Slavkin and Swimmer will continue to be listed as Executive producers even though they left the show this year to go work on Melrose Place. Cause the fact remains that they were still EPs when they were on the show. If you want to keep the cast in the House box, that's fine. But legitimately, Olivia, Kal, and Peter should be listed as well because they are identified as "Starring" in the opening credits of the show (just not the title card sequence).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, everyone here seems to agree Penn should be listed so I added him back in the article. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up a lengthy subject but I'd actually disagree with that. The basic fact that Penn's character is no long on the show, says to me that he is not "starring" in the show. Honestly it's a difference of history vs. recent, but what about "recent until history"? In other words, it makes more sense to me to keep the current cast updated, so long as the show is still in sydication, and when the fateful day comes when it ends, then turn it to "history" and add all the "starring" characters of the past. The other option is to add a date to the names. Basically put the character's name and in parenthesis the year(s) on the show(a la M*A*S*H_(TV_series). Just a suggestion. StryyderG (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Recent until history" makes sense to me, but more people seemed to want to keep Penn there now, as I guess that goes along with guidelines the most. I don't have a problem adding years or seasons except that it clutters the infobox up a lot, so I don't like the way it comes out and it isn't that necessary anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody.

I do not yet have an account on Wikipedia, but I hope this little opinion of my own can count in the discussion:

The logo that is currently in use in the article is slightly different from the official one. In the title screen and on the offfcial website and all the "House" products for sale, the font used in the logo is "Futura" (which can be told from the "S", which is significantly different from Century Gothic's S). If possible, I have made a logo with a closer resemblance to the official one, and would like to propose the idea to use it for the article. I do not yet know how to upload this picture onto Wikimedia Commons without having an account, so I hope that I may get help from some of you, if the idea is fine.

Thank you. 59.44.39.17 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion, wouldn't Lori Petty (aka Janice, the patient in Foreman's Huntington's trial) qualify under recurring characters? Granted she only has speaking lines in 2 or 3 eps but she appears in a good half dozen or more, is a semi-known actress and has a pretty centralized role in the Drug trial and its effects on 13.StryyderG (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Information about her is better fit into

List of House characters in order to make the recurring characters section in this article not overly detailed. Adding information about her character is probably too detailed for this article. If you mean adding her name to the infobox, if you read the above discussion it was decided to only include Jacobson, Penn, and Wilde as stars other than the main 6 in the title sequence because those three are and were billed as "also starring", rather than "guest starring", which all other recurring characters have been billed as. LonelyMarble (talk

) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Query: What is the status of the name "House M.D." versus just "House"? Which is the official name or are there two? Are different names used in different markets? The article doesn't explain, so far as I can see. Iota (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two discussions from the most recent talk page archive about this topic: [11], [12]. There is not any discussion in the article about the "official" name because there aren't any references/sources that talk about this topic last time I checked. If there is a reliable source that talks about the name, then information could be added to the article about it. The short answer is that there is the M.D. in the logo of the show, but everywhere else in the U.S. the show is usually referred to as just "House". In other languages I think it has different names, such as "Dr. House", if there is a reference for this it could be added somewhere. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today I was

Almost the entire of the first two enormous paragraphs are a frame-by-frame summary of what we see in the opening credits. Is this at all useful to the casual (or even hardcore) reader? The only show I can think that has a section even remotely like this is the Simpsons and that's because every episode has a different gag and they've made quite a thing about it. In the case of House, it's just some credits, nothing particularly note-worthy. There's even a quote at the end of the second paragraph saying that the images have "no particular meaning". The only thing of note in these two paragraphs is the fact was nominated for an Emmy, which I agree should be mentioned.

The third paragraph I admit has some relevance because it's about the theme tune. But even then, that's the infobox anyway and doesn't really need to be repeated does it? But if I have to back down on something here, I'll admit there may be a place for this final paragraph somewhere in the article, but probably not a section in its own right.

In conclusion, do we *really* need two huge paragraphs saying what order the cast are listed in and what images their names are superimposed on? It's anally retentive trivia and, in my opinion, has no place in a Wikipedia article. Planewalker Dave (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not a subarticle that would better fit this information. And the readable prose in this article is not that long. Therefore, deleting the section, or reducing the size, just because it is overly detailed is unnecessary. I can see the point of it being too detailed, but removing the section doesn't really seem like much of an improvement, so it might as well be kept (and it has references). LonelyMarble (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The season six opener is two episodes that have to be paid for separately on Amazon, each with their own opening titles and end credits, so really it is two episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.253.31 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The original US broadcast was of one 2-hour episode. Fox's website lists it in one entry as a "2 hour episode". But I don't really feel like arguing about this all season, maybe a reliable source will clear this up eventually. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LonelyMarble's perspective. The original broadcast format is determinative. And certainly the broadcaster's description has more authority than the retail arrangements.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Really this is just insane. WHY. WHY. Why do people do it ???????????? Suggest all information about episode's not be put into Wikipedia until after they air. I've just removed a statement from the article. Really - you have ruined this for me. Thanks a fucking bunch. 217.44.34.190 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia, spoiler warnings are not used here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, if you want the article to be useless since all the fans will be sacared to death to even open the page go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.132.102 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read

WP:SPOILER Dbrodbeck (talk

) 02:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the spin-off show in the works, revolving around the private investigator (played by Michael Weston) in season five? To be honest, I swear there used to be something about it on the House M.D. wikipedia, but there is currently no mention of it now (though there is some information about the show on Michael Weston's wikipedia article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.46.210 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the Recurring characters section. Apparently the spin-off doesn't look to be materializing though. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He should be mentioned in the "Main characters" section. Even though he was not a main character, the section starting "House's original team of diagnosticians" mentions firings. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He was only in the show for a section of season one and it is debateable whether he can be constituted a "main" charecter, perhaps a seperate page of additional charecters could pr broduce and include a main supporting charecter section such as Tritter and Stacy. 21.32 Aug 22 2010 camacount (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editors who want to make changes are free to propose them here for the duration. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GREGORY HOUSE IS A LONER WITH ONE CLOSE FRIEND, JAMES WILSON. PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON WAS A LONER WITH ONE CLOSE FRIEND, EDWARD HOUSE. [BEINART, PETER; THE ICARUS SYNDROME, HARPER COLLINS, NEW YORK, 2010; PAGE 15]

Noticed earlier that Paul Attansio and David Shore are listed as Co-Creators. This is inaccurate. In television, 'Created By' or 'Creator' is a very specific credit given to the person who actually created the show. And by that, it's the person who created the world and the characters. I realize that Paul came up with the idea of a medical mystery show, however, he did not come up with the character of House, the world of Princeton-Plainsboro, or any of the other characters. I would say that David and Paul developed the show together, that David created the show, and that is why he is listed that way on Imdb and in the credits. Had Paul created the show, he would have gotten screen credit.

Mythic10 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of general discussion, they should (and are) BOTH be listed as creators for reasons you say given Paul's input to the show. However, the actual accreditation in the infobox is correct by showing only David Shore. I see no reason why the paragraph should be changed to diminish Paul's input on the creation of the show. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to diminish Paul's input, (why I would list them as developing together) but when you use the word 'creator' in television, it takes on a very specific meaning. My objection is to using the word 'co-creator'. They co-developed the show, but they did not co-create the show. I guess the closet analogy I can think of is if back in the day I told my friend Leonard that he should paint my friend Lisa cause she's got a nice smile, you wouldn't call me the co-creator of the Mona Lisa. David Shore wrote the script, he painted the picture of House, he created that world. Paul is a very talented writer, but he didn't write the pilot of House, he didn't create the world and I think you actually diminish David's contribution by suggesting otherwise.

Mythic10 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this an open discussion, not accusatory attacks. I never said that you are directly diminishing anything (as you directly imply I am). That un-pleasantry aside, I am merely suggesting that both Paul and David created the idea for the show which was pitched to FOX. Wikipedia's own definition of a television creator includes the "concept" of a show--which was Paul's role, thus he should be listed as a co-creator. He is left out of the official credit in the infobox since he is not listed as an official creator by Fox. Yes, David Shore created a very large percentage of the show, but it was not 100%. So an article discussing the show as a whole should list them as co-creators since that's what they are by Wikipedia's definition. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that each article, for each episode, has a small list of that season's episodes (one you can show or hide, on the right side). Season 6 is missing episode "5 to 9". I don't know where to edit it. Probably someone else can do it. Keep up the excellent work. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to re-ignite the well-trodden debate about similarities between the title character and Sherlock Holmes, but having Holmes' picture where it is does seem rather incongruous. I'm not sure having the picture adds anything at all to the article, and to have it as the first picture on the page just seems bizarre - surely having the title character's picture there would make more sense? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that you have to scroll halfway down before you see a photo of Hugh Laurie is bordering on the ridiculous. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In part, this is one of the vagaries of our non-free content policy. We have a fair use picture of the six original main characters in its most logical spot—under our policy that means we would have to cross a very high hurdle to include another fair use image of any of those six, even the lead. We have a free photo of Laurie off set—but Laurie is not mentioned in the first few subsections of the article (Conception, References to Sherlock Holmes, Production [well, he's mentioned there very briefly, as a sometime executive producer and director]).

However, with your points in mind, I see we can switch that Laurie picture for the one of Edelstein much closer to the top in the Casting subsection. Edelstein is mentioned in the Critical reception subsection where the Laurie picture currently appears, so the switch would work fine on that end as well. What do you think?—DCGeist (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely be an improvement: I'm still not convinced that the Sherlock Holmes picture needs to be there at all, though ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've switched the Laurie and Edelstein pictures. I think the Holmes photo serves a purpose.—DCGeist (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll ever convince me, but I'm certainly not going to kick up a stink! The page certainly seems to make more sense now you've switched those two pictures - peace  ;-) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The team of contributors that brought this article to Featured Article status determined that the most accurate summary description of the show's creation was the sentence that remains in the lede's first paragraph:

The program was co-created by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Fox officially credits Shore as creator.

This is a straightforward factual statement, well supported by the sourced, detailed history provided in the article's main text, particularly the Conception subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is NOT a factual statement. There is no official source documentation anywhere that establishes that. On the contrary, the only documented information is that David Shore is the creator. Who is saying Paul Attanasio co-created the show?... That is not documented anywhere. An article/interview with David Shore that is cited later does indicate that Paul came up with the initial conceit, but that is very different than "creating" the show. "Created By" credit (and Co-Created By credit) are an industry definition. Producers often come up with conceits and are accordingly given "producer" credit or the like. Which Paul Attanasio has.

Please find me one factual statement according Paul Attanasio co-created by credit. There is none. Which is why I made the edit. (again, the "conception" subsection is very different from who actually "created" the show, and even that section needs to be corrected. Soundart99 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct matters here:

(1) What person or persons receive official industry credit as "creator"(s) of a given TV show.

(2) What person or persons, in ordinary language, created that show.

In many cases, (1) and (2) will be identical, but not always and not in this case. The current description accurately gives the reader information about (1) and about (2) in the case of House.—DCGeist (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you responding (and wish others would, as well).

I think what we need to keep in mind here are that many people -- including reporters, laypeople, etc. -- who use wikipedia as a source and that, therefore, it is incumbent upon those who write and edit to keep the information as accurate as possible. With that in mind, to say that Antannasio co-created the show is irresponsible, when in fact he didn't.

More specifically:

You acknowledge that David Shore has received official industry credit as creator. So who are we to say, "Well, but in ordinary language, Paul and David co-created the show." To do that, is to effectively overturn the judgment of those in the industry who presumably would have more first hand knowledge.

There is no information supporting the assertion that Paul Antannasio co-created the show... There *is* an article that talks about the genesis of the show [13], but there is nothing there stating that Antannasio co-created the show. In fact, the title of the article itself is "Q&A with 'House' Creator David Shore" (i.e. it doesn't say Co-creator).

What information/evidence can I provide to convince you that the language here giving Paul co-created by credit is wrong?... In no way -- not in an official sense, nor in "ordinary language" -- did Paul Attanassio co-create the show. Just because it has been established on this site for a long time, doesn't make it so. Please, cite one place where Paul is named "co-creator."

And just to show you that everything written on this site is not gospel, I can site another misstatement that:

The wikientry states that "Fox officially credits David Shore as creator." Did you know that, actually, Fox has no discretion in who gets "created by credit?" It's actually determined by the Writers Guild of American, according to their rules and it has to be posted in accordance. So while it's true that David Shore is officially credited as the creator, it's not "Fox" who determines that. Furthermore, Fox does not even produce the show. They only broadcast it.

Soundart99 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I too wish others would weigh in here.

I find the WGA reference compelling—if it can be sourced.

We continue to disagree on the "ordinary language" meaning of created/co-created. I believe, and evidently the several editors who brought this article to Featured status also believed, that Attanasio's well-sourced contributions to the show's origins qualify him as a co-creator in plain, nontechnical English. However, to avoid confusion with the technical industry term and designation, I see no problem in finding another term to characterize Attanasio and Shore's mutual creative efforts, while retaining the factual phrase, "entity X officially credits Shore as creator."—DCGeist (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the openmindedness and for the dialogue. I agree and think that, at the very least, another term other than "co-created" can be used so as to avoid confusion. Let me come back to this discussion when I have a bit more time and I will propose alternative phrase/language for your -- and everyone's -- review. Off the top of my head, though, perhaps we can say that the show was "developed by" David Shore and Paul Attanasio (as I think that accurately reflects PA's creative contribution both in layman terms and in industry terms). "Developed by" certainly does indicate creative contribution.

Likewise, I will find some sort of link to that WGA language.

So let me get back to you with proposed language and a link the WGA information. Thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist (and others),

As a follow up to my post of last Friday, 1) I have a few links to the WGA language concerning "created by" credit; and 2) I will propose alternative language to amend the "co-created" language in the wiki-entry. Specifically:

1) "Created by" credit/WGA -- I have two links regarding this.

a) A wikipedia page re: the screenwriting credit system [14] -- Although I hate to use a wikientry in support of changing another wiki-entry, this one gives a brief overview indicating that credit is determined by the WGA, and explains the process (incl. how the producer submits the proposed credits).

b) A page from the Writers Guild website [15] -- Please see the heading "'Created By' Credit Determination"

2) Proposed language (I tried to make the minimum amount of changes possible, just to clarify the "created by" vs. "developed by" issue)

a) Intro -- "House, also known as House, M.D., is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004. The program was created by David Shore, who developed the show with Paul Attanasio. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton‑Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH) in New Jersey. The premise for a CSI-like medical procedural originated with Attanasio, while Shore then took that initial idea, developed the characters, and wrote the script. [16] The show's executive producers include Shore, Attanasio, Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, and film director Bryan Singer. It is largely filmed in Century City."

b) Conception -- "In 2004, creator David Shore and producer Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program,[4] a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes.[5] Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by The New York Times Magazine column "Diagnosis", written by physician Lisa Sanders.[6] Fox bought the series, though the network's then-president, Gail Berman, told the creative team, "I want a medical show, but I don't want to see white coats going down the hallway".[7] Jacobs has said that this stipulation was one of the many influences that led to the show's ultimate form.[7]"

Let me know what you think. I look forward to your reaction. Thank you. Soundart99 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It still flies in the face of ordinary language to apply the verb "credited" to Shore and Shore alone when the genitive concept was Attanasio's. "Development" is a process that involves many parties. I think the most appropriate verb for what the two men are primarily responsible for is "conceived". For the lede, that makes the change very simple: "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is officially credited as creator." For the main text, simply cut the "co-creators" label and replace "inspired to create" with "inspired to develop", which is fine in this context: "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by..."—DCGeist (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this; I think we're close. I'm good with your suggested changes to the main text (thanks). As for the lede, though, I'd like to suggest one other tweak. I can live with "conceived," but what bumps me a little is the part "Shore is officially credited as creator." Something about that seems like a qualifier and implies that he got credited on a technicality or something, particularly the word "officially." (As a side note, many, many, many shows originate with a notion that originated with a producer, or development exec or whatever, which is then pitched to a writer, who in turn, "creates" a series.). I looked at a few wiki-entries for other shows, and I don't see that "officially credited" language on theirs. So what about if instead we say something along the lines of: "The idea for the program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio, and the series was created by David Shore." [and then we include a citation to an official link listing Shore as getting "created by" credit, which effectively is showing he is officially credited. Would you be amenable to that? Thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this has been a fruitful discussion--the disparity between the text and the infobox has niggled at me for a while. As for the most recent suggestion, there's no need for that extra verbiage--"idea for the". "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio" is good and proper English. I have the same problem with according Shore sole possession of the verb "created" that DCGeist has expressed--it's just not the whole truth. However, there's no need for the word "officially", and its elimination may reduce some of the tonal problem Soundart is experiencing. So: "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator."

The link to the "created by" credit (and perhaps another in-text mention) could go either in the 2d paragraph of "Conception" (with "Shore developed the characters further and wrote the script for the pilot episode") or the 2d paragraph of "Production team" (with "Shore is House's showrunner"). DocKino (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtfully weighing in, DocKino. I can live with your suggested changes to the lede (i.e. "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator.") It's still not ideal, but dropping "official" helps with the tone, as you suggest, and I don't want make the perfect the enemy of the improvement. Are all ok with me (or someone) making this change, as well as the aforementioned change to the Conception paragraph (i.e. "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by...")?...

Also, not to belabor the argument, but just to get it on record, I still believe it *is* the whole truth that Shore "created" the show. There is a huge difference between coming up with a general concept for something (i.e. Attanasio's contribution) vs executing that concept (i.e. Shore spending months crafting a lead character, principal characters, secondary characters, story lines, a formula, a setting, a world, researching potential medical cases, etc.). For example, just because five years ago I thought Apple should make a cell phone, doesn't mean that I created the iPhone. But more specific to TV, many shows originate with a "notion" from someone other than the person that creates that show. That's not to diminish that person's contribution or original idea, but it's just not "creating" the show. Which is why the Writers Guild of America is very precise in assigning "created by" credit (so I would trust a formal organization whose responsibility it is to make such designations as opposed to us in the general public). In fact, you could give the same idea to two different writers and get two very different results. To wit, the same year that House premiered on Fox, another medical mystery show premiered on NBC ("Medical Investigation") [17]. The original, general idea for each show was basically the same -- a medical mystery/procedural show. But based upon that general conceit, one person -- David Shore -- created "House." A different person created "Medical Investigation." House is now entering its 7th season and is one of the most popular shows in the world. Medical Investigation was canceled after 20 episodes.

Having said all that, I appreciate everyone's input and openmindedness regarding this topic, and look forward to the changes/language that we had agreed upon being implemented. To recap, these are the language changes as I understand them:

1) "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator."

2) "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by..."

Is everyone cool with me making those changes, or would a more experienced editor like to do it? Many thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made the changes, for efficiency's sake. On a personal note, I apologize for the combativeness of my tone early on in this colloquy. I did not realize that you were new to Wikipedia (your familiarity with the edit summary is unusual—though, of course, not unheard of—among newbies). In any event, thank you for your thoughtful and productive contributions.—DCGeist (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the changes and the nice words. It's all good.

Soundart99 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly question, did House and Cameron date in the past? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.66.172 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've overlooked a detail or two, to my recollection they didn't. It's a pity I don't have the collection with me to look at the specifics. Oliver kanjo (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a comment about the series, but it has a direct bearing on the content of this article. I've seen maybe a dozen episodes (including, I think, the pilot), and though the acting and writing are at a high level, one can't get away from the fact that House is a perfect example of what David Gerrold called "format becomes formula". It's the same thing week after week after week. This is perhaps inherent in medical programs, but that doesn't change the fact that House is highly formulaic. It would be nice to find an authoritative reviewer who's made such an observation. Unfortunately, Tom Shales missed it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article talks about "diagnostic medicine" and diagnosticians as if such a

Well, as Lisa Cuddy said in an episode - there is no "Department of diagnostic medicine" anywhere else but in PPTH. Ergo, the creation of the article about "diagnostic medicine" and/or diagnosticians would only serve to elaborate on this show. I'd rather say that their (his) specialty is "a-bundle-of" specialities, or that he's a "one-man(team)-hospital": instead of sending a person to multiple specialists, you get all of the at disposal for a single patient. --PrimEviL 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Navbox House episodes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

David Shore gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper "Calcalist" in which he says that the show is about the struggle between reason and spirit. The article is in Hebrew: http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3418683,00.html 109.186.46.9 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Office Politics, the first episode with Amber Tamblyn, she was immediately credited as "Also Starring Amber Tamblyn," which is how Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde, and Peter Jacobson were credited in seasons 4-6. The guest stars were then listed as "Guest starring..." I would think that "Also Starring" would mean "Billed as main cast" and be different from "Guest Starring" or "Special Guest..." In this case, she should be listed in the main characters. (You can watch Office Politics right now on Hulu if you'd like to verify this.) Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

She is only guest starring for a few episodes; this was made clear by both Tamblyn and the series' creators some time ago. 121.223.243.95 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the show had a major shift in mood around season 4 or 5. It went from a more lighthearted CSI'ish show to a quite heavy drama. Is this just something I feel or is it an established consensus around the change in mood? And if so, is it worth mentioning in the article?

I stopped watching the show after it went all melodramatic so I can't say anything about the later seasons. --Kvitekrist (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree, but, if you can find a good source or two, suggest what we could add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to challenge the article's facts. Just that I realized that Dr. John Watson limped, pretty much in the same fashion as House does. Is this another of the similarities? Could we add it? Are there any references to this? - Ashubhalaa (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This article mentions House's address being revealed in a Season 7 episode. It was revealed at least once earlier, in Season 6's "Remorse". The address can be seen on a check that House wrote to Wibberly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.7.225 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I made an addition to this article a few weeks ago by adding that the song 'Gregory's theme' by Belgian DJ Basto! (which is quite a hit in Europe at the moment) was called after Gregory House, since Basto! happens to be a big fan of House MD. My addition was removed by user Xeworlebi because it was "unsourced and badly placed". The unsourced part of that is definitely not true, see for instance http://www.radio538.nl/web/show/id=1136989/contentid=122144 and there are more sites to be found that report this. They're just written in Dutch, which you might not understand. However that doesn't mean it's not a source. Just use Google Translate or something if you want to read it for yourself.

The second part of Xeworlebi's reproach I would like to admit. When I was placing it, I already doubted if it fitted under 'References'. So maybe it's an idea to start a new category "References in popular media"? Like in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterious_Ways_%28song%29#References_in_popular_culture . There have to be more references in movies and other media to House MD, since it has been an iconic series right from it's start. MarcusEightyFive (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In a few eps, taub and foreman have been playing a videogame involving white light guns, I dont suppose you know what it is? I am a collector of video game controllers Techni (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is referring to Dr. Cuddy as his girlfriend in the blurb technically considered spoilering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.1 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed this great article - just one thought . . . House often instructs his team to break-in to patients' homes in order to gather diagnostic evidence. This fits with his "everybody lies" world-view. Is this a frequent enough occurrence and plot device to form part of the overall summary giving a flavour of the show ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.209.254 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how they do it in every episode, I'd say so. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since

Mixed in the fourth season, but positive overall. Unquestionably a fall off in the fifth. And then a strong rebound at the beginning of the sixth. I haven't had the chance to research further yet (or to add what I found so far for the sixth). For the moment, perhaps edit to "critically acclaimed for much of its run"? DocKino (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that feels more accurate.--Gene2010 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an awfully bold statement, especially for a featured article, and with a short Huffington Post 'article' (if you can all it that) as the only (living) citation. I think it should be removed until further citation is provided. KnowitallWiki (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? How many sources you want or need for a trivial statement that happened three years ago? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The text from "During the first three seasons, House's diagnostic team..." up to "...and her position is filled by grad student Martha M. Masters (Amber Tamblyn)." seems like way too much detail for a lead section. Can someone streamline this a bit and move the details, as necessary, into the body of the article? - dcljr (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It's good as is. Length and level of detail are both absolutely appropriate for a 150-episode TV series article lede.—DCGeist (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the spolier about Cutner's death could be removed from this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.110.103 (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing he's consciously based on Holmes, is there evidence the name "House" was selected as a pun...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interviews included in season 1 (or 2), Singer says it's directly derived from Holmes. So yes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no clear cut table or list of cast members and the characters they play?