Talk:Michael Tritter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Inspector Javert in Les Misérables
?
Current status: Featured article

The Holmes Connection

Referencing the version of 07:29, 7 December 2006: Hardly "all" of the characters on House have a connection with Holmes stories; only House and Wilson are convincingly documented as far as I've seen. Tritter's connection with Moriarty, apart from being a "nemesis", is a stretch. For one thing, there is a clear good vs. evil in Holmes vs. Moriarty, whereas both House and Tritter are deeply flawed, and a good argument could be made that Tritter has a better claim on the right than House does. A lot of interesting things could be written about Tritter, his actions, his methods, etc., but I'm removing this section as irrelevent. Please discuss any objections. --BlueMoonlet 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. House's nemesis goes more to the root of Moriarty's name--la mort. Death itself. Tritter? Not so much. Also, House isn't chasing him; it's vice-versa, so the dynamic doesn't work.192.80.65.234

Proposed trim of Storyline section

I think the storyline section goes into a great deal of unnecessary detail. Here is my first stab at trimming it.

Tritter first appears in the episode "

Vicodin pills in his pocket.[1]

In the next episode, "

Son of Coma Guy" and "Whac-A-Mole", Tritter pressures Wilson and members of House's diagnostic team to testify against him, but they all refuse.[3][4] In "Finding Judas", Cuddy finds Tritter spending his day off looking through the hospital's log for evidence against House. She accuses him of not having a life and "personalizing every slight". Tritter responds that "nobody [at the hospital] is innocent", as everyone allows House to treat patients despite knowing of his Vicodin addiction, and that it takes a police detective to uncover what the doctors are deliberately hiding. At the end of the episode, Wilson visits Tritter and indicates his willingness to testify.[5]

In "

Merry Little Christmas", Tritter and Wilson work out a deal to allow House to continue practicing medicine if he pleads guilty and spends two months in rehab. Meanwhile, House uses a dead patient's name to obtain Oxycodone pills as a Vicodin replacement drug, but when House visits Tritter early the next morning to agree to the deal, after going through the pharmacy's log and reading that House signed for a dead man's drugs, Tritter says the deal is off.[6]

In the final days leading up to House's court case, House realizes the severity of the situation and finally apologizes to Tritter. When Tritter refuses to accept the apology, House goes into rehab, putting on a show for Tritter and the judge, but Tritter cites his past experiences with addicts as evidence House has not changed. The judge tells Tritter that she does not believe House to be the drug addict that Tritter tried to show him to be, and orders Tritter to move on. Just before the bailiff escorts House out of the courtroom, Tritter tells him, "Good luck. I hope I'm wrong about you."[7]

Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but I don't fully understand the third paragraph, how about:

In "

Merry Little Christmas", Tritter and Wilson work out a deal to allow House to continue practicing medicine if he pleads guilty and spends two months in rehab. Meanwhile, House uses a dead patient's name to obtain Oxycodone pills as a Vicodin replacement drug. When he visits Tritter early the next morning to agree to the deal, Tritter says the deal is off, after going through the pharmacy's log and reading that House signed for a dead man's drugs.[6]

Reads better to me. Also, you mention in the first paragraph that Tritter says he would rather beat the crap out of House that sue him, before House refuses to apologize, but it is actually stated afterwards. No further comments; nice job.--Music26/11 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Excellent. I'll move the combined changes to the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  2. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  3. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  4. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  5. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  6. ^
    FOX. Television Without Pity Recap
  7. FOX. Television Without Pity Recap

FA?

This reads like a pastiche of an encyclopedia article, cruft dressed up in leaden prose; everything seems to pass FA these days if only there are enough inline citations, no matter what they cite. --Janneman (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in my opinion this is pretty terrible. (76.189.146.206 (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not even the main character of the show's page is a Featured Article yet! How does this pass the editors?PokeHomsar (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the discussion where consensus was to promote to FA. Articles are not judged on their "importance" or "significance", but rather their quality. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't importance be taken into account? I mean, come on, you'll seriously tell me an article about the inventor of creamed corn could become featured? Why feature something that doesn't matter, especially about a story arc that is considered one of the poorer ones in the series?PokeHomsar (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If people put the effort in, why shouldn't we acknowledge the quality? And yes, the inventor of "creamed corn" could become featured if the article was written well enough. Ironholds (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ironic if a member of "The Legend of Zelda" Wikiproject is complaining about "unimportant" articles being promoted to FA? --Contributions/86.142.97.137 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I thought this was a horribly poorly written story arc but whatevs I guess somebody liked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.150.152 (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oooh, a thermometer stuck in his rectum? not only is this great writing for a television show, but great writing for Wikipedia. (sarcasm, of course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.37.76 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the arc. Ended a bit too weakly, but it's great to see House articles of high quality. RichsLaw (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very small article. It is just a few paragraphs long. If I were to have rated it I would have given it a B class at tops. Also {{

play 10:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Importance is not an FA criteria. Length is not an FA criteria. quality and depth of coverage is an FA criteria. If the article covers the subject in detail, in depth and in a well-written way, it should be considered a featured article, i.e one of the best articles on en-wiki (see best, not longest). And since reqphoto isn't here, that isn't an issue. Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If significance isn't a factor in determining whether or not something should be featured, it should be from now on. I checked out the discussion leading up to the decision to feature this article, and the guy or girl who said that 'it would be embarrassing to the project if this ever showed up on the main page' is exactly right: I was embarrassed to find this on the front page of wikipedia. No judgment on the show or people's work on this piece, it's just not something you want to see up on the front page as representing the best of the wiki project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.195.238 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We can't tell people what to work on if they're not interested in other things. Any article on any subject, if it passes certain standards, can be considered Featured. "significance" for articles is whether or not they're notable, and if an article wasn't notable it wouldn't be here. Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the anon said. They've done a lot of good work on it, but it's a character from a TV show. It's silly for it to be on top. Importance isn't (or shouldn't be) a black and white thing. --AW (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem with labeling one article as "silly" over another is that it's one editor's POV vs. another's. That's why we have objective quality-based criteria for articles' rating as opposed to just focusing on what some editors consider the "important" ones. —
=/\= | 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Importance is entirely subjective, and I'm quite shocked to see long-term editors saying a subject "isn't important enough" to be considered a quality article. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't the {{
play 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know if {{
=/\= | 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Why is this the featured article?

He's a character from House! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Klotz (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Benders Game 15:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T'ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Postdlf (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what another great FA from wikipedia! Mr Poechalkdust (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yay, you again. FA is based on quality. Not importance, which is subjective, or length, which is irrelevant. By definition any FA is a "great" FA. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is the archetypal subjective measure. The problem is that importance is hard to define, especially when community consensus is involved. |→
GMT
)
I came here to say the same thing. This is stupid. I like House and all, but why does an extremely minor character from that television series have an FA while David Morse, the real guy behind the character, has a crap article? Stupid.--Jeff (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Like wow. The fact that this article has FA status shows some people have NO LIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.183 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really like how we're all
Michael Jackson's health and appearance is a GA, so I see no need to whine. Renaissancee (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow, I have not seen that article before. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an important and very talked about subject. Pyrrhus16 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think your appearance is importance, whether your not so fabulous or a supermodel, and your health doesn't really mean anything notable unless you have a rare disease. Renaissancee (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could this have possibly become a featured article with all the duplication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most useless and poorly written article on wikipedia. 125.236.179.52 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Tritter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 05:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Tritter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Tritter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

date format?

Why are we using {{use dmy dates}}? It's an American character in an US television series. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With no responses, I've instead applied {{use mdy dates}} (as is also used at this page's parent articles). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously doubting the need for this as a standalone page

This is a character that appears in six out of a total 177 episodes of House, and he already has a (in my opinion, adequate) section in the

dedicated article for House characters. I see no reason for this article to exist. Leaflemon (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think you're precluded from taking this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but you may want to familiarize yourself with the previous deletion attempt, first. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do [take this to AFD]. But you might find that convincing people is easier if you pull some of the smaller weeds first; as you might see from the past AFD, Tritter has this weird advantage of being a featured article. Fifteen years later and you may not meet as much opposition as you would have when the audience for House and the editor base for Wikipedia had such a strong overlap… but who knows.
See {{House (TV series)}} and maybe pick out some episodes from season 8 to see if they have any solid sources to speak of. (I remember a couple of months ago a bunch of articles were culled, so maybe bring it up with whoever nominated those for deletion; gimme a second and I’ll look it up.) If it were me, and if I were deleting House characters, I’d probably start with Martha Masters and move on from there. — HTGS (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some episodes recently deleted (redirected, as would also be the case here):
… So we may as well tag Donaldd23, in case he has any thoughts on the matter. — HTGS (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that with this article once being a featured article, precludes it from being nominated for deletion. If it had enough resonance to be featured, then it must have some form of notability. Just my 2 cents. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Tritter&oldid=1210174436"