Talk:House season 7

Television: Episode coverage / House Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the House task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proper Sources for Titles[edit]

Because it appears that various places people wanted to source "Thunder Roadtrip" (myself included) are being shot down, what sites would count as reliable aside from the obvious site on fox.com? Oliver kanjo (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add that this is because another site, aceshowbiz, is reporting the same thing as the other sites. Oliver kanjo (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proper, reliable source is a third party source with an editorial process that verifies it's information, such as Entertaiment Weekly, CNN, or TV By the Numbers., Or something that, without an editorial process, is unquestioned in it's accuracy like a press release. In these early season stages, however, we usually get overwhelmed with speculative sources like SpoilerTV (the name says it all; historically thick with inaccuracies), or reader contributed sources like TV.com (who thought the season 6 premiere of Rescue Me was called "Life" because some blog (no editorial process) called Daemon's Media reported it, linking to a promotional video on Hulu for the entire 6th season...called "Life". The episode turned out to be called "Legacy") or IMDB (I personally argued online with IMDB about airdates to Human Target--past the date they actually aired). And I appreciate the irony of Wikipedia not accepting submissions from a source that allows anyone to contribute, but in the cases of tv.com or IMDB, some intern is the editorial process, and once it's in, it's in (it's possible to get information changed on these sites, but it's hell; they don't like to contradict themselves). At least with Wikipedia, we are bound by a verifiability policy, are policed by the entire community that can change the information at any time, and put our sources on display for anyone to check.
I personally don't know about aceshowbiz. Looking them up, they're self copyrighted, which makes me leery, and the scope of their media coverage isn't a win-over factor; Daemon's Media was just as thorough in covering all aspects. On the other hand, the other editors (myself included) allowed the Daemon's Media source to stand until a more reliable source, MSN TV, contradicted it (the policy is verifiablility, not accuracy). All I can suggest is that you Be Bold, give it a shot, and not take it personally if it doesn't stick; we've all been reverted at some point. KnownAlias contact 13:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This leave me with a semi-ridiculous question: if IMDb is not credible, why is it included in the external links, especially since that site happens to have the first episode named? Oliver kanjo (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links are general reference areas related to the page in question. Wikipedia has no claim as to the accuracy of any information on those sites (and in light of your question should possibly have a disclaimer as such, but there's an old argument about disclaimers that probably negates that). IMDB and tv.com links, as well as other links, like to notable fansites like Kryptonsite, a fan page devoted to Smallville, will only be found in this section as a result. The link itself exsists as a related site for further related inquiry, but is (I will say almost, though to my knowledge) never used as a source of information on Wikipedia. On the other hand this area also quite frequently contains links to a show's homepage on the airing network's website, or links to the official network schedule on the same site. It's basically a section of "see also" that otherwise may or may not be fit to print. Wikipedia is only responsible for the verifiablity of it's own information, and the existence of these related sites extends to being part of that information. KnownAlias contact 07:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Jeffrey[edit]

I wanted to run this by folks before I reverted the revert on the Nurse Jeffrey Bitch Tape information. If I may paste and quote what they say on the official House website on Fox, I think there is a case to make for the Nurse Jeffrey tapes being...spoiler isn't the word because it doesn't give away the whole story. Clue is the word I can think of for lack of a better term.

"iPhone™ users can delve deeper inside the world of Dr. Gregory House and Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital with INHOUSE, the official HOUSE app for iPhone, iPod touch® and iPad devices. Features include original Appisodes, exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes footage and photos; alternate music selections; a video blog; and a weekly giveaway. Watch the Nurse Jeffrey finale below (Appisode #13) to get an exclusive sneak peek at Season 7 of HOUSE."Fox InHouse App (italics mine)

Because they consider Nurse Jeffrey part of the application, and based on the first sentence, I would wager that Nurse Jeffrey is giving information related to the actual series of House. However, I'm open to hear why it wouldn't be considered so, too. Oliver kanjo (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Stars[edit]

Would it be in good taste to add all the guest stars that are surfacing with all the episode summaries, or just leave the list as a list of the more prominent guest stars? Oliver kanjo (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as a separate list. The summaries are for the plot of the episode, adding a series of guest stars in it is trivial, and often leads to people adding songs etc. as well. Unless you mean adding them inline after the character name, which would be in the episode plot if they are notable, between brackets, like this is done in episode 2 currently. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Airings[edit]

I noticed that the edits have gone back and forth on the mentioning of Bulgaria. If I may offer two cents, based on the other pages regarding each season, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep what was written and then move it to a section titled "International Airings" or something similar. I'll do that in a few days if no one has any objections or thinks it's a fair idea. Oliver kanjo (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reaosn no to tkepe it as logn as it sourced, thi is enlish wikipedia a tht end of the day not american s some editor seem to think --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but it is the English wikipedia, not the Bulgarian one, which for House is at bg:Д-р Хаус. There is a strong opposition to adding every country in existence unless there is something notable about it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was working on the presumption it is in the original englih vresion and not dubbed into another language if it is ablugraion version then i agree it doesnt belong here but if it is a english version then it does, the only one that should be included are america, canda, ireand, uk and australia/new zealand as thezse ar ethe major english countries but if anotehr coutnry airs it firt or clsoe to us broadcast and i english version it deserver a meatntion but that is all a meanton--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis for each episode?[edit]

I firmly think the diagnoses ruin it for whoever reads this section and has not seen the episodes yet. They are major turning points, often not revealed until the last couple of minutes of an episode, to create a "twist ending" – I mean, you don't reveal who Keizer Soze is in the "Career" section of the article about Kevin Spacey. Opinions? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this happens everywhere, this place is not an exception, Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. Also, as this is often misunderstood, the short summary is not short in information, it is the full plot of the episode, it's just rid of all excess detail to make it fit in 100–200 words. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two major fallacies:

Having the same mistake anywhere else doesn't make it right;
Spoilers should not be deleted because they are spoilers, but they also should not be presented within a short synopsis in a way that practically forces the reader into seeing it. I came upon the article because I wanted to check whether this week's episode has come out yet. The synopsis is akin to a TV promo – you don't give away the ending in either.

Also, this is not the full episode description, but only a temporary substitution due to lack thereof. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two gigantic fallacies:

WP:OSE is an assay, not a guideline nor a policy; WP:SPOILER is. To clarify, "As this happens everywhere" referred to that ever once in a while eventually everywere some user, mostly IP's come by and complain about spoilers, they all are proven wrong and go away, some stick by a little longer than others.
These are not previews, teasers are otherwise akin to television promos, they are full summaries. This and spoilers in short summaries have already has been discussed at WP:SPOILER. I'll quote Masem for this "We are writing this work as a research work. It needs to be complete. There are plenty of other resources that viewer who may be looking for a specific actor or the air date of an episode can use without seeing all the details of the work." or as TheFarix said it "Actually, an episode list is a place where spoilers are to be expected, along with the "Plot" section of any article about a work of fiction. Removing plot details on the bases that they may be spoilers is explicitly prohibited by this guideline. A "spoiler free" plot summary is an incomplete plot summary."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, spoilers are to be expected; this is not a fan-site, we don't remove content because it spoils you. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Spoiler specifically states the following: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Please describe the utter significance of the diagnoses in this episode list. We should work towards creating individual episode articles, not squishing all of them under a page and a half while "pointing at whodunit".

By the way, IPs are people too and most of them are actual Wikipedia readers that get legitimately annoyed. These articles are not written just for established editors. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat myself on the significant of the diagnosis, this has been well established and backed up by discussion at WP:SPOILER. People coming here not expecting spoilers fool only themselves, If you don't want spoilers there are many other places on the internet that don't include spoilers and provide spoiler warnings, this is not on of them. The only reason you removed the key element of the episode is because it spoils you, as you stated so yourself, that is specifically against WP:SPOILER. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was debated coutnless tiem son the main list when all the informaiton was there this was one of the reasons for splitting the seaosn articles apart form guidelines saying it should be done, but the main list only contians episde informaiton no descrption the rules aint goign to change the bes thta tmight happen is the diagnostic to be put into psoiler tags so hiding it until the perosn unhides it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, don't censor spoilers because they are spoilers, but exercise common sense for God's sake! I'll give three examples:

The lead paragraph to The Crying Game cannot mention Dil's gender. If you read the plot, however, you'll find it there.
The lead paragraph and cast list of Shutter Island cannot mention the real name of DiCaprio's character. The plot has it covered, otherwise it's a slap in the face for any reader who has not seen the film.
The most popular example, which I love personally: the lead paragraph and cast list of The Usual Suspects will never reveal the identity of Keyser Soze; it would be plain immoral.

Acting upon policies without realizing their essence is harmful to the overall quality of Wikipedia, and reduces its popularity. It only turns Wikipedia into an editor's club that doesn't do jack to consider those who just read it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of this article does not mention any diagnosis's. If you read the episode summaries you'll obviously find it there. Wikipedia is not fan-site, it's an encyclopedia which is what it meant to be. Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable, and yes Penis contains an image of a penis in the lead paragraph even though a lot of prude people might object, that's what wikipedia is, information. You might want to consider that people actually use an encyclopedia for information. If you just want to know when the next episode is coming out List of House episodes does not contain episode summaries.

Funny thing is, when the episode list was going through it's first featured article review people said oppose based on the absence of the final diagnosis, so a column was made, lots of complaining from IP's about spoilers, later the individual season articles were made, and still a lot of spoiler complaints, later the final diagnosis column was merged into the summaries, and is now absent from List of House episodes and now people come to the individual season articles starting to read the summaries and are somehow surprised it contains information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even funnier thing: the episodes actually have their own articles, with the plot description under the heading "Plot", in which the diagnoses actually belong. You insist upon creating a row for each diagnosis in the season summary, that is (naturally) separated by a line, with the words "Final diagnosis" in italics. Would you like to emphasize each letter with flashing colors as well??? Why do it in bad taste when this information is already in the plot section of each episode? There is no purpose of satisfying a good encyclopedia, this is pure bureaucratic compulsion. The information is already included in the proper place, please remove it from where it forcibly stands out – that way everyone is happy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The epsiode articles will eb getting delted over the next coming year as they do not conform to wikipedia policiy only notable epsiode will have there epsioe article remain ie the pilot etc. you still have not answer why you cna not use the list of epsiodes? the final diagnostic is a important part of the summary so can not be excluded--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewcrawford, are you dyslexic? If you are, then I wonder how you edit articles with more than adequate English. If you're not, please start treating this discussion with the due respect or I'll just assume you're a troll. Please respond, and also please read my previous reply, which explains my standpoint in detail. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am dsylexic and tha tis insult to say caus ei am dsylexic i shouldnt edit articles my english doesnt mattersomeone else fixs it later its the content that matter more not the english. you aint goign to win unless oyu can get a consesus which a the moment is to includes spoilers if oyu dnt liek it go somewher eelse or use the list of house episodes i aint goign to argue about this anymore you have been given the reasons ifs up to you if oyu like it or not but until you get a new consesus then there nothing else that can be done--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have not explained how come your article edits are impeccable in both spelling and grammar. Also, since your claim is that the individual episode articles are going to be merged/redirected within the forthcoming year, I don't see a valid reason for including these spoilers in the most obvious place, while separating them with a line and emphasizing the words "Final diagnosis" with italics. Finally, "if you don't like it, go somewhere else"??? This is the first and last time I'll tolerate bullying of this sort. I await your explanations. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the diagnosis lines - or as mentioned above - hide them under spoiler tags - that way everyone's happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aavmurphy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Out-of-Order Airings[edit]

Based on the information concerning February 7th's episode of House, should the episode list be formatted to also read that "Family Practice" is Episode 13 (Futon Critic lists it as HOU-713 currently)? Oliver kanjo (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 13th produced episode that, for what ever reason, Fox decided to air early. If House were one of the show pages that posted production codes, then yes, that information would be reflected. But barring that, no other episode page I know of makes distinctions if the network airs an episode out of order (except perhaps Fringe's season 2 episode, "Unearthed", as it explained a season 1 episode airing during season 2 as the reason why a character suddenly appeared to come back to from the dead as if nothing had happened). Plus, it's not a given that episodes are produced in broadcast order; I recently posted the production codes for several 2nd season episodes of The Middle, and noticed that the Thanksgiving episode, "Thanksgiving II", was produced very early in the sequence. It would have aired in October if it had aired in production order (possibly an allowance made to accommodate guest star Norm MacDonald's schedule). It's fine as is. KnownAlias contact 12:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting episode articles[edit]

Assessment of individual episode articles, those with no info have nothing but a plot section, infobox and EL's:

Now What? (minimal reception)
Selfish (House) (minimal reception)
Unwritten (House) (some cultural references, minimal reception)
Massage Therapy (House) (continuity trivia, minimal reception)
Unplanned Parenthood (House) (music played; minimal reception)
Office Politics (House) (minimal reception)
A Pox on Our House (minimal reception)
Small Sacrifices (House) (music played; minimal reception)
Larger Than Life (House)
Carrot or Stick (House)
Family Practice (House) (trivia section)
You Must Remember This (House) (continuity trivia)
Two Stories (House)

My recommendation: redirect all episodes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where, and why? If there's not much information at the moment, it's no reason to assume there won't be at some point later. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back here to the episode list due failing the notability guidelines. Just like most of the episode articles there won't be anything at some point later. In any case, notability is established by the current status of an article not by its potential. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why? Why are some episodes notable and not others - that doesn't make sense. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the episodes, its the articles, there's nothing but plot on most of them, they fail WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PLOT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. It sounds like you're making redirects for the sake of doing it. I don't buy the notability argument at all, and most of the articles you list have other content besides just a plot - however minimal. Please leave these articles alone. --rpeh •T•C•E• 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I love episode articles as much as the next guy, but these are abysmal. Read the notability guidelines, these articles fail miserably. A list of songs played in an episode is trivia and can be removed on sight, a half sentence reception section is not enough to establish notability, especially from IGN, who does a review of every episode ever made. Take for example the decent episode articles for House: Pilot (House), Three Stories, Ugly (House), No More Mr. Nice Guy (House) and Help Me (House); they set themselves apart form wikia quality fan articles. I'll give this a week or so and then redirect the episodes or otherwise take these to AfD, were they'll most likely be deleted. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How will doing that benefit Wikipedia, exactly? --rpeh •T•C•E• 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) That question is entirely irrelevant but here's an answer anyway: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for fancruft, not everything is suitable for its own article (or if you want a blunt answer: bunch of crap articles = crap encyclopedia). And some quotes from policy and guidelines:

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

"Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage."

"The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary."

"The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary."

"Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context."

and many more quotes, there have been hundreds of episode articles deleted, merged and redirected due to lack of real world information. If you want these articles to stay I would suggest you try to improve them and get them out of fan-cruft status, by adding real world information to them. Just repeating the same question won't help in any way. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating policies without considering the intent behind them isn't helpful. Look at the other articles on House episodes, which are full of interesting and useful information. The Series 7 articles are, I'll agree, poor at the moment, but that's mainly because the series is still being broadcast and many people will only start adding information once they're all out to avoid spoilers. Additionally, there's no DVD release yet and they've only been broadcast on a subscription channel in the UK so many people won't have been able to see them at all. Having stub articles that will be improved is not hurting anything, and will encourage people who feel able to add a few lines of information but would be intimidated by the idea of creating a whole new article, complete with infoboxes.

Seriously, you're doing more harm than good with this. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The indent of "Wikipedia is not for plot-only description of fictional works" is just that, that Wikipedia is not for plot-only articles.

If you would actually look at the other episode articles of House, like Paternity (House) (has existed since 2006), they also are plot-only articles. That isn't helpful and they definitely aren't "full of interesting and useful information" at all.

Thing is, if like the Fringe episodes, someone would actually be improving these articles I give them the time to do so (actually this is the first time I do a mass delete/redirect request), at Fringe Ruby2010 is doing a magnificent job establishing notability and adding real world information such as production info. For House no-one is doing that, almost all episode articles for House contain nothing but plot and some a bit trivia. Those do not warrant an article. Having articles are not being improved is not good. They fail policy the guidelines. Such articles belong on fan-wikias not Wikipedia.

Anyway, I don't see the point of repeating guidelines and policies over and over again, just because you like the all-plot episode articles and don't like them to disappear. I'll nominate these for deletion in a week or so, you'll be able to give your remarks at the AfD then. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as enough consensus for such a large amount of content removal. Users (like myself) who have recently edited episode articles were not even informed of these discussions. Xeworlebi's contrib records show that they did not inform any other user of this discussion [1]. Whether or not your arguments are valid or not, using this small of a discussion to merit such a large change is completely wrong and is a greater violation of Wikipedia policies.

There was a fairly recent AfD that recent proclaimed "Keep"s for several House episodes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House). What Xeworlebi did is wrong; a discussion between two people is not sufficient for this type of massive content removal. If Xeworlebi does not begin to undo their premature edits, I will begin to revert the redirects back into articles, and inform an admin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened yet - at least, I haven't seen anything happen yet. I've been waiting for the AfD to begin rather than arguing about it here because Xeworlebi is clearly not prepared to listen on this page. --rpeh •T•C•E• 07:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean[edit]

"Prior to the start of the remainder of the season in 2011" ... huh?? what does that mean? remainder of what? 79.179.207.27 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the season… The show took a two month hiatus at the end of 2010. So the remainder of the season is the back half (9–23) of the season, which aired in 2011. That info was announces 5 days before the season came back on January 17, 2011. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on House (season 7). 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on House (season 7). 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House (season 7). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/13/fox-announces-fall-premiere-dates-for-2010-11-season/56923
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619103838/http://www.film.com/tv/house/15039618 to http://www.film.com/tv/house/15039618

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]