Talk:Joy to the World (House)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullet Pregnancy[edit]

That apocryphal story has been around way longer that Tom Waits. It apparently dates from a practical joke by a medical journal back in 1874. 96.242.198.32 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced[edit]

No, this is not "just a plot summary". At present, there are numerous elements that are not part of the plot. While some of those can be drawn from the show's credits (writer, guest stars, etc.) other elements (original air date, "only the fourth time House is seen doing this", etc.). I'm not sold on the notability of this episode and won't be unless/until there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Say this article, or any article, doesn't need sources is patently absurd, as such an article automatically fails the general notability guideline. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why haven't you nominated it for deletion? It's almost all plot summary. You'll climb the Reichstag to keep a pointless "sources needed" tag (knowing full well that no one will add a source for a plot summary), yet you let the article languish even though you think it should be deleted. Why not just place a "citation needed" tag on the miniscule parts that need citations, or nominate it for deletion? 71.77.20.119 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing perfectly valid tags from numerous articles claiming they don't need sources. If anyone adds sufficient coverage to any one of them, they are notable. Until then, their notability is up in the air. If you feel that such coverage does not exist, you are certainly free to nominate the articles for deletion. Otherwise, you are removing the very tags that might encourage others to add such sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're avoiding my question: If you'll fight endlessly to keep a "sources needed" tag because you think the article needs it, then you must think the article should not be deleted. Otherwise you would nominate it for deletion. I never cease to be amazed by editors who are obsessed with following every little rule but ignore the issues that are glaring them in the face. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't searched for sources to determine if I feel it should be deleted. However, it is "glaring me in the face" that it needs sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joy to the World (House). 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) 20:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joy_to_the_World_(House)&oldid=1173647381"