Talk:House (TV series)

Cast

Why is there no clear cut table or list of cast members and the characters they play? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is, it's listed at List of House cast members. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I assumed there was an article like that, but, shouldn't there be a small table listing current cast members on the main article like say what is on the article for Full House? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amber Tamblyn, Odette Annable, Charlyne Yi

These actresses all were credited as "starring". I'm not quite sure why they were removed. Tamblyn I can sort of understand, as she was "Also Starring" after the theme song (even though this is how Kal Penn, Peter Jacobsen, and Olivia Wilde were all credited until recently). Annable and Yi, however, are definitely starring, as they were credited immediately after Hugh Laurie and the others in the season 8 episodes in which they appeared (these episodes had no theme song, and all actors were credited the same). Again, I'm not quite sure why these people were removed from the infobox, and I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Tamblyn was never in the "Starring" section of the credits at all. Come to think of it, Kal Penn should probably removed too, because I don't think he was there either, although I'd have to check. Jacobsen and Wilde were both included as stars in series 7. The eipsodes with Annable and Yi didn't have a title sequence, so it's impossible to say whether they count as stars yet, but as each has been in a grand total of one episode, it's far too early to include them yet. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. The credits for the season 8 premiere say "Starring Hugh Laurie" and then immediately say "Odette Annable". The credits last week specifically say "Starring Hugh Laurie" and then move on to say "Omar Epps", "Robert Sean Leonard", and "Charlyne Yi". In season 7, the credits literally say "Also Starring Amber Tamblyn". Just because a character isn't in the theme song doesn't mean they aren't starring. Look at The Office or Parks and Recreation, in which many of the characters are considering starring but aren't listed in the theme song, but rather given the "Also Starring" credit. If you'd like, I could find a source that specifically says all three are starring. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Also starring" is generally treated as different to "Starring". There's an infobox somewhere that makes this specific, but I can't find it right now. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case for Amber Tamblyn. Thanks for clearing that up. I figured it would just be the same. The "also starring" doesn't apply to Annable and Yi though (as they are designated starring in the titles), but I see your point of waiting a little while until they're in more than just one episode. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just watched the intros of the two season 8 episodes again, and the word "starring" is never used, but you're right - the two actors are definitely in a list with the other "stars". It certainly looks like Yi will be a star in this series, and I'd hope that House ends up hiring Annable's character to make up for getting her fired, but it looks like we can agree to wait for now. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (judging by the promo for episode 3, it looks like she will be getting hired). Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well both of them (plus Olivia Wilde) are back in the main credits for ep 3, so they can probably go back in. Sorry for the confusion, but it's better to sure. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As the repeated reversions by multiple parties should have demonstrated to you, thr elimination of Tamblyn and Penn remains a minority view. The consensus view under which the article was developed and achieved FA status was that inclusion in the infobox was not based on interpretation of the credits but rather on the players' actual role in the show and their treatment in other media, per out verifiability standards. The idea, for instance, that Wilde and Jacobson belong, but Penn does not, because of lag time in changing the title sequence is obviously absurd.—DCGeist (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. Quite simple. The template is for listing the stars, not for people described as "guest starring" or "also starring". If you actually look at the talk page archives for the Infobox there is ample evidence to support this. See, for instance, this brief topic.

While it might be appropriate to treat Kal Penn as a special case, since although he was never credited as a star, he was in 36 episodes, Tamblyn was only in 14 - a number exceeded by appearances from Jennifer Foley (Rachel Taub, 15) and Anne Dudek (Amber Volakis, 18). For comparison the other way, Wilde was in 79 episodes and Jacobsen in 83, both well over double Penn's appearances. And don't forget, consensus can change, so your comments about FA status are totally irrelevant. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving House

Since the title card (for the Fox episodes; maybe different for export) is "House, MD", shouldn't this page be at House, M.D.? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was moved from there some time ago so a move back is likely to be controversial. See the archives for previous discussions - Here, here and here for instance. Basically, there's some disagreement over what the show is actually called. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

character in cast chart repeated

why is oliva wilde's character 13 on that list twice? 98.20.191.7 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

oliva wildes character is listed twice in the chart. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.191.7 (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

License Fees

In an IMDB Blog Post announcing the cancelling of the show, the mention that it was in part due to rising license fees. Does anyone have information on what they're talking about with regards to this?

http://tv.blog.imdb.net/2012/02/08/fox-officially-announces-the-end-of-house/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.181.2 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for a cancellation section?

It's now well known that this is the final season of House, yet this article fails to mention the cancellation. Isn't it time for a Cancellation section? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 03:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't cancelled; it was "concluded" or "ended" because it was one of those shows that "whose runs end due to a mutual creative decision by its producers and cast". See cancellation. This allows the showrunners to bring the show to some sort of coherent, meaningful ending instead of ending as any normal season would, i.e. "inconclusively" (as it were), vaguely, or abruptly. Breaking Bad is going to end after 16 more episodes, for example. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The "starring" section doesn't look too good, with all past cast members included alongside the current ones. My proposal is to subst it and tweak the parameters so that we can make the distinction. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to reflect the series as a whole, not just the latest season. Their time on the show can be listed in the body of the article, but not, in my opinion, the infobox. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet it still looks inconsistent, in the sense that there are twelve people listed under "Starring", when there is never more than six in the opening credits of any episode. Also, the word "starring", being in present progressive, suggests that it is currently taking place. Instead of "Starring", it should read "Main cast (past and present)" or something similar. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be something to take up at the talk page for the template. I believe it's currently fully protected, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the word "Stars" would be a better word. You're right, "starring" implies that it's current. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Subst'ing is much more practical (since we're dealing with a specific case, rather than a general modification to a Wikipedia template) and less time/energy consuming. I've gone ahead and done it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So what should be done when the series is over? It technically won't be "present" anymore. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a tough one, but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I completely disagree with reordering the list. I'm fine with the designation being changed from "Starring", but the infobox is still intended to reflect the series as a whole. As it stands right now, half of the current cast is listed at the top, while past characters are in the middle and more current cast members are at the bottom. To me, that just doesn't make sense if you're trying to reflect current conditions. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So... are you saying that we should completely ignore the fact that two of the original main cast members have left the show for good? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the infobox is not the place to put that information. I'm fine with "Main characters (past and present)" but not with reordering to a seemingly random order (I still don't understand why the people who are gone were put in the center and some of the current cast members were placed at the bottom). That's why the chart is given below; it explains who is currently on the show and who is gone. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I originally wanted to put all current members first, but I was reverted several times because editors insist otherwise. The "random" order was my idea of a compromise – if you insist on listing veteran cast members first, at least start with the people who are still on the show... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting my 2 cents in as I stumbled upon this. The infobox should really be reverted back to use to proper Template:Infobox television, instead of what it is now, which is unnecessarily complicated. The only difference is now that says "Main cast (past and present)" instead of "Starring". If you have an issue with the naming of the parameter, than it should be brought up on the talk page of the template, this article shouldn't get special treatment, as every television show and film article uses "Starring" in the infobox as per the template. The show's ending next month, so "past and present" won't exist anymore. That's why you don't, for example, move current members ahead of people currently not in the show. Because at the end of day, the order will be reverted back to chronological, because why would Charlyne Yi be placed before Lisa Edelstein. So yeah, just revert back the correct infobox. The cast order at the moment looks to be correct, so there's no reason using this custom infobox, as "past and present" won't exist anymore for this show soon, nor should you write about fiction like that anyway. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Drovethrughosts here. The only real difference is the "Main characters (past and present)", which I was mostly neutral, though a bit hesitant, on. Like he/she said, it's very complicated, and there's no real reason to make the change. I don't think anyone who has seen the show would be confused, and even if they are, they can look at one of the tables below for clarification. Like Drovethrughosts said, fiction shouldn't be written about like that; for the same reason, we won't say "House was an American..." in the first sentence this time next month. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We agreed that "starring" is not completely appropriate in this case, and besides – why is everyone "pulling the plug" a whole month before the series is over??? Why is it so important not to subst? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You never really addressed the new issues brought up. I hadn't previously considered the point that fiction should not be referred to as "past and present." Furthermore, if "starring" isn't the best word, "stars" is a much better alternative, as it does not imply any sort of time. Like I said, taking this up at the template talk page is a much, much better route, since this applies to a large number of TV series, not just this one. Basically, if this absolutely must be substituted, the word "Stars" is a much better alternative. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The MOS is very specific about both of these issues. The template should be used for a television show infobox, and all extant cast should be included (to avoid in-universe editing) not just current cast. The only exception that can be made, and only with consensus is to use current season cast, labeled accordingly, when the cast is exceptionally large (and we're talking ER large, not 12 actors.) Moreover, Hearfourmewesique, you don't have consensus for your alternative infobox; your repeated reverts can be viewed as edit warring and editing against consensus. Once your edit is challenged, you stop reverting and discuss. Kevin, present should never be used in an infobox; just leave the box blank, and you get startyear - (open space), which is correct in most written contexts. --Drmargi (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Snapshot info in table

Hi, I made some changes (series of diffs) to the table under the "Characters and story arcs" subsection. What it said about each team member's specialty was absent or wrong (except for Foreman and Cameron), and I fixed that (and referenced each edit). For example, Chase is not a cardiologist, but rather a surgeon with subspecialty training as an intensivist (critical care specialist). A note re IMDB: it is a reliable source in this case since the page referenced is not authored by readers. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Re IMDb, i take you point, but i would not know how to tell the pages that aren't by (IMDb-)readers from those that are. Could you share the wealth?
--Jerzy•t 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

... often construed as a misanthropic medical genius

   And who says he's not "a misanthropic medical genius"? I'm not sure where it says clearly (as it surely should) that a WP article ref-link can never point back into WP (!), but in this case the link is to Pilot (House) In "Pilot" (House), where he is called "misanthropic" (without qualification) but the word "genius" goes unmentioned. I'm eliminating "often construed as", and the ref, but {{fact}}- {{vague}}-tagging the phrase.
--Jerzy•t 23:41, 19th & 02:32, 20th; May 2012 (UTC)

    Oops! There is nothing wrong with the ref. Rather, i confused linking the name of the ep, in the citation, with citing our own article. I'm still concerned about our guidelines not clarifying that "third party" means "not ourselves [1st party], and not someone whose opinion about themself we are citing [2nd party]" (and it could thus perhaps be construed in its more usual sense, "someone -- maybe even us -- other than the two sides of the dispute we are writing about), but it was my error, and that it would be unreasonable (after recognizing my error), to construe this as a case of a WP implying that another WP article is an authority for this WP article's statement.
   I continue concerned that we are not told whether our contributor has observed that House

1. consistently behaves misanthropically and exhibits genius about medicine,
2. is treated like a misanthropic medical genius by every character he meets,
3. is described as "a misanthropic medical genius" by at least one character, and heard by other chars who ignore opportunities to convincingly contradict that opinion, or
4. is so described by at least one real-world key insider, without contradiction by a more or equally authoritative key insider. After it is reworded, we can consider whether whichever of those four was intended is adequately documented, by simply naming the pilot episode as a whole as the source. (As to a fifth possibility, i think we must reject the opinion of our contributor, and even the agreement of all their friends -- and probably also the consensus of the critics.)
   --Jerzy•t 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
   

What is and what was

   Altho it is hard it imagine it will be come relevant in the case of the diff link i provided in the edit summary of my last edit to the accompanying article, i failed to anticipate the distinction between it (a URL that Wiki-blame found & provided me) and another that i derived from a history-page link that i located making use of a timestamp that Wiki-blame found & provided me. If you care about the possibility of the difference ever mattering, the odds are good that you've already learned enuf that you'll learn nothing more by reading further. If you don't see how the difference could matter -- but are nevertheless still curious -- read on:

The following is stuff i've never seen clearly documented, nor seriously tried to hunt down where (as i assume) that has been done, but it didn't take too much patience to learn just by experiments and imagining how what i've found could be worth building into the MediaWiki engine.

Each of those two URLs specifies two revisions, and in both cases the "newer" of the two is the same. The difference between them is that

1. one URL specifies as "older" whatever revision of the page bears the next most recent time stamp for that page, while
2. the other specifies instead a revision bearing a specific time stamp, whether or not that one immediately precedes the first in a list of timestamps for that page.

Selective deletion and/or undeletion of revisions can result in

1. those two second specifications representing different revisions, with different content, and
2. thus the two "differences" pages asserting different accounts of what content changes were made by the editor whose sig is on the same content.

The point of my providing a link to a diffs page is that the editor in question

changed two short words that are visible without starting an edit, within a page containing about 100,000 characters,

added four words only visible on the edit page,

whose intent is unclear without knowing what the two changed words were.

The URL in my edit summary will make all clear, only in the absence of selective deletion and/or undeletion, while the second URL i present above should suffice against any but very bizarre changes.

--Jerzy•t 05:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hard to document everything 174.114.11.60 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Critical reaction to season five

In regards to season five, the article had it depicted as being very poor. While I understand that there are criticisms in relation to some of the narrative strands etc. it was still generally well received, so I've add both aggregate review counts for Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, along with two review summaries. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 17:39, 08 February 2014 (UTC)

"The team employs the differential diagnosis method,[81] listing possible etiologies on a whiteboard, then eliminating most of them, usually because one of the team (most often House) provides logical reasons for ruling them out.[82] Typically the patient is misdiagnosed at least once and accordingly receives some treatments that are at best useless;[81] this usually causes further complications, but—as the nature of the complications often provides valuable new evidence—eventually these help them diagnose the patient correctly.[17] House often tends to arrive at the correct diagnosis seemingly out of the blue, often inspired by a passing remark made by another character.[81] Diagnoses range from relatively common to very rare diseases.[83]"

This leaves out that House sometimes prescribes the wrong treatment, or fails to prescribe the right treatment, intentionally in order to 'provide valuable new evidence'.