Jump to content

Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Confirmation?

I dont believe Stacey Warner was Houses former girlfriend, as the article states. She was his wife, actually. I think it says this in episode 21 or 20 (Three Stories)

She was his girlfriend. They lived together. The show has never said they were married. 69.142.21.24 05:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any proof that they were married. If there is no direct quote from the show that they were married, then it will be assumed they were just girlfriend/boyfriend.Gdo01 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
House and Stacy were never married. If she was his ex-wife she would have probably been mentioned earlier on in the series. Sfufan2005 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In "Sports Medicine," Cameron asked House if he'd ever been married, and he responded that he had lived with someone once.St jb 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wassily Chair?

I was wondering whether the chairs in their office are the Wassily Chair - it could be added to the trivia section. --Differentgravy 11:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Useless knowledge. Next we'll be reporting what brand of markers he uses for the differential diagnosis whiteboard.

Haha. Quite right. What chairs they use really have nothing that good to do with the show. They are just props like almost everything else. Le Raine

Miscellaneous

this is with reference to the comments in the "criticism" section. "In one instance, a doctor was bitten by a patient infected with rabies. The doctor displayed symptoms the next day that usually take several weeks to manifest. In addition, rabies is usually fatal after the appearance of symptoms; in this episode, it was treated as easily curable." This is patently wrong. The doctor bitten, Eric Foreman, does not display any symptoms and if he had actually displayed any, a vaccination shot would not save him. Also Rabies is not treated as curable. Matter of fact, this is one of the episodes where ultimately the patient is implied to be irrecoverably diseased and is even consoled by one of the doctors.

Some of those of us who live in the UK have a chance to see how good this series is next Sunday (2005-04-17) when it starts on the Hallmark channel. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Come on guys, let's EXPAND this article... I did a little tonight ---FoodMarket talk! 04:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The actor that plays Dr Chase is from Australia, so surely he's playing an Australian not a NZer?? Limegreen 09:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

House began being screened on terrestrial UK television, channel 5, 10pm on Thursday nights on the 2nd of June. The episode for June 30th is 1x04 Maternity. Australia are currently on their second episode and Italy begin showing the first season this week. Trialia 15:32, 30 Jun 2005

I've noticed that in a lot of episodes, during the introductory sequence where the patient begin to exhibit symptoms, the script tries to mislead or misdirect the viewer as to who the eventual patient may be. Often a character is presented who is already suffering some inexplicable symptoms when suddenly the eventual patient spontenously collapses. Does this qualify as a unique and signature aspect of House? Dan Pope 01:10, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It reminds me a lot of Casualty: a long-running UK TV show about a casualty department in a hospital. It, too, would open with someone getting into medical bother before the opening credits, although it was usually more obvious about it (a common stand-up joke in the mid '90s was that each episode opened with dialogue like "Of course I know how to operate a chainsaw", at which point their fate was sealed). Sockatume 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Theme

It is *not* Teardrop by Massive Attack, despite the claims of the IMDb and the umpteen people who use that as a definitive source to add this false information to the article. It sounds a bit like Teardrop, it may use some of the same piano bits as Teardrop, but it is not Teardrop. Can people either provide definitive proof that it is Teardrop, or (more likely) definitive proof that it isn't (and of what it actually is)? Kinitawowi 11:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well... it uses cuts from a full length piece of vocal music which is billed by multiple sources (in different length and bitrate rips) all over Gnutella-net as being "Teardrops", by "Portishead and Massive Attack"... and the credits do bill Massive Attack for the theme, though they don't mention the title. You're correct: we won't believe you until you can say what you think it *is*.  :-) As for Americo-centrism: I'm sorry; I don't *watch* the show in those other countries, and it *is* that music in the show's country of origin. Feel free to add the extra clarification, but no need to be snide in the CVS comment.
--Baylink 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've learned much better than to trust the opinions of people on P2P networks for song titles. ;-) For starters, Portishead had absolutely nothing to do with Teardrop (the vocalist is Elisabeth Fraser from the Cocteau Twins, not Beth Gibbons), and if I believed everything I read on WinMX then Duane Eddy's take on the Peter Gunn music would be called "Theme from Spy Hunter". Kinitawowi 22:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I *did* specify "multiple, independent rips of different sizes and bit rates from different sources"; I'll add "with obviously individually typed names". Massive's website is going to be featured next month on Websites that Suck, so it's not possible to find out from it -- though you'd think a band would be shouting it from the housetops. Additionally, I have a reference for lyrics for that song which contain the title word, and match the lyrics in the track I downloaded. *My* confidence factor is >98%, and I've been here for about a year now (along with a couple years on alt.folklore.urban); I don't rely on personal knowledge unless I'm pretty confident.  :-) I do have a question, though, did this site steal from us? Or did we steal from them?
--Baylink 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been here two days over a year, and that's enough time for me to know that of course personal knowledge is not necessarily sufficient, the inlay of Now! 40 (which contains Teardrop, as well as information on it) has typos galore, and that once in a while I may have to admit that I'm not necessarily 100% right all the time. I was highly confident; the title theme I bore witness to had no lyrics to work from.
Oh, and Artistopia probably stole from Wikipedia. You can tell by the shoddy markup (the triple apostrophe around the band name, for instance). Kinitawowi 22:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
No offense intended, Kinitawowi. You didn't say that it's not "Teardrop" in the UK or Australia; you just said that it's not "Teardrop," despite evidence that it is. You're the one who wants the change, so you need to provide the proof, instead of demanding proof of others. Elwood00 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Conversely, if everyone else is insisting it is Teardrop, they've got to prove that. ;-) I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia has tended to run with "no information is better than wrong information", and all the evidence I had to hand (i.e. what I'd seen in the UK) said that the information there was wrong. Subsequent investigation has forced me to the conclusion that it was (mostly) right. Kinitawowi 19:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Proof: you can listen to a sample of "Teardrop" from their album Mezzanine over at AllMusic.com (registration required). Or, you could take a trip down to your local CD store and listen to their CD. House's theme is definitely cut from Teardrop; even in the short 10-second sample on AllMusic, you can hear some chords very reminiscent of the show's theme. — EagleOne\Talk 02:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
It's definitely not Teardrop in NZ either. I'm actually a little surprised, given how almost integral themes are to various TV programs (like the link between various Who songs and CSI etc.) that they didn't surmount whatever licensing issues. Thus, I'm not surprised at various people's adamancy... Limegreen 21:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It has to be their label; no band is stupid enough to turn down a TV theme gig.
--Baylink 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about any other countries, nor do I know a thing about Teardrop, but here in Brazil the opening theme changed around the time of Vogel's introduction. It is still used as the closing theme, however. The current opening theme seems to be based on the former one, but is much more mechanical. BTW, the original was quite moving, quite upbeat in an almost cerimonial way. Luis Dantas 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's Teardrop. If yuou watch Love Hurts with closed captioning on, it'll say [Massive Attack's Teardrop] in the opening credits. --Veemonkamiya 18:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch. I'm willing to deem that authoritative.
--Baylink 18:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The theme used in the UK is the alleged Teardrop one, I think, contrary to the article stating it isn't.

For anyone still un sure, go to here. It's a short clip a put together so you can compare the house theme with Massive Attacks Teardrop. (House plays through the right channel, tear drop through the left. Best listened to through headphones). This clip is from the theme as hear in the UK (I don't know about other countries). I hope this will settle the arguments. They're not identical, but very similar. (Also I'm considering putting up the theme here on wiki, but I'm unsure about the copyright, can anyone help with that?)
--Oatzy 12:11, 18 September 2005 (GMT)
Kooby: I have listened to the two, for the record, featured in the clip is the Australian theme on the right and the US theme(teardrop exact edit), and for the sake of it, if you listen closely, they're both in different keys... Me being the genius i am, can hear that in the theme, the chords are Bm, D, A and F#m, where as in the massive attack portion, it is A, G and D. I think it can be said that somewhere in between some very fancy studio person stepped in and recreated his own mix of the theme, but to which songs were used is unknown. I shall be listening next time the show is on to the full aussie theme, i think it might be a collection of songs, and ill try and reproduce the theme song myself to conclude that it was done by someone else and not a particular band
Very nicely done. That's also the one they use in New Zealand.
A bit of clarification. In the US, they use an edited version of Massive Attack's Teardrop. In the UK they use a piece of looped music that is in library. I called Channel 5 to check this, as the same thing happenned with the first season of CSI in the UK. Apparently the success of House may lead them to reinstate the original for the second season.

Okay, once and for all, the US theme uses a small portion of Massive Attack's "Teardrop" with Elizabeth Fraser singing vocals. They could not get the licensing for the UK, Australia and NZ releases of the show so they use a different piece of music there. The US one definitely does use it though and gives it credit in the End Titles.

And Finally... let's wrap this up. I wrote to Channel Five last Thursday to complain about them giving away the plot of Three Stories in the promo for this weeks' ep, and took the opportunity to ask them what the music was.

The opening credits are indeed "Teardrop" by Massive Attack the composers being Del Naja, Fraser, Marshall and Vowle. However, the closing credits however are different and the music is listed as "House", with composers Ehrlich, Derlatka and Roberts.

They're wrong (the opening theme still isn't "Teardrop"), but the closing theme is the same as the opening. Kinitawowi 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the opening theme in the UK, Australia and NZ, is a looped portion of the song Alone in Kyoto by Air, which was also used in the movie Lost in Translation.

I checked the opening theme song on the US DVD release with my copy of "Teardrop", they match. More importantly I think that the closing theme is also by Massive Attack and is a song called "Everywhen". I have not been able to find one statement on this anywhere. Can anyone help confirm this? Everywhen is off of the 100th Window album.


I believe the trivial information you have regarding the theme music for House broadcast in Australia in incorrect.

My debate is not about what song it is (It certainly sounds like a sample from Teardrop) but that it doesn't differ between the US and the Australian version, which the article states.

I have heard the opening theme music from both a US version and the Australian version and for all intent and purposes, they are the same.

Is there any proof that there is a change of theme music (in Australia) "due to rights and licensing issues" ?

May I also point out that artists make different versions of the same song. The theme song may not exactly be what you would hear if you were to listen to Teardrop off album "Mezzanine" but it may simply be a different version.

So, the definative answer is:

The opening theme music is... Teardrop (The House MD. version) by Massive Attack.

Nick --220.240.33.137 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


To answer the original question, the opening theme is Teardrop in the US.

I have seen countless episodes on FOX and on USA, and I liked the opening theme enough to try to find it. I heard it was Teardrop, so I bought the song off of iTunes. The song has some extremely unique effects, and it is extremely obvious after hearing it and the song used in the intro that they are definantly one and the same.

Now, Teardrop does have lyrics, however a large portion of the song is blank, including the ending which ends with a solid chord. It is obvious that they've either used the ending, hence the solid chord at the end, or they've spliced a few pieces in the middle with the ending chord. Regardless, it's Teardrop (in the US).

Vjasper 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How Realistic Is It?

Could someone comment on how realistic this show is? I'm wondering in particular about the medical terminology, procedures, etc. Compare with CSI which is entertaining but presents a completely fake and misleading portrayal of real crime investigations. Thanks!

i am not a medical student... so i am curious (and i don't mean any offense) about diagnosticing patients... do they really go by this dramatic step by step, if you'll excuse the word, guesses and probe patient with various different surgeries before reaching the right one? thx! 70.70.209.80 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It depends largely upon the specialty and type of medicine you are practicing. Believe it or not, a lot of medicine is based upon trial and error. Your physician may prescribe medication X to treat your symptoms with no result, so he may switch to medicine Y to see if there is any improvement.

This trial and error isn't the case when patients present with symptoms consistent of a condition with well-established treatments and protocols. However, when facing something rare or new, educated guesses and trial and error are the only way to find a treatment in the absence of literature and prior cases to reference. In these cases, seeing what does not work can assist the attending in deducing the cause of the problem.

JLL, MD

Here's a Doctor's blog where he/she basically reviews each episode and slightly touches on its accuracies if anyone's interested. http://www.politedissent.com/house_pd.html


    • Another take

I can't speak to every single detail, but as someone who "attended" (by proxy) one of the leading med schools, went through internship, a long residency and fellowship and quite a few years of private practice vicariously by way of my spouse (a radiologist, granted, but she was very strongly recruited by her internal medicine mentors during internship and she chose/was chosen for one of the toughest internal med. internships in the US) -- in general terms the medical details seem to me to be almost always accurate or at least very, very close. I can only recall a few particular situations where standard differential diagnosis was fudged a bit for dramatic effect. I'm thinking especially of first season's episode: Histories. Even if it's true that the incidence of rabies is as low as Chase states, when he came across the bats early on I found it fairly strange that he wouldn't have instantly added rabies to the list of conditions to rule out.

Of course, if he had, how would the rest of the episode been filled out? Thus my statement re: dramatic effect (and structure). House has a stock episode structure that nearly always parallels both a good Sherlock Holmes tale and the standard practice of differential diagnosis. The big difference being that in most cases differential diagnosis can be internalized -- but that wouldn't work on TV, given the structure the shows creators have said they are striving for.

As JLL, MD notes above, trial and error play a far more prominent role in medicine than most patients would like to believe. It may be a bit of a stretch, but I'd say there are probably a lot more internists (and specialists) who are significantly "House-like" in their deductive reasoning powers than the show credits.

After all, Arthur Conan Doyle based Holmes on one of his own most-admired professors during his own stint at med school, in an era where there were almost no reliable few diagnostic tests and imaging studies available to doctors, and observation and deduction were a diagnostician's main tools.

Where House may at times stray from strict realism is most often in how House's rule-bending is dealt with (though doctors do cover for each other at times, I find it a little implausible that brilliant diagnostic chops alone would insulate him so well, especially when you consider how "popular" he is with staff beyond the borders of his little fiefdom.

Also, I'm not too sure how many hospitals would allow non-surgeons to perform some of the invasive procedures that House's minions take upon themselves, or for that matter, many of the diagnostic imaging studies shown. I have to assume that the members of the Three Disciples are present more as observers than as the supervising physician in those cases? Of course, one hardly ever sees a radiologist anywhere near the actual imaging study in progress -- they have their hands full dictating findings elsewhere in the radiology department.

I excuse all of this, though, to the gods of dramatic structure (plus production scheduling and budgets).

--BreeUn 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock homes bit to go

Agreed, I've never liked the analogy on this page. It is phrased as if with authority, with no links or info as to where this came from. The paragraph in question was added anonymously. To deal with the points in turn:

Dr. James Wilson (an oncologist) is his Watson.
Wilson plays an occasional part more as friend and confidant than assistant.

Where Holmes solved crimes, House solves medical mysteries.
I see the analogy, but there are many many TV detectives and doctors.

Holmes was famous for solving cases no one else could unravel; just so House.
Just about all fictional detectives and doctors do their job better than others: that's the point of the story in most cases.

Where Holmes used cocaine, House uses Vicodin.
This point I agree with.

Both play musical instruments, for their private pleasure only.
Hardly relevant enough to claim "analogue".

So we are left with a detective on cocaine, and a doctor on vicodin. All the rest they have in common with most fictional detectives and doctors. It may be more instructive to look at the plot devices of both, eg hero, etc.

It has already been removed once then reinstated, I am removing it again. If anyone thinks it should be included, please point to some other link or source to back it up, along with better evidence. Mat-C 07:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What kinds of links would you like? The bits about House come from the TV show, and the bits about Holmes come from Doyle. The similarity to Holmes is a big reason I started watching the show. Just because some of the comparisons also apply to other TV detectives and doctors doesn't mean that House doesn't relate to Holmes.
I say we should restore the list and add to it the most Holmes-like part of House: The scenes where House diagnoses clinic patients after only a few seconds of observation and by asking only a few questions, a trick that Holmes was famous for. --Elwood00 13:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
How about this link? http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php --Elwood00 13:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Interview with David Shore. Doesn't get much more authoritative than that. http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C92770%7C1%7C,00.html --Elwood00 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one who re-instated the Holmes comparison the first time. I feel that the material warrants inclusion in this article, especially now with the links provided by Elwood00. — EagleOne\Talk 17:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and have added the info to the "Trivia" section, backed up by the links Elwood00 provided. I tried to make it a bit more succinct than it was before, so as not to give undue weight to the comparison. —Josiah Rowe 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this bit A list of other similarities can be found here. as it doesn't really belong. We can't just link to external articles as a way to have it part of the article. I like the current paragraph, there are obviously parallels, and the "inspiration" thing works. There is a good case for a verifiable quote from the writer(s) of the series. The article pointed to has a quote from Shore, and then goes into more parallels that sort of look like they are said by shore but aren't, and as such I don't think it belongs. Shore seems to be making the point that there are parallels/inspiration, but it is far from an "analog". Anyway, hope this suits all. Mat-C 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. —Josiah Rowe 03:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The most blatant similarity is that both Holmes and House size up people on general appearance and deduce many truths just from first impressions. If not a direct comparision they are certainly not just coincadently related.

  • In addition, the last names of each character are homonymous synonyms (House as House and Holmes as Home).

Holmes and Home are technically neither synonyms nor homonyms (and is there such a thing as a homonymous synonym?). I'm removing this bit. --204.152.176.70 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I take issue that a "near-synonym" is allowed in a fact-based encyclopedia. This is a PoV. Who determines what constitutes a near-synonym? To be clear, a synonym is a word or phrase that means the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Does it fit in the case of Holmes and home? A home is basically a residential dwelling, whereas a holm (holme) typically refers to a dry patch of land encompassed within a marsh or wetland.
  • I see discussion about House and Holmes, but has anyone discussed mentioning the similarities between Dr. Wilson and Dr. Watson, besides their influence on House/Holmes? They both have the same initials (J.W.), and occasionally, Conan Doyle would have one of Watson’s wives refer to him as “James”, which is, of course, Wilson’s given name. And then there is the matter of the wives. Both had at least three marriages. And the list goes on... Is this comparison worth mentioning anywhere, anyone? Thanks! -Digresser 03:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A fact regarding all this... House lives at number 221B - you see it very clearly in the episode "Hunting". To me, this says that the Holmes parallels are definite and deliberate. BobThePirate 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Perhaps i'm being ignorant in saying this, but I have not seen similarities between the two. Or, perhaps not intentional similarities. I took the music and drugs as direct symbolism to the rounding out of House's character. If I recall correctly, (which may not be the case) House did not begin actually playing an instrument untill the episode after Wilson suggested a hobby, (the literal suggestion being a hooker) in an attempt to distract House from his depression and addictions. Even then, he was not seen playing on a full piano untill much later in the season, showing his increasing activity in the hobby and the drugs are a clear indication of House's differing levels of depression, and as a bit of irony in themselves. Throughout the episodes, House, despite being the doctor, is the one who is diagnosed by his patients, and, assuming he is above them, he goes against what people say, and blames all of his problems on fate. However, as time passes, he begins takin more and more responsibility for his actions, from weakly attempting to resist his addiction, to his directly asking for the aid of another doctor in the final episode of season two.


  • It's worth noting that in the season finale the man who shoots House is identified as "Moriarty" in the Fox episode summary. The parallel is clearly deliberate and, I think, worth noting.NinaRachel 00:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)`
The Sherlock Holmes comparisons should remain. They're a notable part of the character and the show, and House's address being 221B should certainly clarify the connection for any doubters. Rray 11:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Without a source, they are original research and inadmissible. Since (if I'm not mistaken) there's an interview with the creator of the show where he says that the parallels to Holmes exist and are intentional, the comparison section should be safe. Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some sources for the Sherlock Holmes comparisons:

I can't find the original interview from Now Playing online, but it's referenced in various places on the internet too. Hope that helps.Rray 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In most adaptations of Holmes, isn't he usually depicted with a cane or walking stick of some sorts? Hazy memory on that, but if so, it's another parrallel.

Quincy Comparison

Thought I'd throw it up. Since people were obsessing over the fact that Sherlock HOlMES and Greg HOUSE were somehow parallel (The surname people!) I figured it'd be interesting to see how the parallels between this successful medical drama and a predessessor were.

General Hospital

House had quite a few mentions of General Hospital, and also shows House watching it. Is it really the General Hospital by ABC or just a parody? --antilived T | C 08:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

On a few episodes, there was actually General Hospital CHARACTERS. So, it is not a parody. --Housefan

As near as I've been able to discern, the clip in the pilot was an actual clip from GH, but everything since has been a made-up hospital soap intended to resemble it -- presumably licensing would be ridiculously expensive, and they have enough trouble on the music front.
--Baylink 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to rearrange the article in order to make it easier to navigate. For example, on my screen at least, the table of contents is almost two screens below the title of the article. I would recommend that we move most of the three paragraphs about House as a character, as well as the section on Vogler to a new Plot/Scenario category, only leaving the introduction sentence, another sentence or two that generalizes the setting, and the production information above the table of contents.

Some examples of what I am talking about can be seen at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Alias, Fawlty Towers, and The Vicar of Dibley.

Rascalb 03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I really dont like the detailed production info "above the fold." 69.142.21.24 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The show overview would be more appropriate.
I have re-jiggled some of the headings for this exact purpose. NeoThe1 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Houseisms

Can we get rid of the Houseisms? It's just a list of funny quotes, so they belong in Wikiquote. Elwood00 14:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Houseisms were a point of reference for those who searched to define a Houseism from a proxy search engine. They had a redeeming value.
    • I never claimed they had no value. Lists of quotes belong in Wikiquote; it's that simple. If you disagree, please elaborate. I'm not sure I understand your objection regarding "those who searched to define a Houseism." (And please sign your posts.) Elwood00 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The cinematographer article doesn't have anything that pertains specifically to House. I would say the show has good photography, but I don't think that is the real emphasis. I removed the link once before, but don't want to start any wars. Not every member of the crew needs to be listed. - Shadowhillway 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the link several times myself. However significant his contributions may be, we shouldn't single him out of the whole crew. If we're going to have a link to him on this page, then it should properly be in a "Crew" section, not "see also". — EagleOne\Talk 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Cinematographers (Directors of Photography) are "Above-the-Line" department heads, second only to the director when it comes to the visual/emotional execution of a film or video. They are, with the director, intimately and immediately responsible for the "look and feel" of a project. "Above-the-Line" talent always includes the actors, the writers, the producers, the Director, the Production Designer, and the Director of Photography (not necessarily in that order). In contrast, "Below-the-Line" talent would be electricians, grips, art department, makeup, and so on. Including "Above-the-Line" talent in a "Crew" section is a bit sketchy, but better than no mention at all, in my opinion. It seems to diminish the contributions of the key "Above-the-Line" artists who make this show (and others like it) the success they are.

Proposed move to House (TV series)

It appears that the show's title is now simply "House", the M.D. having been dropped at some point. It's called "House" on Fox's official site and in every television listing I could find. I propose moving the article to House (TV series) to reflect this title change. Any objections? Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I object, but not that strongly. First, I wouldn't trust Fox's website about the name. It still listed the show as House when most people agreed that it was actually House, M.D..
An argument for the change is that the "M.D." has been removed from the show's logo. An argument against the change is that the name is still shown as House, M.D. on IMDb, as well as on any site selling the season one DVD set.
So, as I said, my preference is to let it stay the way it is, but if the consensus is to change the title, I won't raise too much of a stink. Rascalb 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm more inclined to trust Fox's own website than IMDb. I think that even when the show definitely had the "M.D." in its title, virtually everyone referred to it simply as "House". Now that the M.D. is no longer in the logo, it makes sense to move the article to its more appropriate and simpler title. Obviously we'll keep the redirects to make the article as easy as possible to find. Carbonite | Talk 03:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I Agree for the move to House (TV series). It probably makes more sense to move it since Fox refers to it as House, most viewers refer to it "House" and the only site that refers to it as "House, MD" is the IMDB. TV.com and TWoP refer to the show as House. Sfufan2005 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I object, as I have before—most recently on Talk:Hugh Laurie, less than two weeks ago. I also object to this page move taking place just two days after it was proposed, with only one vote of support. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I moved the page was three-fold:

  • The title of the show is now just House. I'm not sure of the exact date that the M.D. was dropped, but the official site, the show's logo, TV Guide, Zap2It and Yahoo TV (to name a few) all reflect the new name. Some sites that aren't updated as often as Wikipedia (such as IMDb or episode guides) still refer to it as House M.D. It's not uncommon for a show to shorten its official title to the promoted title once the show has some success.
    • Can you cite any official word that the name has been changed, or are you basing this on the fact the the common short title is (gasp) more common?
      • Yes, as I mentioned above, the official site and the show's logo now reflect the new title. Take a look at the season one logo [1]. Now take a look at the current logo on the official site [2]. Notice that the M.D. has been dropped. Again, keep in mind that I'm talking about the official site here, not some fan site or episode guide. Carbonite | Talk 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • For even more proof, take a look at NBC Universal Television Group's page. This page lists the full title of the shows it helps to produce. For example, it lists "Law & Order:Special Victims Unit" and doesn't abbreviate to "SVU". It lists House simply as "House". Carbonite | Talk 13:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The show has always been popularly known as just House. Even when the "M.D." was officially part of the title, it was only used when listing the official name. People always referred to it as "House" and it was commonly promoted as "House". A Google search for "House" [3] turns up Fox's official site (#4) and a Slate article [4] (#5) referring to the show simply as "House".
  • There are redirects from House, M.D. and all of its typos to the new title. Anyone searching for the House M.D. will have no problem finding the article. I've already fixed all double-redirects.
    • I cannot for the life of me work out how this could be an underlying reason, given the fact that you did this after moving the page. This sort of editing spree only makes it more difficult to revert a commonly proposed and just as commonly refuted change.
      • OK, I probably didn't explain that as clearly as I should have. Of course I updated the redirects after I moved the page. Why would I have changed the redirects before I moved the page? At best, that would have been confusing. At worst, it would have created double-redirects and prevented readers from finding the article. The whole point of redirects is to ensure that readers can find the article with a variety of search terms. Anyone who attempts to go directly to House, M.D. will go right to the article (same as before). Anyone who types in "House" will go to House, an article on the structure (same as before). Perhaps an argument could be made to make House a disambiguation page. Now that's a discussion for Requested Moves. ;) The point is that since we have the benefit of using redirects, the "true" location of the article isn't going to confuse anyone. The article now uses the current name of the show + (TV series) for disambiguation purposes. Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that this move wasn't really something that needed a whole lot of discussion. I posted the notice on the talk page mainly to let people know that I intended to make this move, not to open up a vote. The new title is factually correct as well as complying with standard naming convention. If there are serious issues with the move, I'll be happy to discuss them. Carbonite | Talk 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not, however, make any notice of your intent on WP:RM, per policy. As this has been proposed numerous times, and very recently at that, you could not possibly believe that this change could be entirely uncontroversial, unless you were merely ignorant of the article's history. If this is the case, you had no right to undertake such a move in the first place. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The short answer is found on the Requested moves page: "Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators." I contend that this move was straightforward, as it was updating the title of a show to its new name. Let me ask you, are you objecting on policy grounds (i.e. you don't think the correct procedure was followed, but would have supported the move) or that the page should not have been moved at all (i.e. you would have objected on Requested moves)? Carbonite | Talk 11:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, out of curiosity, could you point to the discussion or proposal on this talk page before mine? I did do my homework before even making the proposal. I've followed this article for a while, read the entire talk page and even checked the history of the talk page to see if any discussion was archived, but there wasn't any page move proposal to be found. So, yes, in the absence of any history of controversy or previous discussion, I did find the move to be quite straightforward. I assure you that this move was not done to offend anyone or because I was ignorant of the article's history. Carbonite | Talk 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why there is being such a fuss made about a article about a television show that's name has changed. It's not like it was the name of an important person or event. There should not have been such a commotion about a simple page move. Sfufan2005 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


As I understand it, the US title has ALWAYS been "House." I remember reading articles about Hugh Laurie's new show before it even aired, calling it House... the articles even went so far as to explain the title. My understanding is that it was aired as House MD in the UK, but I never saw ANY reference to it by that name here in the US, even before the first episode aired. At MOST, in the US it was perhaps the working title.

I live in the US and certainly remember it being referred to as House MD. I think they wanted to make sure people knew it was a medical show. It wasn't just a working title or a UK thing. Note the screencap that shows the title card as House MD. Hentai wolf 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
That's also what I assumed was the reasoning behind having the "M.D." in the title. Once the show became extremely popular, the title was shortened to simply "House". Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet the opening titles still clearly say "House M.D." The title is often shortened to "House" for the sake of brevity, but I believe the official title is still "House M.D.". — EagleOne\Talk 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you weren't watching an earlier episode (Season one or possibly beginning of Season 2)? The new episodes in the US definitely are just "House". Carbonite | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it was last tuesday's new episode, "Deception". The "M.D." is there to the right of "House", in small type. — EagleOne\Talk 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From an insider... The show was always "House", the M.D. was added as a marketing tool when the series first started to distinguish it from the numerous home building reality shows that were around. Once House established itself and there was no need for the M.D., it was dropped.

Just as a note, the show will be forever known as "House M.D." on the IMDb, since they only use the title that was featured on-screen in the first episode — regardless of any future changes. Chris 42 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well some people like me either forget or do not notice it's M.D. I typed in Ph. D. trying to search for this the first time then I typed in House (TV Series) and I automatically get their. Just like Bleach. If you just type in Bleach it won't give you a list it will take you to bleach the product not Bleack the manga so you have to type in Bleach (Manga). I think it's a great Idea to keep (TV Series) with it's name for the search. Le Raine

Vasculitis

After being deleted, this falsehood reappeared in the page. Vasculitis is not mention in nearly every episode. I just recently got the Season 1 DVDs, after reading that, I paid attention to it. I went 5 episodes from where I was before I heard Vasculitis mentioned. Look, if you disagree, fine, but you ought to be able to bring something to the table, seeing how I can go 5 episodes without it being mentioned.

I agree... FWIW, the House recapper at Television Without Pity uses vasculitis references as a running gag, so that may have been a source of confusion. - Hedgey42 09:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's not mentioned every episode, however, if you compare the number of times House suspects it, compared to any other single condition, it think it qualifies as a running gag. Among fans, "It's never vasculitis!" has certainly become a catchprase. I'd say it's on par with the frequent suspicions of Lupus that Dr. Cameron harbors.

CGI

Should the recurring device of having the diseases and disorders computer animated be mentioned? Also, the use of special effects to show what the patients are experiencing mentally (e.g. the woman with the bugs on her arms, the convict hallucinating his victims, the little girl with cancer)? Is this a really unique aspect of the show? Cigarette 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue it's worth mention, possibly with the kinds of examples you just mentioned, but no more than a small paragraph's worth. Cybertooth85 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is an incredibly unique aspect of the show, and should be mentioned. Vjasper 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, has this ever been a part of the article? I agree that it's a distinctive aspect of the show, and I'll take a shot at writing it into the article, but I'd rather have something to start from MBlume 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


House/Holmes

So you seriously don't see any similarity between the names, either coincidental or otherwise? violet/riga (t) 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up and look at when people tried to get all Holmes connections deleted from the page. It was items like this silly similarity that they argued against. I had to find a reference to Shore's comments to get the Holmes references to stay. I don't want this section to turn into a fanboy reference hunt. They're both drug addicts - a good connection. 221B is a direct reference - good. Their styles of rapidly deducing facts about strangers - good.
We don't need their names to link House and Holmes when we've got other, good stuff. Elwood00 T | C 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think it's one that's too obvious to omit. violet/riga (t) 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You have to make two leaps to get from House to Holmes. (House = Home, Home almost spelled like Holmes) The other comparisons are one, short jump each. Elwood00 T | C 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Just say the words outloud to anyone and they'll tell you they are obviously linked. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The words are neither the same in spelling nor definition. They are not synonyms and they are not homonyms. Say the words out loud to 1000 people and if 999 say they are the same and 1 says they are not, then it's a PoV, and has no place here.

The name is most definitely an allusion - I really can't believe that you think that it isn't. I've re-added it. — sjorford (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You can dress this pig up any way you want, it's still PoV - prove that the creators intended it to be so, otherwise I'll keep removing it. "Home(s)" and "Holm(es)" don't even share the same definition. If Doyle had named the character "Homes" instead of "Holmes", then I'd acquiesce, but he didn't. To sum it up once again, THEY ARE NOT HOMONYMS, NOT SYNONYMS, AND THE SINGULAR DEFINITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME!
Okay, let's break this down.
(1) I think calling it "POV" is a bit of an odd way of putting it, but nevertheless I think I see what you're saying. If the creators weren't thinking of Holmes when they named him "House", then the article should state that; if it's not known whether they did it deliberately or not, then the article should state that instead. The way of dealing with a POV statement is to balance it with alternative POVs. (Do we know that they definitely didn't do this on purpose? The links above don't seem to specify.)
(2) If this were an English class at school, you'd have a point about the names not being exact homonyms or synonyms. But all the text is trying to say is that "Holmes" sounds like "Homes", which is the plural of "Home", which has a similar meaning to "House". They don't need to be exact synonyms for the point to still be interesting. (In in the real world, they are often synonyms - many houses are homes, and vice versa, and most people who have their home in a house use the terms interchangeably.)
(3) Look at it (hypothetically) from the creators' point of view: they are basing a character on Sherlock Holmes, and they want to give him a similar name - but not identical, so as not to make the reference too obvious. They start with "Holmes", notice that it has a homonym in "Homes" (plural of "Home"), and then think of "House" as a real surname (there are 5548 in the UK alone) that reminds them of the word "Home". Sounds quite possible to me. This may not have been how it happened, but either (a) it did, and so it's as worthy as any of the other Holmes references mentioned in the article; or (b) it didn't, in which case it's an amusing random coincidence that's still worth mentioning. Wikipedia is not just a collection of random trivia, but neither is random trivia completely outlawed, if it is interesting and well written, and doesn't overwhelm the article in question.
(4) Please don't shout. You'll be hoarse by the end of this discussion, otherwise. — sjorford (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: this page doesn't have a direct quote from Shore, but does say that he chose the name House in reference to Holmes. — sjorford (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not being clear earlier - I wasn't disputing that a house and a home are synonymous; my issue was with the pronounciation of "Holmes". I have heard it pronounced both with and without the "L", coming from english professors to actual acquaintences who carry the surname. Therefore, I felt that it was PoV based on how an individual pronounces the word. However, based on the David Shore's input provided in link, I withdraw my objection. Although, I modified the entry to mention that Shore himself based the character's name on Holmes, not just leaving it as "a play on words" or "the names are similar".

There are a lot of statements in the section on main characters repeating info with things like "House tells <name> that he hired him/her because". We have to remember when writing this article that basicly nothing House says should necessarily be taken seriously. Certainly things like "I hired you for your looks" should not be taken as a statement of fact. House says a huge number of things, especially about his own behaviour, that are then contradicted by others or by his own actions. That's what makes the show fun. DJ Clayworth 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As I put in the above one, Hugh Laurie made the allution between "House" and "Holmes" on The Tonight Show when the show came out. If it wasn't ment by the writers, it was taken that way by the actor.

Title screen

I added a title screen to the infobox since it seems to be a norm on several other pages (i.e. Grey's Anatomy, The West Wing etc). If anyone can find a better pic of that particular shot in high definition that would be great. Sfufan2005 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's a pretty horrible looking picture. dposse 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Pretty horrible? That's the replacement. You should see the one I had before that. This is an improvement on the last one. Sfufan2005 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture we have now sucks. The entire thing is just a black square with three out of the five letters showing. We can do alot better. dposse 19:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There are you happy now? You whined and got your way. I'm not going to press the issue but I still think you were making a big deal out of nothing. No one else seemed to have a problem with it. It wasn't that bad that it needed a cleanup tag. Sfufan2005 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, we could always put a cast picture directly beneath the title screen picture. The pages for some other shows (such as the Law & Order shows) do that, and I find it rather spruces up the page. I can put one up easily. Anyone have any thoughts? -Digresser 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, could people just agree about the title screen picture rather than changing it every five days?

Amateur analysis

Ugh. Why does everyone insist on adding their two cents about what they think imaginary characters think and feel? It isn't encyclopedic, and there's no need for it. People who are looking for that much detail can go and watch the show. —Cleared as filed. 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm not sure if this section is really needed. Lots of the "issues" are just part of the storyline, it's suppose to be witty and ironical, and I don't think they should be judged upon face value especially when the scripts are being evaluated out of the context. There are tons of errors in other TV shows, but why aren't those pages including a "criticism" secion? Please discuss it to see any any action needs to be taken, thanks all. Kenimaru 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I just checked the criticism from the nurses. OK, Grey's Anatomy is on the top of the list, and yet it's not mentioned on the corresponding Wikipage. All right, I get it, Dr. House is a bad person, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT of the show. I would really appreciate if someone would discuss this with me before I go ahead and remove that whole section, thanks all. Kenimaru 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree that this criticisms section isn't neccesary for one reason: THIS IS A FICTIONAL TV SHOW. Yes it depicts things that do happen in real life, but as a fictional TV show, the writers are not obligated to be factualy accurate all the time. I personally think the comment about the "obvious termite infestation" to be pretty stupid as I just watched that episode minutes ago, and when you have termites living inside the walls of your house, its not really obvious. If the termites are running around all over your house, thats a different story. Unless a program on television is a documentary, it does not have an obligation to be accurate all the time. I can understand the criticism about House's character and his possible racist/misogynistic comments, but the criticisms about medical accuracy are unneccesary. The page for Grey's Anatomy has a criticism section (which states that critics contest how much doctors fraternize with each other, which I personally find ironic since there is no such comment on ER's webpage where the doctors fraternize just as much as those on Grey's Anatomy), ER however doesn't have a criticism section, CSI does have one, but CSI Miami and NY don't. None of the Law and Order pages have criticism sections desipte the fact that the real world rarely works the way it does on those shows (there are a few mentions, primarily on the original Law and Order page that state the show emphasizes trials that would be pled out in real life). So, I just don't see the necessity in have this section based on the medical aspects at least.

"Fans have pointed out in the forums that the Dr. House character often neglects to disinfect the site of an injection (which may be purposefully showing House's recklessness)." As far as I'm aware, a lot of medical professionals no longer 'sterilise' injection sites, as doing so can result in microbes being brought to the surface where they can be forced inside by the needle (at least that's what I was told during my training a couple of years ago). A more concrete 'mistake' would be better here.

Alternate Music in UK etc. - on the DVDs or just on broadcast?

Can anyone who has the UK version of the DVDs tell me whether it has the original theme music or the replacement used on TV? Thanks, Denzilq 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The TV replacement, unfortunately. :-( Kinitawowi 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. That sucks, the orginal music suits it much better. I'll have to look into getting the Region 1 version imported. Denzilq 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Running Jokes

I've noticed that they suggest Lupus as a diagnosis on nearly every episode of the show. Perhaps this is a running joke among the writers?

HOLY SHIT YES! I just came onto wiki today just to bring that very point up..something HAS to be said... Rpf 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that language should be used. Some people don't like it and also kids run through these discussion topic so I edited that word. Le Raine

--- I've seen that too. I have Lupus and I wish REAL doctors would be as fast as they are with that diagnose… ;-) Ariana

Heh. This is actually a feature on the second season DVD: a montage of all the times they suggest Lupus. It's pretty funny :P Vignettelante

Production

I was just wondering if anyone here knows how/when they are producing the episodes. I think that they currently have all the episodes in season 2 filmed but I dont know. Anyone have any ideas of when they finished filiming season 2 or will finish filming season 3? --BenWhitey 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) They seem to diagnose Heavy Metals quite a lot as well --Dess 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

42

In the trivia part of this article, it says the following: On April 11, 2006's episode, House claimed 42 was his lucky number, very likely a reference to the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. The BBC television adaptation of the book starred fellow Blackadder alumnus Simon Jones, while the film adaptation featured Stephen Fry of A Bit of Fry and Laurie as the Book.

If i'm right, didn't someone from Lost guest star on that episode? And since the weird numbers on it are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42, it could be a reference to that. 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Star Wars trivia item

I just removed this unsourced trivia item: * Coincidentally, House's apartment number 221B may also be a reference to the Star Wars medical droid 2-1B, who installed Luke Skywalker's power prosthetic hand in The Empire Strikes Back. In addition to its lack of a source, it seems spurious since the numbers aren't the same (221B vs 2-1B) and there's no obvious connection between House and Star Wars. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of very flimsy bits of trivia in the list. We need to be quite strict in our criteria for inclusion. Jefffire 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Candida

No idea if this is interesting or not or a stretch or not, but it seems that the character Cameron is based, in part, on George Bernard Shaw's character Candida from his play Candida. House: "You live under the delusion that you can fix everything that isn’t perfect. That’s why you married a man who was dying of cancer. You don’t love, you need. And now that your husband is dead, you’re looking for your new charity case. That’s why you’re going out with me. I’m twice your age, I’m not great looking, I’m not charming, I’m not even nice. What I am is what you need. I’m damaged."

In Shaw's play, Candida is torn between two men and ultimately chooses the one that needs her as opposed to the one that she loves.

Candida: "...Now I want you to look at this other boy here--my boy--spoiled from his cradle. We go once a fortnight to see his parents. You should come with us, Eugene, and see the pictures of the hero of that household. James as a baby! the most wonderful of all babies. James holding his first school prize, won at the ripe age of eight! James as the captain of his eleven! James in his first frock coat! James under all sorts of glorious circumstances! You know how strong he is --how clever he is--how happy! Ask James's mother and his three sisters what it cost to save James the trouble of doing anything but be strong and clever and happy. Ask me what it costs to be James's mother and three sisters and wife and mother to his children all in one. Ask Prossy and Maria how troublesome the house is even when we have no visitors to help us to slice the onions. Ask the tradesmen who want to worry James and spoil his beautiful sermons who it is that puts them off. When there is money to give, he gives it: when there is money to refuse, I refuse it. I build a castle of comfort and indulgence and love for him, and stand sentinel always to keep little vulgar cares out. I make him master here, though he does not know it, and could not tell you a moment ago how it came to be so. And when he thought I might go away with you, his only anxiety was what should become of me! And to tempt me to stay he offered me his strength for my defence, his industry for my livelihood, his position for my dignity, his-- Ah, I am mixing up your beautiful sentences and spoiling them, am I not, darling?"

Cameron: "We had a nice, candid conversation."

Shaw and Doyle are contemporaries and active at about the same time; it seems reasonable that the creaters would pull inspiration from other late 19th century literature. | Aepryus 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it's original research, so it can't go into the article unless you can find a reliable source that makes the connection. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Monster Truck rally?

In the article, it states (what I believe to be incorrectly), that on the date that Cameron and House went on was to a monster truck rally. Did this happen, and I missed it, or is this incorrect?

  • I know that they went to a monster truck rally together. But I do not believe that is was "the date". From what I gathered, he had two tickets, and couldn't get anyone else to go, so he went with her. Prsgoddess187 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • House explicitly told Cameron that the monster truck rally was "not a date." However, later in the series, Cameron forced House to take her on a dinner date if he wanted her to return working at the hospital. 69.142.21.24 05:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of Show?

In criticism, the show is listed as "generally quite accurate". Ha! Are you kidding me? I'm a medical professional (MD), and the show, from the heirarchy of the hospital structure, down to the individual diseases and day to day goings on of the doctors is far from accurate medically. This should be reflected in the wiki article.

I apologize, I reverted your change before I saw this message. However, before we make such a major change to the article, I feel we should have some discussion first. Does anyone know if there was a cited article of some sort that was used to make the original sentence in the first place? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. I believe that there is some discussion warranted. I love House, but it's probably the most unrealistic show on TV with regards to medical stuff. Scrubs is the most realistic, believe it or not.


Yamla, please refer to above discussion before reverting my edits. This show is not realistic, and as a medical professional, I feel that I am qualified to make said edits to the article in order to bring an accurate limelight to the discussion. Thank you! JasonBourne2007 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson

" It seems that Dr. Wilson also studied at McGill University in Montreal, Canada judging by the sweatshirt he wore to Dr. House's poker game in episode 2.19 ("House vs. God")."

Isn't is possible that Dr. Wilson just bought the shirt at a store? I don't think we should assume that he went to McGill University just because he wears a shirt with its name on it. dposse 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

David Shore attended McGill, so that's why the sweatshirt was there. So that might throw a little bit of doubt into whether or not Wilson attended McGill, it would seem likely that he did, because McGill isn't a school from which you'd wear a sweatshirt if you didn't go there (i.e. they don't have sports teams that people are fans of, or any sort of great popularity like Harvard does).65.95.33.64 08:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I really doubt Wilson would be shown wearing the sweater if it wasn't to indicate he'd attended McGill.

Just some fixing up

so what I did:

  1. added a citation to the returning of season 3.
  2. formatted the scedules and ratings looks better
  3. subsectioned the recuring elements, removed the diseases in pop culture not an element of the show, so I moved it to trivia
  4. added citations needed to trivia

Crazynas 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

Shouldn't whoever created all the new sections have asked for consensus before creating all these new articles? It seems really unnecessary to have a whole WP article dedicated to trivia about the show. I think all this stuff, with the exception of House characters, belongs in this article, not elsewhere. Thoughts on moving it back? Also, other articles that do similar things have at least a line or two (if not a couple paragraphs) under the subsection in the main article, so that people can get the gist of things without having to click away to another article. I suggest that, if we don't move those articles back, we at the very least add some info about the sections on the main page. 65.95.33.64 08:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The intent is to use summary style, which requires that we add a summary of the articles. Somebody seems to have missed this step. I support the move, though, except for the new articles about trivia and awards. Trivia is unencyclopedic. Something is either worth mentioning in a specific article (not one about trivia) or not worth mentioning at all. And awards? We're an encyclopaedia, not a collection of awards. We shouldn't have an article that just lists awards won by a TV show. Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the article looks horrible now, I'm going to go see what I can do to fix it. Crazynas 12:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're all idiots. First, you remove my plot summary section. Fine. Whatever. Then, I try tot ake a cue from that and remove all the bullshit which made this article ten pages long into separate articles. No good again, because even though the awards are useless and the trivia is too much info for the main article, it is still needed. Fine, but now you put half of everything back, but didn't delete the new articles or the links to them...WTF?! Now:
a) I'm never going to ask for consensus to do a really simple task. If every little thing will be done by committee, nothing will ever get done. The entire point of this thing is get large things done little by little. I had a lot of success sectioning off other large articles, and if additional information was needed, it was added by others; people didn't cling to sectioning so much. What makes this article so special?
b) No, I didn't "miss" writing the summaries. I just don't want to do it, because it is unnecessary to have a summary for a link to a bunch of trivia. Trivia is trivia. Awards are awards. You're all damn bureaucrats and you give me a headache. Have your ten-page House article; see if I give a fuck.NeoThe1 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, nice civility there. Thanks for ignoring the fact that I essentially endorsed your actions and didn't indict you for anything. The awards are useless and it's questionable if they even belong here (we're not a collection of indiscriminate information). Nobody is "clinging" to the status quo; it's just very very very bad form to leave readers hanging and not even provide a one-paragraph summary of the articles created. (A task that isn't much harder than copying and pasting the relevant sentences.) A job left hanging should not be done on a site where every change is live. If there's no need for a summary for trivia (a moot point because trivia is unencyclopedic and should never be left around in a decent article), then why did you leave the separate section for trivia? It doesn't make sense. Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, my bad, point taken about the summaries. I'm just really pissed off about the amount of irrelevant nonsense that was just all put back into the article. People are turning Wikipedia into their private websites! NeoThe1 06:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, i think that the awards and trivia should stay in the article. The awards show how others thought about the show. Trivia is in every other article on wikipedia, and it isn't hurting anything. It holds some nice infomation. All we need for that section is some citations. dposse 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If people want the list of awards House has won or pointless trivia, that's what iMDB is for. As an encyclopaedia, we should confine ourselves to encyclopedic material. A list of awards or pointless statements that add practically nothing to the article like "A later episode mentions that House also likes to watch recorded episodes of The L Word but, 'only on mute.'" aren't encyclopedic. A well-written encyclopaedia article does not trivialise its content by putting an indiscriminate list of facts with no relation to one another and a tangential relationship to the topic of the article (at best). Something is either worth including in the body of the article, or it isn't. The stuff about how Laurie auditioned for House, or Spencer's past acting experience can easily be placed in the body of the article. And as for random trivia about incidents in various episodes? Those don't belong here. If they belong anywhere, it's in individual episode articles, where they would have a more receptive audience and be easier to include in the body of the article. Trivia lists trivialise our articles and their subjects. Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You go tell that to other wikipedians, because i don't think they know that. I can easily post more than ten articles with "Trivia" sections in them, and no one makes a big deal of them as long as they have citations. The awards section shows how well recieved it was by the public. It is encyclopedic to show how the people in the show were honored by organizations like the Writers Guild of America or the Gloden Globe awards, ect. I agree that random trivia about incidents in various episodes should be taken out and placed in articles about the episodes. dposse 02:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please learnt to distinguish between positive and normative statements. I am making a normative statement - a recommendation. You are making a positive statement - a statement of fact. Just because something is currently "this way" doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be "that way". A few years ago, people would have scoffed at the idea of ever needing references in articles, but today any article that ought to be considered just good needs references. Trivia sections trivialise their subjects. By junking random bits of info together indiscriminately, we do not show our subjects respect by fitting in the writing where it should go. Often trivia sections become an excuse for people to add whatever "facts" they like, relevant or otherwise. The average reader won't care that Theodore Roosevelt appears as a minor character in novel X, or that the height of actor Y is exactly 6 feet. Trivia sections are being used as an excuse to keep information that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and also attract information that could easily be properly written up to flow better with the article. As things stand, our readers won't bother picking the wheat from the chaff when reading a trivia section. If they love trivia, they'll read everything. If they aren't interested, they'll just skim it and miss the important bits. This is why it's crucial to dump trivia sections; they act as a magnet for bad content, and draw good content away from where readers are likely to see them. Much of the interesting trivia in this article, for instance, would be better served by being elsewhere in the article; running jokes or character quirks can easily fit in the characters section, and how Laurie auditioned is certainly something that can be written about together with other production facts. Johnleemk | Talk 09:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. That was actually really well written. /sarcasm_off Come to think of it, I agree with you entirely, Johnleemk. It's true: merely moving away all the sections that clutter an article (and that people keep moving back anyways because it's their precious little article) does not solve the problem, because on their own those articles become irrelevant and in the context of the article itself, well they do precisely what you have just described - attract other nonsense that soon makes the article ten pages long.
There is one problem, however: Wikipedia - by the virtue of human nature - encourages personal attachment to work. Neither you nor I nor anyone else will ever succeed in such an absolutely-correct yet unfeasible clean-up of Wikipedia, because to separate the wheat from the chaff without consensus or consent would bring on fanboy wrath 90% of the time and the other 10% of the time would be spent in talk-page debates with the same fanboys - and would lead nowhere.
This is precisely what is wrong with Wikipedia as a whole, and which by definition makes it a non-encyclopedia - a repository of information, yes - but not an encyclopedia - because there is this false sense of "democracy" stemming from the ostensible perception that anyone can add/edit/remove anything, and when one is curtailed or prevented from doing such edits, one ceases to be a productive contributor, because one gets angry (and, let's not kid ourselves, we've all been there). The only way to enforce accountable editorial policy is to close down free editing, institute a ranking policy according to professional credentials and qualifications and...become a real encyclopedia.
But no, this cannot be done, because this is not the true "spirit" of Internet "democracy" and the so-called "freedom" of "information"; to do so would be old-fashioned and tyrannical. Instead, we would rather have a half-assed repository of information, where we are all to various degrees guilty of being un-encyclopaedic, while half-heartedly playing at the game of standardisation - because we refuse to standardise the users creating, enforcing and, most importantly, abiding by those standards.
More to the point, Wikipedia, by definition cannot be regulated lest its sourcing and production be completely micro-managed. To think otherwise is to be delusional and this little discussion is just proof of that delusion - that people actually think that by fighting a type of information - while, on the other hand, permitting free entry of information - is a rationally justified solution to creating a pluralistically-maintained encyclopedia.
The only reason I, personally, am here, is because there are those stupider than I who would come here seeking useful information and find unreliable and, more often than otherwise, unverifiable information. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and this is all a charade. Dixi. NeoThe1 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What consensus? The article was reverted back to the unwieldy piece of shit it was before. Whatever. NeoThe1 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
(deindent) While this is tangential, I think it's important to stress that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and a wiki second. The only reason we are a wiki is because it facilitates the production of an encyclopaedia, and nothing more. There's no sense of openness, pluralism or democracy about it. We're just here to write an encyclopaedia. The original idea was that Wikipedia would just be an adjunct to Nupedia, but as the wiki proved to be far more successful at facilitating the growth of the encyclopaedia, wouldn't it have been stupid not to take advantage of this?
The reason some of us are fanatic about the wiki concept is that we believe it benefits the encyclopaedia. Some proposals (such as semi-protection) may clash with the "wiki way" (whatever that is) but we accept them because they benefit the encyclopaedia. The wiki nature of Wikipedia should be secondary to its encyclopedic traits.
There are proposals to deal with the ruin of decent articles by a crowd of overenthusiastic but ignorant and inexperienced editors, such as WP:STABLE. There's no need to ban open editing, because in the first place, we wouldn't get much done without open editing. Through stable versions of articles, we can produce an encyclopaedia worth reading, and at the same time have enough time to devote to reworking the latest bunch of crap additions with a few gems inside and turning them into decent articles.
And the positive assertion that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopaedia may be true (although I doubt that; this just applies to most unmaintained pop culture articles IMO, since most other articles, even if non-neutral, aren't dominated by irrelevant trivialities) but I was speaking normatively. Clearly Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopaedia. Whether it actually is one or not is subjective. Johnleemk | Talk 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles on House

I've two of the sub articles on House [[Trivia for House {TV Series]], Characters in House (TV Series), for two seperate reasons. A page on Trivia is not Encyclopedic and should not have it's own WP page, I've nominated if for AfD here. Regarding the Characters Page, do we really need three levels? A summary on the main House page, more detail on the Characters page, and still more detail on each charcaters page? Crazynas 12:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the duplicated detail from the main article. So now it's just two levels. The main summary of each character on the characters page, and if you want even more details you can click on the person.
The main page is left with just a list of the names. If someone wants to write a single sentence about each person for the main page, I would support that, but otherwise there is no need to duplicate text.71.199.123.24 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Morphine or heroin

Can we go ahead and get a clear consensus on what Holmes was addicted to? this seems to be flipflopping a lot... MBlume 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes? He was addicted to cocaine. dposse 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that it was mainly cocaine, yeah, but the beginning of The Sign of Four (text here) implies that he also habitually used morphine. I'm not a big Holmes scholar but I was trying to figure it out for the Heroin in popular culture article and that's what I found. Hope this helps. --Galaxiaad 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MERGER discussion and Straw Poll

Anyone else think Criticism of House (TV Series) should be merged in here? Talk about it here.

Support Adambiswanger1 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless we can find more to write about, I think merging would probably best. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having such an article, however. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok I went ahead and merged it. If anyone disagrees, talk about it here. Adambiswanger1 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

House's Nintendos

Is it really necessary for the article to discuss the errors in the depiction of House's Game Boy? This is very common in TV, and probably not worth mentioning here.

Completely agree. Removed it. Iorek85 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah they have PSPs alot in shows. Same as any other game system. Le Raine

House Title

I see it states in the opening section that it was called House M.D. but then changed to House. When did this change? I ask because the season two DVD set is called House M.D. [5] Ben W Bell talk 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Look above to "Proposed Move to House (TV series)" for the details. Sfufan2005 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

houseDVD picture.

House Season One DVD Cover.

i spent alot of time and effort on this picture, with the Fair Use description and stuff. Can someone please find a way to include it into the article? thanks. dposse 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Ending Theme

I was curious if anyone had any idea what the song the plays during the ending credits is. I never noticed it while watching the show on television, however I did notice it after getting the Season 1 Region 1 DVD.

The song at the end of the credits is the same song that plays during the intro. The song is from a group called Massive Attack and the song is called "Teardrop," however the song is remixed for the ending credits.

Ratings section

Something must be done about the "Ratings section" in this article. I just wanted to put it out there before I tweak the section a bit since it is obviously written in the first person and is POV. If someone else would like to change this as well, feel free. Sfufan2005 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1136803335"