Talk:House season 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:House (season 8))

Lisa Edelstein not returning source?[edit]

Anybody have a source on that, or is this just a rumor? 71.13.220.240 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/05/17/lisa-edelstein-quitting-house-report-says/
By 'fall' do they mean September or November?

'Final Season?'[edit]

"David Shore said that it is unknown at this point whether the eighth season is going to be the last, though it is expected to be the final season" - Does not make sense.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as a source[edit]

Users have repeatedly added and restored links to personal Twitter pages as reliable sources. But when I asked them to please provide the evidence that the linked pages are in any way officially affiliated with the producers of House, I get no substantive answer. Furthermore, most of the links to Twitter pages in the article say nothing about House or whatever is being sourced in the article. The editors who defend these sources have explained to me that the statements in question "used to be" on those pages. When did Wikipedia begin accepting someone's claim that something "used to be" on a website as a reliable source? 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants more information, see the talk page of the above user or my own talk page for the conversations that he/she is referring to. I tried explaining things there, but apparently that wasn't good enough. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevinbrogers, please explain to the larger Wikipedia community, not just me, why you restored sources that I removed that were linked to Twitter pages that had nothing to back up the material being sourced. And please explain how your linking for me the official House Twitter page in any way makes other Twitter pages reliable sources. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter pages are perfectly acceptable as sources, please read WP:SELFPUB for more information. As long as the specific information being sourced is provided by the tweet there isn't a problem. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is to stop me from setting up a Twitter account, making a statement that I wrote all House episodes, and then using that page as a source for crediting myself as the writer? And please provide a defense of your claim that the pages linked confirm the information that they source in the article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following editors have restored the sources to Twitter but have refused (so far), despite my repeated requests, to explain what makes the Twitter accounts in any way officially related to the producers of House. In other words, with their reasoning, anyone who makes a statement on any Twitter account can be used as a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia:

24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How we can tell that the Twitter accounts are affiliated with the producers of House is perfectly simple: through the use of common sense, which has numerous House writers/actors/producers all interacting and sharing information with one another (including Greg Yaitanes who has a verified account). If you thought about it for two seconds it would be impossible for all of these people to not be who they were claiming to be by the simple volume of people participating. It would have to be a massive conspiracy of people pretending to be someone they're not and to what end? To mess about with Wikipedia editors? Not likely. As to your second request, I will go specific. You are removing two different sources that provide information about the "Love Is Blind" episode (specifically this and this.) Open the links and you will discover that the episode title, number, writer and director are all disclosed within those two tweets. My question to you is if you have such a problem with using Twitter as a source, why aren't you removing all the information provided by Twitter accounts instead of just removing the information pertaining to this episode?
P.S., please give editors time to properly organize a response before accusing us of "refusing" to explain ourselves. I find that presumptuous and a little rude. People do have better things to do with their time. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for what you consider to be rude; I believe in accountability, and thus identifying editors who make repeated reverts. I disagree with your description of common sense. What is your "common sense" can be another person's "no credible evidence." Wikipedia has standards about what is considered a reliable source. If a Twitter page has been verified as belonging to the person or organization that claims it, that could be reliable. Otherwise, there is no credible evidence that the page has any official status. Thank you for making an attempt to respond, unlike the other two editors named above. Now, let's see if anyone else has an opinion. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@HOUSEonFOX is a verified twitter account. Additionally, here is a FOX affiliate article linking to the House facebook and twitter pages: http://www.fox50.com/shows/house/interviews/Prognosis-good-for-HOUSE-as-hit-series-is-renewed-for-eighth-season-121577324.html The airdate and title of the next episode could also be referenced to other soures like MSNtv and theFutonCritic, which have since updated their pages with the info. DarkProdigy (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The airdate and title of the next episode could also be referenced to other soures like MSNtv and theFutonCritic": So why not use those sources since they are widely accepted on Wikipedia rather than use sources that have not been determined to be official? 24.163.38.176 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, the twitter account (which is official) was the only source. They didn't announce the rescheduled date until well after it was supposed to have aired. I don't think anyone would dispute you changing the reference from one source to another, rather than deleting valid references and information as you had been doing.DarkProdigy (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is an official House Twitter account. If you disagree, provide the unequivocal evidence. This section is long on claims that something is "official" but quite short on the evidence. I've asked for that evidence about a dozen times now on various talk pages. So far, no one has done any more that give me their opinion. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any unequivocal evidence on @retlefnegniL, though this interview says "Active on Twitter, she is known to be accessible to fans", and the account appears to be the only Kath Lingenfelter on twitter. Here's an alternate source for Tim Southam being the director of the episode. ScytheSloth (talk · contribs) is the one who added that info/tweets, maybe they know something. DarkProdigy (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A webpage that refers to a webpage that refers to another webpage that you use here is quite a stretch for claiming that a Twitter page is official. Try again. I'll be waiting for your response. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy mentioned above by SchrutedIt08 that seems to apply here in case you haven't found it or had a chance to look at it: WP:SELFPUB. Use of Twitter is specifically mentioned as OK:

"Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
Policy shortcuts:
WP:ABOUTSELF
WP:SELFPUB
WP:TWITTER
WP:SOCIALMEDIA
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

Looks OK to me.Coaster92 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't clarify things. The issue isn't whether an official Twitter page can be used, but whether a Twitter page that has not been identified as official -- i.e., any Twitter page -- is considered a reliable source. There is a fundamental flaw in logic that is glaringly overlooked here: If A and B are not identical but are in the same category, and if A is acceptable, then B must be acceptable. Wrong!! There is no policy -- NONE -- to support the use of such a page. I'll again pose the question that I have posed many times here that so far no one has been able to answer: If I set up a Twitter page in the name of "H. Laurie" and make outrageous claims based on my official status, with the reasoning put forth by the Twitter advocates here anything I say on that page could be considered reliable. Just because one Twitter page is an acceptable source doesn't mean that is true for all Twitter pages. The same is true for other social networking pages such as Facebook; many Facebook sources have been removed from Wikipedia, and rightly so. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why an unofficial Twitter page is considered acceptable. And I'm sure I'll continue waiting because no one can come up with a reasonable answer. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter accounts giving out this information have provided multiple photos of their involvements in the show, whether they are with one of the actors or standing in a familiar set area that has appeared on the show itself. They are almost all being followed by verified twitter user, Greg Yaitanes, an executive producer, and most of the actors who are on Twitter, such as Omar Epps, Jesse Spencer, Odette Annable, Lisa Edelstein, and Olivia Wilde, all who are verified. Cast member Charlyne Yi is also on Twitter, but not verified. Much like others have said, it's common sense. Those Twitter pieces about Episode 8.14 from Kath Lingenfelter date back two months ago, and were miraculously right. I'm guessing she's sneaking in and stealing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.231.190 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

I suggest that those pushing use of any Twitter page as a reliable source watch the discussion at WP:RSN#Twitter as a source, where the opinions are accumulating that the official status of any Twitter page used as a source must be verified as official. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Song[edit]

Thought I'd better take this here before adding the retrospective special (entitled "Swan Song") to the list. It hasn't aired yet, but I assume it's something like Seinfeld' "The Chronicle" or any number of other clip shows (probably spaced with cast interviews, etc.). Technically, Fox ordered 22 episodes and "Swan Song" would push it up to 23, but should this be counted as an actual episode? The reason I ask is because shows like Seinfeld and Lost (which had 13 specials) each include "retrospective specials" in their episode lists. Should something similar be done here? At the very least, where could this information be added in prose (if at all)? Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is different from the Seinfeld episodes because, as you mentioned, it's not technically part of the official episode order, whereas clip-shows and what not with Seinfeld were, and counted as actual episodes. This is a special and is already mentioned in the article lead. It could be expanded on there. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care enough about this topic to get into an edit-war, but I'd like to see a rationale why retrospectives cannot be inserted into the forms with "Sp" (for Special) in the boxes where episode numbers would other go (I did this recently, and it stood for a week before being reverted). There are least three Wikipedia articles which copy the episode tables, but not all mention "Swan Song" (and their sentences devoted to it would be unnecessary if it were just added to the table).--Froglich (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not counted in the official episode continuity. If the season contained twenty-three episodes and "Swan Song" was episode twenty-two, then I would agree with you. This is not the case. What "Swan Song" is basically is a special feature that just happened to be broadcast. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My table entry for Swan Song had "Sp" in the numbering fields, meaning the count wasn't disrupted. It was simply on the list as a special so that all Wikipedia articles would have record of it.--Froglich (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Kal Penn is in talks to return as Dr. Kutner."[edit]

How is this possible,since this character is supposed to be dead(suicide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.91.33 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, House has been back on Vicodin for a couple of years now so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.36.22 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on House (season 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_season_8&oldid=1216304256"