Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality

Single episodes

I plan on redirecting most of these per WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT and WP:NOTE soon. Every episode after "Pilot" lacks multiple secondary sources which must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Consisting of solely of individual plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. As others suggest, seek Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. Also see Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspend until the whole EPISODES/FICT thing is over. Will ^(talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the redirection. Although the individual articles fail the policies on some points, the information in each article is useful, even more so when someone needs additional information past the summaries and should be kept. Also, pointing viewers of the article towards other sites outside of wikipedia´s touch to read removed information is an arguable point. Fernando Hulio (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went through the entire first season and other than the Pilot page, and Histories (House), Detox (House), and Love Hurts (House) none of the other episodes have anything other than a plot. Even those I just listed are just plot summaries with a couple of stray sentences (unsourced mind you) about some theme or inconsistency. Just about all of the "real world" content, even in its limited state, is original research. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, or a substitution for watching a show. There is nothing on these episode pages that says they need to be separated. Not only do they violate WP:PLOT, but they don't even fall into what WP:SPINOUT suggests. If you need a few extra sentences to describe a plot, try an article devoted to the respective seasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the merge tag for now because I plan on working on the article fairly heavily soon and this discussion also began over three months ago and has halted, for now. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning abstracts...

People,

The abstracts on the main episode list (this article) are getting way too long, I think. Especially those of season 4. They should be 2 or 3 lines max, like season 1, 2 and 3.

The additional content can be written in their own article. Just de main explanation in this article.

A fair conclusion??

Fallon Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I edited too long abstracts for the first three seasons, I will now do so for season 4.Mrglass123 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

New or repeated episode, 08 feb?

There was a countdown on House's page on Fox for 9pm today. Was it a rerun? Ldfifty (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 restart

Are the dates for the remaining season 4 episodes correct? The fox house site has a counter on with the next episode airing in just over 2 days. 202.154.142.235 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"No More Mr. Nice Guy"

The source I listed for the name of this upcoming episode is a proper source, so I have no idea why it was reverted. If it was the fact that you couldn't see the name on there, go down to March 24, 2008 and you'll see the description for that episode. May not be the best source but it's reliable. Swanny92 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That source is in no way, shape or form reliable. It happens on this occasion to refer to the source from which it in turn obtained the prediction: a blog whose author quotes a mysterious '“House” source.' This is not acceptable sourcing for an encyclopedia. We have no publishing deadline; we can afford to wait until the name of the episode is published. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the Chicago Tribune, well the Chicago Tribune's website, which seemingly is a newspaper, which confirmed the episode title, along with the return of Anne Dudek and several other guest stars to appear later on the show. Link is here. Check it out, I'm sure it's reliable. Swanny92 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 Episode Count

Hey how do we know that Season 4 is only going to have 16 episodes and not 24? ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Executive producer Katie Jacobs [said so]! --Salvania (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 04:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles of the last episodes (season 4)

[Interview with David Shore]
"No More Mr. Nice Guy"
"Living the Dream"
"House's Head"
"Wilson's Heart"
--Salvania (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Diagnoses

I regularly use Wikipedia pages on TV shows to keep track of the series I am watching and today I first stumbled upon this list of House episodes. To my surprise, the final diagnosis for each episode is included in the list, without any previous warning. However useful it may be to know the ending before watching, I prefer to enjoy the series with a clean slate and not know the final diagnosis beforehand. Especially not without explicitly choosing to look it up.

Do more people agree that the final diagnoses should either be hidden or removed or that at least some kind of spoiler warning be included in this page?

Michel Jansen (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that since they are going to a wikipedia article called: "List of House episodes", they would know that they are taking the risk of having the storyline spoiled. Also, does anyone watch House just for the diagnosis? Everyone watches it for the storylines and the way they get the diagnosis. No one actually cares what it is, or remembers it for that matter. It is not that much of a spoiler. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought these things were synopsis, and why would it give the conclusion to the show? It just seems rather illogical to have it in the first place on the generic list of all episodes. Obviously I don't see a problem if it were in the specific episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.59.173 (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2008

Sometimes knowing the diagnosis really does spoil things. For example, for Alone: "Allergic reaction to cephalosporins in misidentified patient". That's supposed to be the twist! Ilkali (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but unfortunately current Wikipedia policy on spoilers is that, well, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --86.135.122.208 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ermm, yes I'm sure that's what WP:SPOIL means then. This article should be at US pace, because that is the origination of House, and therefore there's not much you can do because your country is behind on the show. It doesn't reveal the final diagnosis on the upcoming episodes, just what has been shown. I've noticed that no one's complained yet about having the episode titles revealed of the upcoming episodes. Swanny92 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some would. People can get very passionate about spoilers. But I guess those people just avoid WP altogether. --86.155.161.26 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur about the spoilers of the final diagnosis. It's too much information to give on what should be just what it says on the tin: a list of episodes. If I want synopses and spoilers (not short abstracts, which generally don't spoil), I'd use those episodes' individual pages. None of the other List of XXX Episodes pages I've seen have this sort of massive spoiler on. 82.3.78.117 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr 82.3.78.117. Giving away the diagnosis (which in most cases spoils the entire episode) is not what an episode-list page should be about. The current practice is highly homosexual.Pretender (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Michel Jansen, giving away the diagnosis seems pointless, especially when we can include it on the individual episode pages. It's like having a page about a crime series with a list of whodunnits. 130.88.167.5 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The removal of each diagnosis from this paticular entry makes perfect sense, as this clearly is not the place. if someone is looking up the name of an episode then it is most likely that they have not seen the episode in question, in which case the discovery of the diagnosis can be a major plot spoiler, although apparently not to GuffasBorgz7, but i for one do feel this way. with a page dedicated to each episode it seems that if information is needed (more than the title) then it should be placed on the independent page, where logic dictates a spoiler will exist. the diagnosis does not belong here.

Downforthecount182 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With the premiere of the 5th season today, and therefore the update of the episode details, I think a proper decision should be made as to whether or not the diagnoses should be re/moved. The episode templates in use on the episode articles now have a "Final diagnosis" field in them, if you see the Pilot article. I also made up what the episode list would look like without the final diagnoses column (not really a change, though the writers and directors names have been put into their proper field names), you can see it here. So should we just stick with doing it like that and removing the diagnoses from the episode list? Swanny92 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I say remove it, if I get a vote :) I have to actually cover the right side of the screen with my hand when Im lookin at this page. I was working on trying to get a thing where if you click a link it shows up but that didnt work very well.. although dooable theoretically. Just put the swanny sandbox version in, I dont think there will be complaints. 76.180.69.113 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case, seeing as the majority of people have agreed to it, I'll put my version in and over time I'll work in integrating the diagnoses to the individual episode articles. Swanny92 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

what I'm trying to figure out is why you would come to an episode list not expecting to see what the diagnosis was or what happens in the end...that boggles my mind and i know not just myself but many other people who would not want to sift through paragraph after paragraph of what goes on when all they are looking for is then ending..people do want to just look up the diagnosis at the end and don't want to read through all the episode summaries...just because you think a page shouldn't have something everyone else has to suffer for some people who whine and cry about it..even though its been the same way for years.....come on..get real--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to sift through paragraph after paragraph, they're in the infoboxes! All it takes is an extra click and a glance down the RHS of the page, and there they are. It just gives extra precaution to people who don't want to know the endings to the episodes, and if you do want to know the ending then go read the episode articles. And I don't think any other medical dramas have the "final diagnosis" given on the episode lists, so why should House? Swanny92 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

well seeing as though more people want it there than those who dont it kinda goes in our favor..--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you count but only 3 people have reverted the edits, only ONE person has bothered to come and object to it on the talk page. And EIGHT people help decided that they should be removed from the list. I hardly think that counts as a victory for your side Rlogan2. There are plenty of reasons why the FDs don't belong on this list. a) It's an episode list, and according to the style guides for episode lists, it doesn't mention anything about "giving away the specific ending" (see here), b) For people who haven't seen an episode, seeing the FD can ruin it for them. If they do want to see the FD, the new system can be just that they can open up the episode article and take a look at the infobox, and bingo! There it is! I noticed that you haven't even commented on the FDs being in the infobox. Perhaps you didn't realise that? Well hopefully you do now. In simplest terms, the FDs don't belong in the episode list. The House episode list should be laid out just like any other episode list, it isn't that special in the end, treat it like any other. It was a nice idea though it doesn't stay true to the MOS for episode lists. It's good enough that they can go in the infobox. Swanny92 (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

what im trying to figure out is why you would want to go to a page where spoilers are usually listed and expect to not see spoilers??/ a bit idiotic in my book..because you can go to the website of all places..im sure they wouldn't list the spoilers right out there in the open..however this is wikipedia and in wikipedia they divulge the facts of an episode..the summary and the ending...hence the summary is listed as well as the final diagnosis...whine and cry all you want, then after the tears are dried up go to the official site and watch the episodes there..and if you cant find them there go out and buy the dvd..wiki is not the place to whine about the ending of television shows..i think its funny that just because very few people have whined on and on about it that someone says..hey this hasnt been addressed so ill just up and change the format of it...try again because if something is not broken why fix it...--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mate, this is an episode list, not the full on plot details of each episode. I've already said, the FDs are listed in each episode article, so they're still there. Keep the episode list as an episode list. Therefore it still abides by the MOS for an episode list. Why does House have to be so special as to have it's own unique MOS for its episode list? Answer: it's not! Try actually reading the discussion above and then you'll be able to see why the decision was reached. You've had 5 months to try and have your say, it didn't need to go on forever. Swanny92 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

i dont see why you're getting so upset over keeping something here that has been there longer than the five months it has been talked about..obviously no one has had an issue with it before and again a bunch of whiners have decided it should come down?...i vote no on proposition whining..leave it how it was and move on to debating something else because honsetly this is getting to be really pointless..if you dont want to see it, dont come to the page where you know it will be listed..its simple common sense.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all just a matter of improving the article. It seems you're the one who's whinging about it, because I was just performing an action which had been discussed for 5 months and it had been overall decided to remove the FDs. I hardly think it's whinging, it's just a group of editors wanting to improve the article. Where's the harm in that? And honestly, what's the problem with having to take one click to check out what the FD is? And also, quote to me where it says that something like a final diagnosis for an episode has a place on a list of episodes? The point is mate, there was an entire discussion taken place and overall it was decided to remove the Final Diagnoses from the list. So why can't you just respect the decisions that were made by a group of people and "move on to debating something else because honestly this is getting really pointless". You can't win every vote. Swanny92 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

last time i checked it wasnt a requirement to read a discussion page to ensure that something you want to remain as it was to stay..and it really needed no other improvement other than the new episodes that were made..quote where it says you cant put the conclusion to an episode on a page. its done on every other page and the simple fact that you guys dont want it doesnt make it right..if there was a show like house, that poses a medical mystery than i would hope that there would be a final diagnosis included in a basic page..look it is obvious that we are not going to agree on this because the way we feel about it is not going to change...im not going to accept what you are trying to do and youre not going to accept what im trying to do...lets just find some kind of common ground and end this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlogan2 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise would be to have it hide the column and have the user click to see the diagnoses.. Or in mean time have Huge spoiler alerts everywhere. Looks like diagnoses were added when this list failed to be featured the first time around, interestingly the second time around one of the reasons it wasnt featured is because of the diagnoses(in addition to a lot of copyright problems), I can see why its a good idea to have all the different diseases in one place (as opposed to the list of house diseases that was merged in) but it should be hidden from immediate view. Even a table all the way at the bottom would be better.. how about an anchor link from each row to the diagnosis table at the bottom. - RandomGUY

Look I already gave the solution that the final diagnoses can be moved to the individual episode articles. It's a better place for them as the rest of the info on the episodes can be found there, and the basic info can then be found on the episode list. What is the problem with doing that? And Rlogan2, when I meant read the discussion page, I was referring to the discussion that took place about removing them, so you could see why it was agreed to remove them. The point is, the FDs don't belong in this article. This list should be staying consistent with other TV show episode lists, and by having them on this list, it's not staying consistent. That is why it was thought of having the FDs in the episode articles. Can someone please point out to me why it is such a huge problem with having them in the episode articles instead? (besides having to make one extra click, which isn't so bad IMO) Swanny92 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

it does not have to do with it being one extra click. i wouldnt be opposed to almost like a rollover. i am however opposed to moving the entire final diagnosis peice. you know it has alot more to do with what i have said over and over like a robot. it wasnt broken before why alter it now...not everything has to be consistent and uniform. why is everyone worried about not being consistent...like i said a rollover or a spoiler warning thing wouldnt bother me...i wouldnt fight that.but moving it all makes no sense to me. i have come to this page for years and it is a shame that now people are asking for it to be taken away..thats my only issue.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're not opposed to having to make one extra click then what's the problem? And no, the page wasn't "broken", but it just had some unnecessary information that would better belong on the individual episode pages. It's just as simple as that, it's mostly to do with the way that WikiProject Television has decided that the episode lists should be planned out. So if you don't object to having to make one extra click to see the FDs, then you shouldn't have any other problem with moving the FDs from the list? I have given every reason under the sun as to why moving the FDs is a good idea, and it seems like you're the only one with the problem. And if I make the edits due to consensus, then well you couldn't just keep reverting it due to the three-revert rule. Just be fair, you had your say. Swanny92 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

i never said that i was not opposed to it..a a matter of fact i indeed said that was i wasn't opposed to a "roll over..spoiler" type of action...and i'm not the only one arguing..just the only one with balls enough to say no. and i haven't finished having my say because the only person besides me that has been arguing over it has been you...except for in one instance which really was irrelevant because he refused to say who he was. all im saying is our common ground shouldn't be where either one of us wins..but a place where we can both technically lose. --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The "final diagnosis" coloumn is really a bad idea. I thought so for a while. The whole page does not include include spoilers except this one coloumn. 84.108.163.26 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there was an overall agreement to remove it though one person wanted to go against it and wouldn't stick to the consensus and repeatedly removed it. Swanny92 (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys I think I came up with a good solution check out this. Im using a template called hiddenmultiline that passes through the hidden template.. I think it does the trick really well. Hopefully we can all agree on this one :) - Rampagez99 (im also RandomGuy from before)

That's a good idea, quite like that. Makes the unnecessary info non-visible though still allows the info to be seen. Swanny92 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Season Four "Color"

Now, I'm sure people noticed that the first three seasons' episode lists were "colored" as their DVD counterparts. So I HAVE to give kudos to the one who chose green for the Season 4 list, as the DVD cover art JUST came out, and it's been green as long as I remember. A fine guesser you are, good editor :) --70.162.221.121 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Could we try to write ONE plot synopsis without the word "meanwhile"? I know it's a nice word, but it doesn't need to be in every episode description. 81.164.192.15 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Synopses

May I make a suggestion that the descriptions of each episode be written in a more orderly fashion? Some are way to vague, some don't focus on the main or sub plot well and some protect spoilers which is not important here. They feel like they were written like TV Guide blurbs. 68.96.127.226 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Care to cite a couple of examples, to make sure we're both on the same page? Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)