Talk:House (TV series)

Name of the show

Query: What is the status of the name "House M.D." versus just "House"? Which is the official name or are there two? Are different names used in different markets? The article doesn't explain, so far as I can see. Iota (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two discussions from the most recent talk page archive about this topic: [1], [2]. There is not any discussion in the article about the "official" name because there aren't any references/sources that talk about this topic last time I checked. If there is a reliable source that talks about the name, then information could be added to the article about it. The short answer is that there is the M.D. in the logo of the show, but everywhere else in the U.S. the show is usually referred to as just "House". In other languages I think it has different names, such as "Dr. House", if there is a reference for this it could be added somewhere. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening sequence

Earlier today I was "being bold" and removed this section of the article because in my opinion it was mostly unnecessary trivia. This was later undone by Unitanode on the grounds that I "shouldn't remove a large section of a featured article". This could be a point if I was just randomly deleting content from a decent article, however I did it for a reason, which was included in the edit summary. However, for whatever reason that apparently wasn't enough and so I'll make my case in full as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

Almost the entire of the first two enormous paragraphs are a frame-by-frame summary of what we see in the opening credits. Is this at all useful to the casual (or even hardcore) reader? The only show I can think that has a section even remotely like this is the Simpsons and that's because every episode has a different gag and they've made quite a thing about it. In the case of House, it's just some credits, nothing particularly note-worthy. There's even a quote at the end of the second paragraph saying that the images have "no particular meaning". The only thing of note in these two paragraphs is the fact was nominated for an Emmy, which I agree should be mentioned.

The third paragraph I admit has some relevance because it's about the theme tune. But even then, that's the infobox anyway and doesn't really need to be repeated does it? But if I have to back down on something here, I'll admit there may be a place for this final paragraph somewhere in the article, but probably not a section in its own right.

In conclusion, do we *really* need two huge paragraphs saying what order the cast are listed in and what images their names are superimposed on? It's anally retentive trivia and, in my opinion, has no place in a Wikipedia article. Planewalker Dave (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not a subarticle that would better fit this information. And the readable prose in this article is not that long. Therefore, deleting the section, or reducing the size, just because it is overly detailed is unnecessary. I can see the point of it being too detailed, but removing the section doesn't really seem like much of an improvement, so it might as well be kept (and it has references). LonelyMarble (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The season six opener is two episodes that have to be paid for separately on Amazon, each with their own opening titles and end credits, so really it is two episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.253.31 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The original US broadcast was of one 2-hour episode. Fox's website lists it in one entry as a "2 hour episode". But I don't really feel like arguing about this all season, maybe a reliable source will clear this up eventually. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LonelyMarble's perspective. The original broadcast format is determinative. And certainly the broadcaster's description has more authority than the retail arrangements.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Horrendously out of order SPOILERS

Really this is just insane. WHY. WHY. Why do people do it ???????????? Suggest all information about episode's not be put into Wikipedia until after they air. I've just removed a statement from the article. Really - you have ruined this for me. Thanks a fucking bunch. 217.44.34.190 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia, spoiler warnings are not used here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, if you want the article to be useless since all the fans will be sacared to death to even open the page go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.132.102 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

House Spin-Off?

Shouldn't there be some mention of the spin-off show in the works, revolving around the private investigator (played by Michael Weston) in season five? To be honest, I swear there used to be something about it on the House M.D. wikipedia, but there is currently no mention of it now (though there is some information about the show on Michael Weston's wikipedia article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.46.210 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the Recurring characters section. Apparently the spin-off doesn't look to be materializing though. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Vogler

He should be mentioned in the "Main characters" section. Even though he was not a main character, the section starting "House's original team of diagnosticians" mentions firings. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected 24h for edit warring/vandalism

IP editors who want to make changes are free to propose them here for the duration. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Co-creators?

Noticed earlier that Paul Attansio and David Shore are listed as Co-Creators. This is inaccurate. In television, 'Created By' or 'Creator' is a very specific credit given to the person who actually created the show. And by that, it's the person who created the world and the characters. I realize that Paul came up with the idea of a medical mystery show, however, he did not come up with the character of House, the world of Princeton-Plainsboro, or any of the other characters. I would say that David and Paul developed the show together, that David created the show, and that is why he is listed that way on Imdb and in the credits. Had Paul created the show, he would have gotten screen credit.

Mythic10 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of general discussion, they should (and are) BOTH be listed as creators for reasons you say given Paul's input to the show. However, the actual accreditation in the infobox is correct by showing only David Shore. I see no reason why the paragraph should be changed to diminish Paul's input on the creation of the show. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to diminish Paul's input, (why I would list them as developing together) but when you use the word 'creator' in television, it takes on a very specific meaning. My objection is to using the word 'co-creator'. They co-developed the show, but they did not co-create the show. I guess the closet analogy I can think of is if back in the day I told my friend Leonard that he should paint my friend Lisa cause she's got a nice smile, you wouldn't call me the co-creator of the Mona Lisa. David Shore wrote the script, he painted the picture of House, he created that world. Paul is a very talented writer, but he didn't write the pilot of House, he didn't create the world and I think you actually diminish David's contribution by suggesting otherwise.

Mythic10 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this an open discussion, not accusatory attacks. I never said that you are directly diminishing anything (as you directly imply I am). That un-pleasantry aside, I am merely suggesting that both Paul and David created the idea for the show which was pitched to FOX. Wikipedia's own definition of a television creator includes the "concept" of a show--which was Paul's role, thus he should be listed as a co-creator. He is left out of the official credit in the infobox since he is not listed as an official creator by Fox. Yes, David Shore created a very large percentage of the show, but it was not 100%. So an article discussing the show as a whole should list them as co-creators since that's what they are by Wikipedia's definition. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing episode "5 to 9"

Hi. I noticed that each article, for each episode, has a small list of that season's episodes (one you can show or hide, on the right side). Season 6 is missing episode "5 to 9". I don't know where to edit it. Probably someone else can do it. Keep up the excellent work. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes picture

I'm not trying to re-ignite the well-trodden debate about similarities between the title character and Sherlock Holmes, but having Holmes' picture where it is does seem rather incongruous. I'm not sure having the picture adds anything at all to the article, and to have it as the first picture on the page just seems bizarre - surely having the title character's picture there would make more sense? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that you have to scroll halfway down before you see a photo of Hugh Laurie is bordering on the ridiculous. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In part, this is one of the vagaries of our non-free content policy. We have a fair use picture of the six original main characters in its most logical spot—under our policy that means we would have to cross a very high hurdle to include another fair use image of any of those six, even the lead. We have a free photo of Laurie off set—but Laurie is not mentioned in the first few subsections of the article (Conception, References to Sherlock Holmes, Production [well, he's mentioned there very briefly, as a sometime executive producer and director]).

However, with your points in mind, I see we can switch that Laurie picture for the one of Edelstein much closer to the top in the Casting subsection. Edelstein is mentioned in the Critical reception subsection where the Laurie picture currently appears, so the switch would work fine on that end as well. What do you think?—DCGeist (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely be an improvement: I'm still not convinced that the Sherlock Holmes picture needs to be there at all, though ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've switched the Laurie and Edelstein pictures. I think the Holmes photo serves a purpose.—DCGeist (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll ever convince me, but I'm certainly not going to kick up a stink! The page certainly seems to make more sense now you've switched those two pictures - peace  ;-) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede description of creation

The team of contributors that brought this article to Featured Article status determined that the most accurate summary description of the show's creation was the sentence that remains in the lede's first paragraph:

The program was co-created by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Fox officially credits Shore as creator.

This is a straightforward factual statement, well supported by the sourced, detailed history provided in the article's main text, particularly the Conception subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is NOT a factual statement. There is no official source documentation anywhere that establishes that. On the contrary, the only documented information is that David Shore is the creator. Who is saying Paul Attanasio co-created the show?... That is not documented anywhere. An article/interview with David Shore that is cited later does indicate that Paul came up with the initial conceit, but that is very different than "creating" the show. "Created By" credit (and Co-Created By credit) are an industry definition. Producers often come up with conceits and are accordingly given "producer" credit or the like. Which Paul Attanasio has.

Please find me one factual statement according Paul Attanasio co-created by credit. There is none. Which is why I made the edit. (again, the "conception" subsection is very different from who actually "created" the show, and even that section needs to be corrected. Soundart99 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct matters here:

(1) What person or persons receive official industry credit as "creator"(s) of a given TV show.

(2) What person or persons, in ordinary language, created that show.

In many cases, (1) and (2) will be identical, but not always and not in this case. The current description accurately gives the reader information about (1) and about (2) in the case of House.—DCGeist (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you responding (and wish others would, as well).

I think what we need to keep in mind here are that many people -- including reporters, laypeople, etc. -- who use wikipedia as a source and that, therefore, it is incumbent upon those who write and edit to keep the information as accurate as possible. With that in mind, to say that Antannasio co-created the show is irresponsible, when in fact he didn't.

More specifically:

You acknowledge that David Shore has received official industry credit as creator. So who are we to say, "Well, but in ordinary language, Paul and David co-created the show." To do that, is to effectively overturn the judgment of those in the industry who presumably would have more first hand knowledge.

There is no information supporting the assertion that Paul Antannasio co-created the show... There *is* an article that talks about the genesis of the show [3], but there is nothing there stating that Antannasio co-created the show. In fact, the title of the article itself is "Q&A with 'House' Creator David Shore" (i.e. it doesn't say Co-creator).

What information/evidence can I provide to convince you that the language here giving Paul co-created by credit is wrong?... In no way -- not in an official sense, nor in "ordinary language" -- did Paul Attanassio co-create the show. Just because it has been established on this site for a long time, doesn't make it so. Please, cite one place where Paul is named "co-creator."

And just to show you that everything written on this site is not gospel, I can site another misstatement that:

The wikientry states that "Fox officially credits David Shore as creator." Did you know that, actually, Fox has no discretion in who gets "created by credit?" It's actually determined by the Writers Guild of American, according to their rules and it has to be posted in accordance. So while it's true that David Shore is officially credited as the creator, it's not "Fox" who determines that. Furthermore, Fox does not even produce the show. They only broadcast it.

Soundart99 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I too wish others would weigh in here.

I find the WGA reference compelling—if it can be sourced.

We continue to disagree on the "ordinary language" meaning of created/co-created. I believe, and evidently the several editors who brought this article to Featured status also believed, that Attanasio's well-sourced contributions to the show's origins qualify him as a co-creator in plain, nontechnical English. However, to avoid confusion with the technical industry term and designation, I see no problem in finding another term to characterize Attanasio and Shore's mutual creative efforts, while retaining the factual phrase, "entity X officially credits Shore as creator."—DCGeist (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the openmindedness and for the dialogue. I agree and think that, at the very least, another term other than "co-created" can be used so as to avoid confusion. Let me come back to this discussion when I have a bit more time and I will propose alternative phrase/language for your -- and everyone's -- review. Off the top of my head, though, perhaps we can say that the show was "developed by" David Shore and Paul Attanasio (as I think that accurately reflects PA's creative contribution both in layman terms and in industry terms). "Developed by" certainly does indicate creative contribution.

Likewise, I will find some sort of link to that WGA language.

So let me get back to you with proposed language and a link the WGA information. Thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

House and Cameron

Silly question, did House and Cameron date in the past? Just wondering.