Talk:House (TV series)

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)

He was only in the show for a section of season one and it is debateable whether he can be constituted a "main" charecter, perhaps a seperate page of additional charecters could pr broduce and include a main supporting charecter section such as Tritter and Stacy. 21.32 Aug 22 2010 camacount (talk) 20:36, 22 August 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 [1], 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)

DCGeist (and others),

As a follow up to my post of last Friday, 1) I have a few links to the WGA language concerning "created by" credit; and 2) I will propose alternative language to amend the "co-created" language in the wiki-entry. Specifically:

1) "Created by" credit/WGA -- I have two links regarding this.

a) A wikipedia page re: the screenwriting credit system [2] -- Although I hate to use a wikientry in support of changing another wiki-entry, this one gives a brief overview indicating that credit is determined by the WGA, and explains the process (incl. how the producer submits the proposed credits).

b) A page from the Writers Guild website [3] -- Please see the heading "'Created By' Credit Determination"

2) Proposed language (I tried to make the minimum amount of changes possible, just to clarify the "created by" vs. "developed by" issue)

a) Intro -- "House, also known as House, M.D., is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004. The program was created by David Shore, who developed the show with Paul Attanasio. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton‑Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH) in New Jersey. The premise for a CSI-like medical procedural originated with Attanasio, while Shore then took that initial idea, developed the characters, and wrote the script. [4] The show's executive producers include Shore, Attanasio, Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, and film director Bryan Singer. It is largely filmed in Century City."

b) Conception -- "In 2004, creator David Shore and producer Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program,[4] a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes.[5] Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by The New York Times Magazine column "Diagnosis", written by physician Lisa Sanders.[6] Fox bought the series, though the network's then-president, Gail Berman, told the creative team, "I want a medical show, but I don't want to see white coats going down the hallway".[7] Jacobs has said that this stipulation was one of the many influences that led to the show's ultimate form.[7]"

Let me know what you think. I look forward to your reaction. Thank you. Soundart99 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It still flies in the face of ordinary language to apply the verb "credited" to Shore and Shore alone when the genitive concept was Attanasio's. "Development" is a process that involves many parties. I think the most appropriate verb for what the two men are primarily responsible for is "conceived". For the lede, that makes the change very simple: "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is officially credited as creator." For the main text, simply cut the "co-creators" label and replace "inspired to create" with "inspired to develop", which is fine in this context: "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by..."—DCGeist (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this; I think we're close. I'm good with your suggested changes to the main text (thanks). As for the lede, though, I'd like to suggest one other tweak. I can live with "conceived," but what bumps me a little is the part "Shore is officially credited as creator." Something about that seems like a qualifier and implies that he got credited on a technicality or something, particularly the word "officially." (As a side note, many, many, many shows originate with a notion that originated with a producer, or development exec or whatever, which is then pitched to a writer, who in turn, "creates" a series.). I looked at a few wiki-entries for other shows, and I don't see that "officially credited" language on theirs. So what about if instead we say something along the lines of: "The idea for the program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio, and the series was created by David Shore." [and then we include a citation to an official link listing Shore as getting "created by" credit, which effectively is showing he is officially credited. Would you be amenable to that? Thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this has been a fruitful discussion--the disparity between the text and the infobox has niggled at me for a while. As for the most recent suggestion, there's no need for that extra verbiage--"idea for the". "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio" is good and proper English. I have the same problem with according Shore sole possession of the verb "created" that DCGeist has expressed--it's just not the whole truth. However, there's no need for the word "officially", and its elimination may reduce some of the tonal problem Soundart is experiencing. So: "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator."

The link to the "created by" credit (and perhaps another in-text mention) could go either in the 2d paragraph of "Conception" (with "Shore developed the characters further and wrote the script for the pilot episode") or the 2d paragraph of "Production team" (with "Shore is House's showrunner"). DocKino (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtfully weighing in, DocKino. I can live with your suggested changes to the lede (i.e. "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator.") It's still not ideal, but dropping "official" helps with the tone, as you suggest, and I don't want make the perfect the enemy of the improvement. Are all ok with me (or someone) making this change, as well as the aforementioned change to the Conception paragraph (i.e. "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by...")?...

Also, not to belabor the argument, but just to get it on record, I still believe it *is* the whole truth that Shore "created" the show. There is a huge difference between coming up with a general concept for something (i.e. Attanasio's contribution) vs executing that concept (i.e. Shore spending months crafting a lead character, principal characters, secondary characters, story lines, a formula, a setting, a world, researching potential medical cases, etc.). For example, just because five years ago I thought Apple should make a cell phone, doesn't mean that I created the iPhone. But more specific to TV, many shows originate with a "notion" from someone other than the person that creates that show. That's not to diminish that person's contribution or original idea, but it's just not "creating" the show. Which is why the Writers Guild of America is very precise in assigning "created by" credit (so I would trust a formal organization whose responsibility it is to make such designations as opposed to us in the general public). In fact, you could give the same idea to two different writers and get two very different results. To wit, the same year that House premiered on Fox, another medical mystery show premiered on NBC ("Medical Investigation") [5]. The original, general idea for each show was basically the same -- a medical mystery/procedural show. But based upon that general conceit, one person -- David Shore -- created "House." A different person created "Medical Investigation." House is now entering its 7th season and is one of the most popular shows in the world. Medical Investigation was canceled after 20 episodes.

Having said all that, I appreciate everyone's input and openmindedness regarding this topic, and look forward to the changes/language that we had agreed upon being implemented. To recap, these are the language changes as I understand them:

1) "The program was conceived by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is credited as creator."

2) "In 2004, David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program, a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes. Attanasio was inspired to develop a medical procedural drama by..."

Is everyone cool with me making those changes, or would a more experienced editor like to do it? Many thanks. Soundart99 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made the changes, for efficiency's sake. On a personal note, I apologize for the combativeness of my tone early on in this colloquy. I did not realize that you were new to Wikipedia (your familiarity with the edit summary is unusual—though, of course, not unheard of—among newbies). In any event, thank you for your thoughtful and productive contributions.—DCGeist (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the changes and the nice words. It's all good.

Soundart99 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

House and Cameron

Silly question, did House and Cameron date in the past? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.66.172 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've overlooked a detail or two, to my recollection they didn't. It's a pity I don't have the collection with me to look at the specifics. Oliver kanjo (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"format becomes formula"

This is a comment about the series, but it has a direct bearing on the content of this article. I've seen maybe a dozen episodes (including, I think, the pilot), and though the acting and writing are at a high level, one can't get away from the fact that House is a perfect example of what David Gerrold called "format becomes formula". It's the same thing week after week after week. This is perhaps inherent in medical programs, but that doesn't change the fact that House is highly formulaic. It would be nice to find an authoritative reviewer who's made such an observation. Unfortunately, Tom Shales missed it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Diagnostician

The article talks about "diagnostic medicine" and diagnosticians as if such a medical specialty exists. As far as I can tell from interacting with real-world health care providers and from searches at .edu and other health care websites, there is no such specialty. So instead of wikilinking "diagnostician" and "Diagnostic Medicine" to medical diagnosis, shouldn't there be at least a brief discussion of this key conceit of the show? I suspect the show's exec producers must have mentioned this at some point. To not address this runs the risk of it being a WP:MOSFICT issue with this otherwise feature-quality article. Thanks. 67.101.7.43 (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as Lisa Cuddy said in an episode - there is no "Department of diagnostic medicine" anywhere else but in PPTH. Ergo, the creation of the article about "diagnostic medicine" and/or diagnosticians would only serve to elaborate on this show. I'd rather say that their (his) specialty is "a-bundle-of" specialities, or that he's a "one-man(team)-hospital": instead of sending a person to multiple specialists, you get all of the at disposal for a single patient. --PrimEviL 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Navbox House episodes

Template:Navbox House episodes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)