Jump to content

Talk:List of House characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.210.185.80 (talk) at 15:37, 27 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Characterization issues

"Of all the members of House's staff, Cameron is the most empathetic almost to the point that it impairs her ability to be a good doctor."

I would argue (but I'm not going to change it, since I understand this is not really a consensus) that the "almost" does not belong, for many reasons...chiefly, the first episode of season two when she deprives a patient who has cancer of a week of what little time of her life she has left by refusing to admit that it is, indeed, cancer. >.> Vignettelante

Horrible Merge Decision

I understand the desire to do a merge although I disagreed with that because there is enough information to warrant their own pages; but frankly, the merge as implemented is an unmitigated disaster; as the information contained in the character pages was simply deleted and not "merged" at all. There's nothing wrong with a short blurb on the characters when there is a link to a whole character page, but not when that's all the information you get on a character that's been in 70+ episodes for four seasons. The absolute minimal essential information on the side characters makes their articles now longer than say, Lisa Cuddy's, despite the fact that Cuddy has appear in over 70 hours of House so far; she is in every single episode to date. Absolute wiki-butchery. Should be undone and keep the character pages because wikipedia is designed to provide information, not to show how streamlined and basic you can possibly make something.Mooshimanx 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if wiki is trying to discourage fans/fandom members from creating articles, if they see it as frivolous wastes of space. I'd understand if that became the policy, but I wish they'd do it in one swipe instead of just sort of hinting at it. poopadoop


Merge suggestion

It has been suggested that the articles on the individual characters of the series are merged into this one as they would not comply to the fiction notability guideline WP:FICT. Any thoughts? --Van helsing 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) DON'T EVER DO IT. it is a stupid idea.[reply]

Van Helsing, TTN, all you lot - quit it. You've been shot down every time you suggest a merge, this one will be no different. The characters are notable, and the information is relevant. I believe I saw someone say this to go against you on the Talk:Scrubs (TV series) page - you want all information to be out-of-universe? Then by your own logic, the article about elephant shouldn't be written by anyone on Earth. It's a hyperbole admittedly, but you cannot deny that this is your argument. It is flawed.' Thanks to whoever said that originally. mattbuck 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you noticed that I didn’t express an opinion on it? I altered what I consider to be a too bold action (plainly redirecting the individual articles) into a less bold one. --Van helsing 09:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blame me, not VH and quoting about the most spurious argument I think I have ever seen is not helping the issue here. The guideline is clear and unequivocal: out of universe notability must be asserted for individual articles about fictional characters. The same is true for episode articles but we'll get to those later. As a result, interested editors need to introduce content that establishes notability, backed up by reliable, third party sources. Otherwise, the character pages should be merged per the consistent application of policy. Eusebeus 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the suggested characters is ridiculous; they are as notable as can be and there is more than enough to fill an article about them - though I concede that at the moment they are all too long and need to be trimmed down. I say a very strong 'no' to the merging. asyndeton 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that at the top of that WP:ILIKEIT you linked to is this:(link removed - matt's point is it is an essay)
Now, the information contained in the articles is most certainly verifiable, and is all well sourced. It seems like you're trying to delete it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. mattbuck 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure what your point is in noting the ilikeit essay. You seem to be confused about the criteria. Have you read the guidelines? I will paste the WAF below, so please indicate how you intend to rewrite these character articles to satisfy the WAF and FICT guidelines. Eusebeus 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would this information be improved by including it on this page over the status quo? Atropos 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Why would someone merge the main characters of a related TV-series into another article that possibly can only contain the very minor characters of that specific TV-series, i say a strong no, by merging the maincharacters into another article where they possibly can loose some of there importance. --Rutherfordjigsaw 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the user above me. Each regular character possesses unique characteristics and is prominent enough to warrant their own article. Besides, cramming every thing onto one page will be a shambolic affair. I'm completely against merging. Kiki 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is not a vote. Individual discussions cannot trump larger and long-standing community consensus, which is variously described in the Wikipedia guidelines. I urge interested editors to review WP:FICT and WP:WAF and add the necessary content needed to let these articles remain; that means the assertion of out-of-universe notability backed up by reliable third party sources. I understand that fans of the series feel that individual characters deserve lengthy and detailed articles, but wider consensus explicitly dictates that such content is inappropriate and recommends, instead, a merge to a single article. Eusebeus 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that consensus on every series you propose this for is that they should remain separate articles, and thus it would seem that wider consensus is that characters deserve individual articles. mattbuck 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual series pages generally attract the attention of fans of the series; as a result it is not surprising that different fan bases express support to keep these pages, in spite of the wider consensus. Do not conflate, however, the expression of fan support with wider notability. If you wish, take up the issue at WP:FICT and WP:WAF to make your case that the existing requirements of sources and general out-of universe notability should not apply. Absent that wider solicitation, your argument is tendentious. Eusebeus 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not because the charactes are not notable, but because there are not enough characters like Scrubs, or Friends, or Seinfeld. The characters can be done just like they have been in the Mash or 3rd Rock from the Sun articles. When the list of characters have increased like some of the more established Sitcoms, then it would be a good idea to break it off. But for now, I think a Merge is a good idea. --Maniwar (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House character is notable, I'm not sure if the others are. Curmudgeon became word of the year because of increased usage when applied to him. 69.140.94.185 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a suggestion? Each character could have their own page as a bio for each notable character would be helpful to people researching the show, but once there is House (TV series), List of House characters, and individual bios there will be a lot of redundant information. You could easily skip the middleman and just have House (TV Series) and then link each character's name to the bio. Think list of characters page would quickly become redundant to the list on the main page and the information on the individual pages. --In Defense of the Artist 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list has several other characters on - I'd agree with your suggestion, but alter the list to be MINOR characters only, as is done for Scrubs (TV show). mattbuck 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The protocol is pretty clear here. Any character for which there exists the assertion of out-of-universe notability backed up by reliable third party sources should have its own article. All others, major or minor, should be redirected to a central list of characters page. As for the Scrubs (TV show) characters, they will be redirected according to the same guideline.

    Let me make a point here, since there seems to be some confusion. Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

    Thus, if editors disagree with the principles being adduced for establishing fictional character notability, this is not the place to raise those issues. Instead, I urge interested editors to make their point at the WP:FICT and WP:WAF guideline. The merge and redirect is a matter of applying community wide consensus to this particular series. If you disagree, you need to change that community wide consensus, not simply indicate your opposition here, since - and this is the point that some editors are apparently unaware of - the consensus to redirect already exists per that community-wide guideline. Eusebeus 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this odd debate. I am always wary when people continually quote policy at me. How does maintaining this separate character page harm Wikipedia? Separate major fictional character pages add an interesting and useful encyclopedic dimension to Wikipedia. --- Taroaldo 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, not another one! Why do so many people have it out for fiction articles? It should be noted that the still changing policy has changed; "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead, and editors should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.". I.E, if merging these articles would make this one too long (it would), then creating a sub article is perfectly fine. On these grounds oppose merging House, and any other character article that, once redundant information is removed, would still be too large to include in this article. Any smaller articles should be merged. Iorek 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated above. Furthermore, if we merged them, the result would be an extremely long article that would then be flagged as too long and be recommended for splitting. Cmcfarland 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important. Per Iorek's point above, I strongly urge all the editors who have commented and mistakenly think they can !vote here to take up their concerns at the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction).

Let me repeat my point above since it seems strangely ignored. WP:CONSENSUS is clear:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice

At the moment, consensus is still moving toward requiring real-world context to establish notability, so if editors feel these pages should be kept they should weigh in on that debate ASAP, especially since no-one has suggested that any real-world content or reliable third-party sources exists to establish notability as required by the existing policy. At the risk of repetition, editors need to understand that, 'if the result of those discussions determines that individual fictional character pages are not considered encyclopedic without real-world context, then individual comments here are irrelevant since they fall outside of community consensus.

Sorry for all the bolding but it is important editors who feel strongly about this issue ensure they participate in fora where their views can be considered. This is not such a forum and as the current discussion is unfolding, the individual character pages will be merged. Eusebeus 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is there even one keep vote that has anything to do with bringing these up to standards? From here, it looks like all should just be ignored. I would leave House, though. The creation section is a good start, and I have to imagine that it can easily be improved if someone just puts some time into it. TTN 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm amazed that TTN actually wants to keep one. --Maniwar (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I've never watched an episode of House in my life, but I know that Gregory House is notable. Other medical dramas, such as Scrubs, frequently refer to the show, even going so far as to have Dr. Cox parody him in an episode entitled My House. As for the other characters, I'll leave it up to those more familiar with the show. Do they receive equal or near equal time as House? Do they have episodes dedicated to their plots? If so, they probably deserve their own article as long as it's written properly and sourced well. Notthegoatseguy 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if nobody can provide valid reasons to keep them (i.e. providing real world information), I will redirect all but House soon. TTN 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The major cast should have their own pages, and the minors get their summery of the list page. As it is now, this list page and Gregory House are going to get longer and longer as people add on details, trying to make up for what got deleted with the individul character pages. BethEnd 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Merge Mst o fthe arguments are baseless the arguments are from fans who cannot see the bigger picture. If there were 10-12 seasons and house appeared in everyepisode then yes give him his own page at the moments not enough T.V has been produced to warrant a seperate page for all characters currently with a seperate page.--Lucy-marie 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world perspective

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Exemplary aspects of real world perspective include:

  • careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
  • the presentation of fictional material
  • description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
  • making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real world perspective.

The problem with in-universe perspective

The in-universe perspective describes the fiction from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. See also the sections on fair use, notability and undue weight, and templates.

Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:

  • Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour.
  • A plot synopsis written like an historical account.
  • A fictional character article or section written like a biography.
  • Description of fictional places written like a geographical account.
  • Using infoboxes intended for real world topics.
  • Discussing a fictional topic's appearances in major works and obscure spin-off material in equal detail.
  • Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information.
  • Trying to reconcile contradictions or fill gaps in a fictional continuity, rather than reporting them as such.
  • Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them.

Jennifer Morrison image

Here is a possibility for a picture to be used for the Jennifer Morrison's image.

The image is used on the "Allison Cameron (House)" page:

Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Cameron

The image: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Cameron.a.jpg/250px-Cameron.a.jpg


Greg Gates

Lake Oswego, Oregon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringdesigner (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not a good idea - it wouldn't be fair use to illustrate Jannifer Morrison - it's a copyrighted House promotional picture, so fair use only extends to critical analysis in House articles. mattbuck 10:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Characters?

Don't any of Wilson's exes, or Foreman's mother, etc, get mention? Dylan 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we need out-of-universe notability for that. Also a note from your third grade teacher, and a librarian over 40 in your county.

The row that left

Do you remember early in the second episode when Cuddy was getting angry at House, so he fired a row 9like D or something). Can we assume that all the numbers we can't account for were in that row? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.76.102 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He fired row D then rescinded a fired row C. I tried to step through and catch numbers in that row. As the list reveals I only found two. I don't think we should assume anything. Notably, numbers 1 & 40 are taken but the twins are assigned 15A & 15B. So either there is a number missing or he hired 41. Cburnett 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why on earth

Does one character (Cameron) continue to have an article while the rest are being debated? She had just as much screen time as the others; Foreman has probably had more.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_House_characters&oldid=167442109"