Talk:Frozen (House)

Copyright
The plot summary was lifted right from: http://tv.ign.com/objects/907/907453.html So I deleted it, per wikipedia policy. Llamabr (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke
House made a reference to there being nothing on broadcast television besides tuesdays. Could this be a reference to the series itself? And if so, this might be an interesting piece of trivia worth mentioning. --Kemushi88 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Think so, House usually airs on Tuesdays, and Fox is a broadcast network. Can any American friends confirm this? Icecold (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fritter (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seemed obvious to me too, however I have removed sentences suggesting that House referring Wilson as "Bob" is another example where the fourth wall was broken. I feel that no evidence is provided which would back this up as a sort of in-joke on the character's actor's name. The name "Bob" is frequently used as a placeholder, and I feel that the link to the actor's name could plausibly be explained as a mere coincidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is self-evidently a reference to the actor's first name. If House was NOT breaking the fourth wall, he would have called Wilson "James" or maybe "Jim," because that is Wilson's first name on the show.  In context it makes no sense for House to use some random, arbitrary name; the only reason to use "Bob" is to reference the actor's name.  And the writers are surely aware of this.  Nevertheless, I rewrote it in more neutral language, allowing the reader to make the inference himself.Fritter (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I standby the claim that this is not "self-evident", in the context of the dialog and behaviour of the fictional characters alone, it can be understood that House makes a humorous quip by referring to Wilson as "Bob" not because this is the actual actor's name but because this is an arbitrary name NOT belonging to the character referenced. Remember that the retort is made after Wilson suggests that House never calls people by their first name. It fits with House's character and style that he should sarcastically respond by calling Wilson by an arbitrary first name that does not belong to him, as a way of thumbing his nose the issues raised.
 * Think of it this way - Certainly the program only very occasionally flirts with breaking the fourth wall, yet consistently when House is "challenged" he most always provides a witty yet childish response, and "Bob" just happens to be one of the most use default arbitrary names.
 * Is it possible that some of the argument that this is an example of humour created by the breaking of the four wall may arise from those whom have missed the humour of the responce in the context of the character's conversation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No it is not possible. Your interpretation makes no sense. House may be peculiar, but he is logical.  If Wilson had said, "House, you never call people people by their CORRECT name," then it might have made sense for House to mock Wilson by using some random, arbitrary name.  But Wilon only referenced FIRST names, hence it would have only made sense for House to call him James or Jim.   A random, arbitrary name would be nonsensical in context. The only reason to use "Bob" is to screw with the fourth wall.  And like I said, the writers would be aware of the actor's real name-- had they wanted to use a random name, they would have selected a random name.  Please consider that I've written it with neutral language allowing the reader to make up his own mind (even though I think it sounds too weak).  It's really a trivial point; we don't need some longwinded argument about "it is debatable whether...".Fritter (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem you have missed the joke that I and presumably many viewers appreciated entirely. Trying to explain a joke to someone whom just doesn't get it is both long winded and tiresome, and is not something I am interested in doing. I absolutely resent your comment on the changes you made "revised and condensed due to one editor's inability to read between the lines". I understand the arguments made for this as breaking the forth wall I just don't believe they hold because I understand a clearer, and for me atleast more humorous, joke here. As for the changes themselves I do not believe they make this more NPOV, to the contrary the removal of context and details biases the reader to your point of view which is furthered by the following the other better example, and the position in the Forth Wall section.
 * As for what is the most logical assumption, Occam's razor suggests we should favour the explanation requiring the least assumptions. Let not assume that the 'real' joke in 'Why did the chicken cross the road?' is a deep socio-political satire - it may be but probably isn't any any argument here without being sourced constitutes original research.


 * I am again removing the disputed content as per my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines particularly that "No section of any Wikipedia article, including trivia sections, should contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research (among others). Also remember that it is always best practice to cite sources when adding new facts to any section, which includes trivia sections." -Trivia_sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

74.128.169.90 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)==Errata== The bourbon thing sounds like a debate, or a talk page conversation. I tried to fix, but really couldn't find a cohesive para fitting all the facts together. Weltanschaunng 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the errata section. It made no sense at all. First, it was uncited and probably original research; second, even if the bottle "looked like" Jack Daniels, for legal or economic reasons it's quite likely the writers gave the bottle a generic name, so as not to create an association with a real brand name.  Thus, it was not an error but an intentional choice by the writers. Since "Whitestock Kentucky Whiskey" does not actually seem to exist, this is presumptively what happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.245.18 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE to the House Whiskey Comments.*** Jack Daniels is TENNESSEE Whiskey. That does appear to be a JD bottle, and I believe you can make what looks like Old Number 2.....JD is Old Number 7. However the rest of the label has been tampered with. And there is no such thing as whitestock whiskey.

I find it hard to believe JD would allow someone to use their bottle and yet mark it clearly KENTUCKY whiskey. Jim Beam makes a White Label Whiskey, but that clearly is not a JB bottle nor is the color of the "bourbon" correct in Houses bottle.

May seem funny to quibble over fictitious bottles of booze however Kentucky Whiskey is the finest in the world. Some people take it quite seriously.

Cheers,

J from Kentucky

RfC: Should article include speculative example of breaking the forth wall?
Should article include speculative example of breaking the forth wall? The second example is speculative & both examples lack references.
 * I agree with the deletion. The whole argument shows why the guidelines on original research exist.  I'm not generally against trivia if it is interesting trivia, and doesn't take up much space, but in this case it is generating far more controversy than it's worth, and can be rightly deleted under WP's guidelines for lack of reliable sources.  BTW, the term is "fourth wall" as in the number four, not "forth." Its WP entry explains why.Fritter (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article should include fourth wall speculation without secondary sources providing evidence. Its an interesting idea, worthy of discussion here on the talk page, but it must be classed as WP:OR until sources can be found. I recomend deletion too. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a rather unremarkable example of the way television and similar articles get written without sources. Since it looks like speculation rather than spelling out what is obvious to any viewer, the article is better off without it. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't know why that would be included, to be frank.  nedragehtni stercesruodeirubew  18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The removal seems justified. Without more resources it is nothing more then a mere topic for discussion. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical Mistake
there is one logical mistake in the diagnosis: house orderes her to make a complete x-ray of her whole body; discussing the pictures with wilson, you can see that indeed pictures of kate's body were made. someone should have noticed the broken toe there... --91.11.109.37 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
Since refuses to discuss differences of opinion on talk pages, and I don't wish to edit war by repeatedly reverting his edits, I am opening up discussion here. I believe removal of sourced information is inappropriate, even if mentioned in another article, and even if TenPoundHammer disputes that a source is reliable. It should be discussed here, per WP:CON as well as common courtesy. Cresix (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources was reliable, secondary sourcing. The first was an episode listing from Zap2It, and the other was a press release from FOX. Either of the sources would've been fine if there were also secondary sourcing in the article, but there isn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please wait for others to comment rather than instantly reverting. Cresix (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we get a say in all this, you know as the people who contributed to those pages. You could have marked them for more sources or citations, you are going ahead without a community consensus or so much as a warning that these pages are going to be removed. It might be a while but I'm going to guess that others might also have a problem with this, there are a few people who took the time and compiled links and provided sources which you blatantly wrote off.--Theo10011 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frozen (House). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051001064816/http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C272%7C%7C%7Cweekly%2C00.html to http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C272%7C%7C%7Cweekly%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frozen (House). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130193650/http://foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z83z6z8&ID=4725 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z83z6z8&ID=4725
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923041206/http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-4/episode-11.htm to http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-4/episode-11.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)