Talk:House season 6/Archive 1

Edit
Accidentally hit enter before I was finished w/ my edit summary- so, I was gonna say, forgive me if I've missed something, but I am a huge House fan, and don't recall it ever being an animated show. SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

tv.msn.com copypaste
Is it ok that all of the series descriptions are literally copypasted from tv.msn.com? Honeyman (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * no and i dnt know who is doing it, i had when i added epsiode 3 i wrote up my summary of it but someone has changed it since i lat worked on it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Purple
Just a question, why is the color purple being used for this page? I notice DVD cover colors are used for TV show seasons, but how do we know Season 6's will be purple? Is purple a common placeholder until DVDs come out or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.21.246 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * at the end of each season someone jumps in and picks hte new colour for the next season which is used untilt eh officla dvd release comes out-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Credits
I'm only assuming from the first episode that this will continue through the season (need to wait until next episode to be sure), but should it be mentioned here that "Beginning with this season, the opening title sequence has been discontinued, and the title card and opening credits are played during the show's opening scenes. TheHYPO (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Has it been discontinued? I thought that was just for Broken, but I'm not sure if I saw it in any other episodes. Neo136 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilson
I don't known how to add references but it says on one of the crew members Twitter it says that the tenth episode is called "Wilson", its says so on http://community.livejournal.com/house_spoiler/tag/6x10+%22wilson%22 Neo136 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * it isnt a realibel source so cant be added-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the casts Twitters are pretty reliable. Neo136 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * it nothing to do with wha ti think ti is wp:rs that says since it is a blog sit eit is unrealibele-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The producers wouldn't lie on their blogs. They post the episode titles on their blogs so that sites such as Wikipedia will update their lists of episodes. Just for now change episode 9 to be Wilson, it won't hurt anyone. Neo136 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry it is unrealible so it cant be updated untila offical source says it, ie a press release or tv listings site-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe not but if america take anotehr beak uk will be ahead-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But who would it hurt just to post it for now. Neo136 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone since most people rely on wikipeida for information and if it cant be probally sourced then it speculation, the site was right aboiut the last 3 episode title and i know myself there right but wikipedia is about realible sources so it can tbe added until one ocmes up-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it's been confirmed. Neo136 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * yip by a realible 3rd party soure so it added :) oh it airing in the uk first-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Final diagnosis
I have started a discussion about changing this coloum to be only a summary section please see Talk:House (season 1)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong numbering
See http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/s6_e03.htm. Official numbering is that the first episode is marked as 01-02, the next one is 03 etc. I know popular eztv torrents follow the same improper behaviour, but it doesn't mean wiki also has to.

If nobody opposes in a couple of days, I'll change it on my own. m_gol (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is marked for epic fail as 603 but read th tnoe broken has aired as two parts in other coutnries-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But still - official site marks the "second" episode as 6x03 - I think we should follow it. m_gol (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And we are, epic fail is marked as 603, broken is marked as 601 and 602 because it is two parts or oen epsiode depending on where it airs, how can we change sometihng that is excately what you are askign it to get changed to?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh, sorry - I haven't noticed the change... Now it's perfect. m_gol (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is Official numbering? On http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=house Fox has a different numbering: Episode 1 for Broken, Episode 2 for Epic Fail, Episode 3 for The Tyrant and Episode 4 for Instant Karma. The same goes for http://housewiki.fox.com/page/House+Season+6 and for IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/episodes#season-6) --Chipo (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No fox has it listed as 601 for borken then 603 for epic fail, so where is 602????? could it be that 602 is broken part 2 but fox jsut decided to air it as one epsioe on it premiere for ratings??? i wonder. jsut now there nothing to suggest otherwise, video downlaod service offer it as part 1 and part 2, other coutnries are airing it as two parts. btw wikipeida doesnt follow other sites we follow what soruce says and currently the source are pointing to borken as 2 parts so until something an be confirmed this is what sources are saying it probalyl wont be until the dvd is out we will know for sure. but if the dvd has it as two parts then the broken episode page will eb split jsut now having it as two here is easy to undo if it proven otherwise but at the moment as it stands with reference it two episodes-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you not check out http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=house and http://housewiki.fox.com/page/House+Season+6 ?--Chipo (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * housewiki is unrealible, as i said above fox list broken as 601 then epsidoe 2 as 603 so wher eis 602?? it is broken part 2 but fox aired it as all one episode, the sources ar there that show it is meant ot be tow parts untila source is given that proves without a doutb that meant to be one then ther eno point listing it as such. wikipeida does not copy other sites it present the ifnormation as realible third party sources give it as-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to keep ignoring http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=house (which is not the wiki!) --Chipo (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope i have replied but you are not listening or ar enot caring, firstly a antoher realible soruce states it as broken part 1 and 2, secondly fox own site state broken as 601 and then epic fail and 603 which is supposely episode 2 so if that is the case what happened to 602 it is broken part 2 but since fox wanted to get ratings they aired in in single episode for the premiere night. Until more infromaiton is available to say that it should be one then it has to remain two as the soruces state it as two epsiode and wikipedia does not copy but relies on third party sources, to which fox is first party but i have not disputed it but used it as well sinc eit shows it as well if you wanted to look and read and udnerstand

No Character discriptions
please stop with the character discriptions next to the list of characters. It is used to list the characters, not discribe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.2.61 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rank discrepancy
The rank column appears to be using different criteria for the first 3 episodes as opposed to the rest. The first 3 are only #1 in ranking if you judge them based on the age "18-49 Rating", and only on Mondays at that. The following episodes are all based on weekly rankings of total viewers. 99.255.125.200 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment the weekly ranking have not been sourced so can not be added yet but you ar right it is a problem but its only a minor one but owuld cause the article to fail FL status-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Joy to the World
On the fox website, http://www.fox.com/house/ it says the next episode will be aired on December 14th and will be called 'Joy to the World'. I would edit but I'm not sure how to add references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny0709 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * its a seaosn 5 repeat-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Never mind then! 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Kenny0709 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 Episode 3 (or 2)??
Source. "112 (6-02)" is not correct. --Itay Alon (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And there is plnety of source that state it is only one episode, this is the same problem as House and House M.D. both are correct but only one gets referes to and it refered to only one epsiode-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So House main site does not count? --Itay Alon (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does but when you have other offical source stating it as one episode then you have ot draw a consesus on it. also it isnt the offical site it just wikipedia hosted on fox so i aint sure how realible it be coutned as-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of sources mention that this episode is count as 601 and 602, in addition the primary source (fox) write it. I believe that the writers in other big sources dosen't see the episode or read about it before, they just add the information they got, and don't care about it, they won't see it or read about first episode of house. --Itay Alon (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You last comment makes no sense, there is plenty of the relaible source that state it as one episode not two, the production code might be 601/602 but it still oen episode and acutally there a few source that meantion it as 601 and 602 but also refer to it as jsut 601 in the same story that is written as you put it. and again the fox wikipedia siote mgiht nto be realible as per wp:rs, you seem to be new editor :) and new editor are welcomed to try make tihng write but you giht want to read up on wikipeida guidelines a bit as you seem to be unaware of things like realible source, source and manner o style, please dnt take this as somethig to put you off just that i think you should udnerstand wikipeida more :) and also understand consesus has to be made liek there was one made on teh title of the show either ot call it House as the source call it or as the on screen title card says House M.D.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't speak English as well as others, it's why my arguments were no sense. The official source usually dictates how to write something, or what he have to be. Unlike Fox, MSN editors or others unofficial sources editors not thought about it, and don't care about House, so they just add the episode as regular one, and because they got a longer episode they count it like 1 episode but longer, without check it in Fox (the primary source). Maybe it just me and I need to read more about wikipedia style, but I think that "epic fail" needs to be 603. If "broken" will be 601 or "601 / 602" it's another discussion. --Itay Alon (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct msn is like that but there schedule are not done by them but by the broadcaster they provide them with the schedules and the ifnormation. however i will comment on the below comment form ip user this shoudl allow this to be cleaered up and fixed permently :), your english wasnt bad btw just i amdsylexic and foudn it really hard to make it out.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the official site,, listing "broken" as 601 (2 hour episode) and "epic fail" as 603. 77.56.101.194 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok that is a good enough source with sky 1 as well to now fix this permently, as it offical site then it can be used. :) i will make amendment ot the apge eitehr tonight or tmorrow :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So where is episode 602? On Fox's website is says: 601: Broken (2 hour episode) that is 1 episode that is 2 hours long, and 603: Epic Fail. The way I saw it; episode 1 is "Broken" and has production code 601/602. "Epic Fail" is episode 2 with production code 603. And fox's recaps refer to the production code, otherwise there is a missing episode.   X  eworlebi  ( t • c ) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fox aired it as one epsiode but sky oen uk is airign it as 2 parts it just that two episode but fox done the premiere as one, as i said iw ill fix it later-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It can caused by the program (example: save int as episode number) --Itay Alon (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What program? it jsut because fox decide to air ti as one epsiode instead of sky oen who aired as two-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong to divide the episode "Broken" in "Broken: Part 1" and "Broken: Part 2": in the official website Broken is listed as the No. 1 and "Epic Fail" as the number 3 (consequently the episode 2 corresponds to the second part of the episode "Broken"). However, it is incorrect to divide the episode into two parts, because contrary to what was done with "Euphoria" of season 2, the website does not indicate the subdivision. In my opinion we should put the episode Broken in only one section of the table, indicating 111, 112 (60-1, 60-2). --RanZag (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the note it states otehr coutnries break it up because it two part epsiode jsut fox decided to air it as one epsiode to gain mroe rtings in fact the ratings for it split into two rea the reference for them-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, i tried to do "rowspan=2" (for: Title, Director, Writer(s) and Original airdate) but didn't go as well. I think that break it to 2 parts is bad solution. --Itay Alon (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It be bad solution if it was not two parts, but it clearly is, and when i get a chance i will use different source ot show it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally i favour the view that 601 was 2 hours, long, as do TV Rage. but more importantly this page is out of line with the season 6 sub page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.195.6 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox's official website lists production 6-01 as a "two hour episode". The fact that the next episode has production code 6-03 is irrelevant since episode counts and production numbers can and do differ. Further, the fact that it was aired in two parts in the UK is irrelevant. The original broadcasting country, which is Fox in the US, aired it as one two-hour episode, and therefore that is the "official" count. One source says season 6 will have 22 total episodes, so when the season is over the episode count might be more clear, but right now the evidence points to counting the two-hour premiere as one episode. Therefore, 113, not 114, episodes have aired so far. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can not say another country is irrevelent, the fact the production code jumps to 603 means it meant ot eb two epsiode but fox premiered it as a two epsiode. There sources that state it as two epsiode, i said the same as you until other sources have came up so you will have ot prove it not two epsiodes.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that it took up the resources of two episodes to create. Which, seeing as it's twice as long as normal, I would hope so. It's like ABC ordering fourteen episodes of Lost for season 4. It aired over thirteen weeks discounting breaks, but, for administrative purposes only, the finale is counted as two. For all other purposes, such as marketing and the finished product, it's counted as one. Sceptre (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was counted as one it would be aired as one, however only america at this moment seems to eb doign that, and for reruns porpuses it might not be, i think you forget premiere and finale will be aired as one for ratings only, however the ratigns are split up for two epsiodes as well so ther emore suggest it two epsiode than one. This is english wikipedia not American wikipedia as lonelymarble seems to think, you can not ingore sources as then it original researh. I am happy to admit i am wrong and i was right when i agreed with what you where saying about 4-5 weeks ago if it proven by dvd release and reruns or other countries airing it as one that it is one but jsut now there two main sources suggest otherwise.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Only America seems to be doing that"... and, as America is the country of origin, we should go with that. We do that for any other TV series. Sceptre (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And you discontuied my comment abotu reruns, channels often air program out of order for rtings or air double episode for ratings,. all the sources show it two epsiode even the americna ratings. it impossibel to have ratings for two epsiode if it one-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-runs don't matter. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we treat episodes in their original broadcast format: as one two-hour episode, as opposed to two one-hours. Sceptre (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

UNIDENT

Well this is goin to be a lovely one to explain, sinc the original broadcast run is different depending on where you live, you do realise peopel come here to udnerstand what something is about, and if someone froma coutnry othr than america comes ot the english wikipedia they wont udnerstand why it is broadcast as two epsidoe, and i think rerun do matter as with otehr coutnries this is english wikiepdia after all, and wikipedia is meant to display thing the way it meant to b and the wya source say, and not to copy other sites and goign on what there it seesm everyoen jsut wants to copy other sites-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If some countries air this episode in one part, and some in two parts, then the format Wikipedia reports should be from the original broadcasting country. The original broadcasting country aired it as one 2-hour episode. Ratings being split up into two parts is irrelevant here, that is simply for commercial research purposes, and has nothing to do with how many "episodes" this is. The "original" broadcast run is definitely not different in different places because there is only one "original" run for any TV show, and in this particular show's case it is the one in the United States. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but the only source in this thread that's been regarded as official is this link to the recaps page on fox.com, which is contradicted by the watch-full-episodes section of fox.com . It's hard to regard one as more official than the other. The recaps page lists the episodes as "601: Broken (2 hour episode)", "603: Epic Fail". The watch-house-episodes page lists them as "Broken (HD) Season 6: Episode 1 (01:28:48)", "Epic Fail (HD) Season 6: Episode 2 (44:03)". To me, the phrasing "Season 6: Episode 2" carries more weight than the numbering "603", especially as that same page labels 601 as a "2 hour episode", in the singular. Je4d (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to throw another spanner int he works but the page has anotuher offical realible source that stateds part 1 and 2-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that fox.com has a page that actually lists a "part 1" and "part 2" of Broken? If so, provide a link instead of just asserting its existence. Je4d (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * all links are on yhte page and fox is not the only site that gets used-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there are no links on this talk page that mention "Broken: Part 1". You have still not provided one. As for "fox is not the only site that gets used", citing unofficial sources has already been discredited in this discussion, as per WP:RS. There's plenty of 3rd-party websites on both sides. As fox are the owners of the series, their website is the only official one, and the titles "Broken: Part 1" and "Broken: Part2" are not present on any part of it. Je4d (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not goign to psot the refernece when there are in teh article, just because fox is the offical one does not give it pregious over the others, in fact since it a primary source wikipeida rule means techincally it is not realible ina discussion on content. there is not been any third party sources apart from msn tv listing that has shown broken as one part, fox own website if you listen does not list it as two parts but list epic fail the second epsiode as 603 why do you think tha tis because broken is 2 parts as per other sources but fox decided to air it as one epiosde-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

unident

moving from Talk:List of House episodes to here as this is the more appiorate place for it also cross posting back to here for easy refernece-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Fox.com http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=house The Episode titled "Teamwork" is listed as "Season 6 Episode 7". Regardless of what any other source my say the original source is always the correct one. Though the production code may be 608 that does not make it Episode 8. Therefore the list should clarify by setting the production code apart from the episode number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDSileo1988 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again wikipedia does nto copy other sites, and is not american wikipedia. Secodnly that is video on demand site that isnt really a realible source even if it from the producer of the show. At the moment there is no source that states it clearly as oen epsiode but a few that state it as two, fan sites are not realible so do not count, the only definitive way will b the dvd release-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Might not be American Wikipedia, but it is primarily licensed on an American channel. Wikipedia should use the closest source to the root when it is available. Fox is the channel on which the series premiered, the first channel on which the episode was aired. If there is any information directly from the producers, this would be more favorable, but I'm sure you can see the logic here. If you feel strongly that there should be a note as to how the episode was aired on other channels, that is fine, but until we have a distinction directly from the producer (which we should from the DVD as you stated) the closest we can get is the primarily licensed broadcaster. Snyex (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fox is primary source so it can not be used for verifycation under sources. however now australia has aired it as two parts ith ink ti beyodn a doubt now-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

discussion is alos here as well Other discussion -- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

haitus
anyone knows why hasn't been a new episode for 2 weeks now. usually this kind of thing appears in the list of episodes of a series.--neolandes (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Remaining Airdates
These should be left in as they have been confirmed by the producer of the series on Twitter. Whilst I wouldn't normally advocate this as a strong source, I feel the uncontroversial nature of the information means that it is better to include information that is 99.9% verifiable rather than leaving it out. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * twitter is unrelaible source, although i believe that they ar the air dates myself wikipeida isnt about speculaitona nd rummours it about realible third party source and twitter isnt so we giving false information-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember the Wikipedia policy that if the "rules" get in the way of an articles effectiveness it in general OK to ignore them. As it stands the director of the series has posted the air dates on what is certifiably his twitter feed. These dates are not particularly controversial information and therefore I believe they should remain in the article. (PS, this is the English Wikipedia, and therefore all content, including that on talk pages should be in English). Jonathan McLeod (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * it is not ok to ingore them revert it again i am takign this to admins-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it again as I am entitled to do under WP:3RR

I'd suggest you check the rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules Also, without meaning to be rude but if your going to take the time to edit Wikipedia, please speak English on both the main and the talk pages! Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly i am dsylexic, and secondly that ule to ingore all rules only implie when the rules are acutally making it soa article can not be produced. this is not the case we are only removing air dates that can not be verified whihc can be added again later, there nothing worng with you putting the twitter page as external link then it up to user to believ eif they want ot or not like i believ eit but as i said below as a editor i can not ingor ethe fact it is not realible i am goign to give you the chance to undo it or i will report to admin and let them decide.-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you install a spell-checker? My own spelling would be no better than your's without one.  Rami  R  12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a godo idea, however..... when i do not know how word is spelled hoe do i know the word that it lists is the right one? and sometime sbecause it that bad it can not knwo wha ti am trying ot spell so i prefer to jsut assume people with good reading skills can read aroudn my badness and udnerstand i cant do it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Modern spellcheckers are pretty good at determining what you mean. While most people can understand what you mean, they'll usually be less willing to cooperate w/ a bad speller. For better or worst, people often associate bad spelling with low intellect. Firefox has a built-in spell-checker; For IE6/7/8 you can get IE7Pro.  Rami  R  15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * im using firefix unbuilt one but it cant do it, the problem isnt just dsylecia but speech problem to produce word you have to phentical spelll but sincve i cant produce more than 3 syballe words in speech then i cant do it in spellling so ther checker cant fix it since it uses similar methods-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey all, just passing by to note when I can get the next episode; Couldn't help noticing this discussion. There's no need to invoke IAR here, as using the producer's tweets as source for such uncontroversial info is OK by the usual content policies. Generally speaking, Twitter is not a reliable source as it is self-published. However, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS) I do believe that the producer can be considered an "established expert" on the topic of the air date :)  Rami  R  08:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it unrealible is we can not 100% beyond a doubt prove the person who is twitting is the persion who they say they are, there is no way tp prove it is the producer so it unrelaible since the user is determine to ingore the rules as they said them self i will take to amdins-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Greg Yaitanes is known to use twitter (he even invested in it); specifically, he is known to release future air dates. While it is true that it is not 100% certain that that is really Yaitanes's twitter, it stands to reason that is (I'm 99% certain it is). Basically the 100% standard is wee bit high. After all, I can't state with 100% certainty that wikipedia is real, and not just a figment of my imagination. But I am 99% sure.  Rami  R  11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * yes and that is teh reason unless it can be verified beyond a doubt we cant use it, we cant just assume it is as that is going against wikipedia fundemtanl polocie of not be a soruce fo information and using third parties soruce to verify. I have already said i trust it myself that is the air dates as a fan but as a editor i have to takea netural view and say i can not prove beyond a doubt it is him so we cant use them-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) This isn't a court. "Beyond a doubt" is not a reasonable metric. The question is what is the more reasonable assumption. I contend that it is far more reasonable to assume that the twitter account is Yaitanes's than to assume otherwise. I suggest against bring this to an admin's noticeboard, they usually don't deal with content issues (Also take note that the future episodes don't currently appear in the article at all). A better place to raise this issue would probably be WP:RSN.  Rami  R  12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * to me that is admin notice baord as well-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, either Broken is a two part episode, or Moving the Chains, Remorse and The Down Low are incorrect. You're opinions seem to affect our articles too much. If the remaining airdates are correct, then Broken is a two part, but if you think that Twitter is unrelible, then Broken will be posted as a one part. Neo136 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * mmm considering there is other sources there to confirm it two episodes then why would i need to use twiiter? i only pointed out that everyone keeps positng the airdates and sayign twitter is realible (which under my own perosnal views it is) but as far as i know unless osmeone at wp:rs has deemed it realibel then it is not, so if everyone els eis happy to use twitter for the airdates then i am saying twitter confirms i am right that borken is two epsiode even though the toehr sources confirm it, so you are changing things to suit youirself unde rthat pretense, the sources have backed wha ti have said form teh begining but people are to arrogant or blind to realise that borken was two epsiode and america fox aired it as one epsiode for ratings, the sources ar ethe ratings, and digiguide uk lisitng site. and lets get one thing clear ther enot your articles nor mine, secondly it not my opinions i am just use sources as per wikipedia guidelines-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Drop Down Box
The drop-down box that is included in the infobox on individual episode pages (the one showing the season episode list) needs additional episodes added to it. It currently lists only up through Moving the Chains. Does anyone know how to add new episodes to that list?--Emgee1129 (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting episode articles
Assessment of individual episode articles, those with no info have nothing but a plot section, infobox and EL's: My recommendation: redirect all episodes except Help Me (House). Broken (House), 5 to 9, The Choice (House) and Baggage (House) could go either way.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Broken (House) (basic reception section; music plated; some minimal notes)
 * 2) Epic Fail (House)
 * 3) The Tyrant (House) (unsourced cultural reference)
 * 4) Instant Karma (House) (music played)
 * 5) Brave Heart (House) (music played)
 * 6) Known Unknowns (music played; minimal reception)
 * 7) Teamwork (House) (music played)
 * 8) Ignorance Is Bliss (House) (reference to real world person from a rather blog looking like website)
 * 9) Wilson (House episode) (music played; minimal reception)
 * 10) The Down Low (music played)
 * 11) Remorse (House) (music played)
 * 12) Moving the Chains (music played)
 * 13) 5 to 9 (music played; basic reception section)
 * 14) Private Lives (House) (music played)
 * 15) Black Hole (House)
 * 16) Lockdown (House) (music played; minimal filming info)
 * 17) Knight Fall (music played; some cultural references)
 * 18) Open and Shut (House) (music played)
 * 19) The Choice (House) (basic reception section)
 * 20) Baggage (House) (some cultural references; basic reception section)
 * 21) Help Me (House) (decent production and reception section)

Colour contrast problems
It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)