Talk:List of House episodes/Archive 3

Saviors
Saviors links to a page dealing with the actual terminology and not the episode itself. Someone should correct this. Soliden (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Single episodes
I plan on redirecting most of these per WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT and WP:NOTE soon. Every episode after "Pilot" lacks multiple secondary sources which must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Consisting of solely of individual plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. As others suggest, seek Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. Also see Talk:List of Scrubs episodes.  « ₣ull Metal ₣alcon »  22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspend until the whole EPISODES/FICT thing is over. Will (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the redirection. Although the individual articles fail the policies on some points, the information in each article is useful, even more so when someone needs additional information past the summaries and should be kept. Also, pointing viewers of the article towards other sites outside of wikipedia´s touch to read removed information is an arguable point. Fernando Hulio (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went through the entire first season and other than the Pilot page, and Histories (House), Detox (House), and Love Hurts (House) none of the other episodes have anything other than a plot. Even those I just listed are just plot summaries with a couple of stray sentences (unsourced mind you) about some theme or inconsistency. Just about all of the "real world" content, even in its limited state, is original research. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, or a substitution for watching a show. There is nothing on these episode pages that says they need to be separated. Not only do they violate WP:PLOT, but they don't even fall into what WP:SPINOUT suggests. If you need a few extra sentences to describe a plot, try an article devoted to the respective seasons.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the merge tag for now because I plan on working on the article fairly heavily soon and this discussion also began over three months ago and has halted, for now. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning abstracts...
People,

The abstracts on the main episode list (this article) are getting way too long, I think. Especially those of season 4. They should be 2 or 3 lines max, like season 1, 2 and 3.

The additional content can be written in their own article. Just de main explanation in this article.

A fair conclusion??

23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I edited too long abstracts for the first three seasons, I will now do so for season 4.Mrglass123 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

Meanwhile
Could we try to write ONE plot synopsis without the word "meanwhile"? I know it's a nice word, but it doesn't need to be in every episode description. 81.164.192.15 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Synopses
May I make a suggestion that the descriptions of each episode be written in a more orderly fashion? Some are way to vague, some don't focus on the main or sub plot well and some protect spoilers which is not important here. They feel like they were written like TV Guide blurbs. 68.96.127.226 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Care to cite a couple of examples, to make sure we're both on the same page? Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sex Kills-Two Patients
I think the dead patient that they treated should be part of the diagnosis section since half the episode was diagnosing her, even though she was dead. It was part of the mystery. I tried to add her s part of the diagnosis but someone took it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Move for protection
I personally am over arguing about the final diagnosis section. Citing the discussion at FICT/N, clearly the summary of an episode list needs to included the beginning middle end and that should also extend to the list, where they say "this is what the final diagnosis is". To remove it honestly does render the page inaccurate. I would love to see this page protected so that continued disagreements over it can be squashed by established users. It's getting really redundant to have to keep going behind people who refuse to sign up for an account and rather just change it to what they think it should look like. And I'm not talking about full protection, just where established users can edit it.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this (i've been lurking on this debate for a while, only now havegotten an account) by I agree. Myene (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Viewers
Does anyone else think we should add the number of viewers each episode? Every other TV show on Wikipedia has it and I think it's interesting to know how your show is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody know?
Does anybody know why the long gap between showing the episode 'Painless' - I can't wait to watch it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.165.126 (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Every tv show has about a month long break during the winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.108.131 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles
You guys really should be waiting until these articles can satisfy WP:NOTE before creating them (if they ever do). Most are just a page with a plot summary.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
In the past day I've reverted two seperate copyvio edits wherein summaries were copy-pasted from Fox press releases, such as the one for the episode "Saviors" here. Please, folks, don't plagiarize. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems the summaries for episodes 22-24 of Season Five plagiarize, copied from press releases. So, I changed the summaries of episodes 22 and 23 to fix this. Episode 24 summary currently remains in violation of copyright. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth season finale
I have two points regarding the recent edits from Cameron Scott adding the sentence "House enters a mental health facility after he becomes unable to tell fantasy from reality".

I reverted this on content grounds explained in the edit summary as "rv what happens in the last minute or so of an episode cannot be a key plot driver. If it becomes relevant, this will be discussed in Season 6 synopses". Cameron then reverted this with the comment "You have been told before about this - you will be blocked if you remove sourced viable content - the conclusion of a series *is* an impotant point" (sic).

First, I object to Cameron's behaviour. I have had no dealings with him before, and certainly haven't been warned about "this" (whatever "this" is), or indeed anything else by anyone. I don't see that I should be threatened with "accept my edits or be blocked" just for taking a different view on content from Cameron. These are bully boy tactics, and I do not think it fair that I should be bullied.

Second, my understanding of the brief episode summaries is that they are brief synopses of the key plot drivers of a particular episode. Content should be decided based on what those key plot drivers are. Whether something may be a "spoiler" is immaterial. Therefore, in the episode where Kutner commits suicide, we mention that. It happens at the start and the episode covers how characters cope with the aftermath. Where it is something that happens just at the end of an episode (even a season finale), then we don't mention it. For example, at the end of season two, it is an important point at the end that House asks for ketamine to reboot his system. But the episode does not centre around that point, and so it is not in the summary, and rightly so. Therefore, whilst it would be appropriate in the season five finale to say that House continues to battle with mental health issues, we should not mention the psychiatric hospital, which we only really see fully in the last few seconds of the episode and which is not developed at all. If it becomes a key plot driver for early season six episodes, then it can be mentioned there later. Hibbertson (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the reviews for the episode concentrated on that plot point - as Reliable sources thought it was the most important aspect of the episode, there we must follow their lead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly it is a important part ofthe episode, if this was not the case the bit about nurtney suicide would nto be included as it was only at the begining for a few miunutes. The length of something does nto determine it ntoable, the fact that house is apparntly goign insane seems very notable. However cameron scott point about everyone else is doign so we should is not valid, jsut because antoehr source says it important does not mean wikipedia copies that stance, it has to be decided is it important enough to include and if so include it,thirdly cameron scott should not be using bully boy tactic accept it or else and if you have not had warnign befor ei suggest you report the user for false saying you have and trying to bully you.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The first source Cameron provided doesn't refer to the psychiatric hospital at all - although it does refer to House's continuing mental problems (which are a very key plot point, and which should be mentioned). The second source only lists it under "major developments" at the end - which is somewhat different from plot drivers (which are covered at the top). The other two "major developments" are not listed in your plot summary. May I propose replacing the sentence "House enters a mental health facility after he becomes unable to tell fantasy from reality" with "House continues to wrestle with his mental health problems"?


 * Finally, Cameron, a word of apology for the heavy-handedness of your edit summary wouldn't go amiss. Hibbertson (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have revert to previous version until this dispute is resolve here i rather not go down the liens of having to take it to page protection, however if you can agree on solution then go ahead and reedit it :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * May I propose replacing the sentence "House enters a mental health facility after he becomes unable to tell fantasy from reality" with "House continues to wrestle with his mental health problems"? no because it's vague and inaccurate - "house continues to wrestle with his mental issues and enters a mental health facility". I'll be re-adding it short if someone is unable to provide a policy based reason why well-sourced accurate content should not be added. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not revert it back, until a suitabe solution can be reached here it remains as it was. At the moment oyu are taking the attuide it my way or no way. I am not disagreeing with you it should be included however you both need to find suitable solution--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh and every single other final episode on this list has that type of information, so it's equally bogus to say we don't put that stuff in - because the list shows that we clearly do. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot has nothing to do with House entering the psychiatric hospital - it's the lead up that's covered - and it is a surprise when he admits himself at the end. So the psych hospital is not a plot driver in any sense of the term. So I really am not sure why are you so set on mentioning that he enters the psych hospital? Not every event in every episode is covered - and it is certainly Wikipedia policy that not every well-sourced accurate content must remain in an article. Like other encyclopaedias, Wikipedia makes editorial decisions over content. To make it clear, it's the reference to the psych hospital I disagree with adding on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the episode's plot (except for the last 60 seconds), I'm not set on any particular formulation of noting House's mental difficulties in the episode.


 * I would also ask that you do not re-add anything until this discussion is complete, and others have an opportunity to comment. I certainly will leave the issue for a few days now to allow other views to be aired. There should be no rush over this. Hibbertson (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Season Five Colour
Yellow line seems to have been removed from the top of Episode 'Saviors' in Season Five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.43.18 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Season Six Color
I'd like to propose that when Season Six begins, its 'colour' on this list be a dark green, perhaps Forest Green, or even British Racing Green. Everyone cool with that? Can I call dibs? If not, who will decide the color? Just how are these matters decided?--BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It just kind of... happens. I think whoever makes the new table picks the color (how they pick it I've never asked). Then when the eventual DVD is released, the color is generally changed to match. Oh, and I'd go with forest green over british racing (which seems a bit too dark). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they ususaly end up being changed to the DVD color green is out as Season 4 was green, this also eliminates Red and Blue no idea on yellow till latter this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.100 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much we need to pick one color and stick to it. We don't need edit wars over something as totally idiotically irrelevant as table color. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone with Purple. Feel free to change it if there is a consensus to do so. Colour will obviously eventually change to match DVDs but purple doesn't clash with any of the colours currently in use. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, purple would've been my next choice. I'm not going to edit it, there's just no need. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we all agree not to edit war over this? It looks fine. ^_^ -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me I only posted because of the green thing and didnt want someone to have to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.10.208 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Too long tag
I have tagged this witht he too logn tag as the artile is now over 90kb, it might be better to spliut out each season to its own article now and to remove the short summary from each episode so the size will redufce down.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. This is a list, not prose, and it is easily navigable, so I don't think readers have any real difficulty with its length. It's also fair to assume most readers are now on broadband, so won't have any download issues. There are also many much longer lists on Special:Longpages. Hibbertson (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can count loads of list like this tha thave been split due to the sie being to large, i am aware of the page that are much longer--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just think the benefits of keeping everything on one page - particularly as it is a page that's easy to navigate and edit - outweigh any benefits of splitting this page up, presumably into six (one for each season plus a summary page). Hibbertson (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understnad your point of view, however just now you need to scroll downa lot to get to season 5 if you remove the summaries it is not as much all that will happen is you will follow to find the summaries it just makes the page neatier and tidy and confirm to guidelines, yes guidelines do not always need to be follow depends on teh article, however i do not believe this article would be any different to any other show list which gets split.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you click on "season five" in the contents, or on "5" in the series overview table, you are immediately taken to the season five summaries. Hibbertson (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but that is just bring you to the part of the page where seaosn 5 is, ok lets say you deicde to go season 2 then say oh i want to know what happens in season 4 episode 14 you have to scroll a lot to get there. as i say house is no differnet ot any otehr tv show that has serparate article for each seaosn adn the main page jsut list the epaiodes--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See, for example List of Veronica Mars episodes. six months ago it was all in one place and made FL, but was split out into 3 FL articles, each covering a single season, leaving one condensed list (sans episode summaries) as an overview of the entire show. House is already 60% longer, and needs to go the same route sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yip that is my point :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the marker at the top that says the article is too long should be removed. The article consists of brief, useful summaries of the episodes, and is easy to navigate, despite the fact that it will inevitably get longer as the series continues. Breaking it into subarticles would make it harder to navigate. 72.192.11.48 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No it wont look at other examples List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes and the one posted above, by wikipedia guideliens it will have to be split, ther eis a talk above to contribute ideas on it, if it doesnt get doen now it iwll get done in the future. if this gets to say 10 seasons it will be very hard ot naviagate and personal i think ti hard jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking we could potential solve the spoiler problem, since after splitting this would literally only be a list, we could remove the diagnostic part and but include it in the each season article as with the description, then people cooming lookinf fo rhouse airing will not moan they have seen spoiler but at the same time the informaiton will be there for people to read--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think there are a number of issues here: These are all examples of long shows which were split in order to provide a useful episode list, while maintaining detailed information about individual episodes in the season/episode synopsis. There are countless others.
 * 1) Lots of people are obviously pushing to move certain information away from this page. As it stands, this page is clearly less usable to a sizable portion of its viewers due to that information.
 * 2) The page is becoming more unwieldy over time. It's already a minor pain to find the season/episode you're looking for quickly. As the show progresses, this will only become worse.
 * 3) Lots of the information shown on this page doesn't relate to its intended purpose. The title suggests a list of episodes - not a synopsis of every event occurring throughout the whole show.
 * 4) The format of the page is substantially different than numerous other TV show lists on WP.
 * 5) * List of Lost Episodes
 * 6) * List of Veronica Mars episodes
 * 7) * List of The Simpsons Episodes
 * 8) * List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes
 * 9) * List of Seinfeld Episodes
 * 10) * List of Prison Break Episodes
 * 11) * List of The Smurfs Episodes
 * 12) * List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes

The question is not "hide information vs show information". It's about making the whole "House category" more informative and useful to everyone. Repeating synopsis information on every house-related page does not make it more useful. It makes it burdensome, long, unwieldy, and needlessly overinformative.

Split the info, as has been suggested, and we've eliminated the concerns of nearly half of the discussions on this page. In fact, I'd be happy to do it myself. ~ Jess (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well i have split out season 1 to get people views on it hwo it is now, i can easily do season 2-5 very quickly, i am also thinking after spliting season 1 that the final diagnostic should be removed it will remain in the seaosn 1 article however it would then make the list look nicer and also sovles the problem most people moan about spoilers, but saying that i am still having problem getting people to understand splitting out for example on List of Time Team episodes i have developed a new format jsut need ot hope people like it and agree to change.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now all season have been split out and the very logn tag removed, however the article is still quite large maybe the final diagnostic should be removed as it still in the indvidual season articles and would solve the complaining about spoilers for future episodes.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added Season 2-5 with the information we already had. It looks like Andrewcrawford added links to them in the main article's page, and I believe he removed the article description to match Season 1. Just in case someone reverts these changes, I've set up the current view in my user page (and I'm also removing the Final Diagnosis section as we speak). This is what we're going for, I think. User:Mann jess/List of House (Season 1) episodes ~ Jess (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There has to be good reason to revert it, and for the sumamries tehre is now it been split as per policy. however the final diagnostic could be reverted and it would have tobe discussed here :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the FD on the main page. Based on recent discussion, I think this is ok. The info is still there, individual lists are available to search, it eliminates "spoilers", decreases the page size, makes it easier to navigate, matches policy, mimics precedent on other pages, etc, etc, etc. If anyone objects, we can discuss it further. ~ Jess (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Season Information
Should each season's information remain in this episode list, or should it be removed since it is included in the season-specific lists? Episode lists like List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes don't include it in the main list, and I very much like their format. It's clean, and easy to read and use. IMO, the info should not be in two places (the main list and sub-list), and I think it makes much more sense to be in the season-specific list instead. I'll leave this for at least a few days before making any changes. ~ Jess (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * well i can not comment, the list in question was done by me and if you seen it before that it was a mess ,it was not even in table format or episodelsit format it was just in comment format. however i agree the informaiton doe snot need to be dublicated--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Diagnoses
I regularly use Wikipedia pages on TV shows to keep track of the series I am watching and today I first stumbled upon this list of House episodes. To my surprise, the final diagnosis for each episode is included in the list, without any previous warning. However useful it may be to know the ending before watching, I prefer to enjoy the series with a clean slate and not know the final diagnosis beforehand. Especially not without explicitly choosing to look it up.

Do more people agree that the final diagnoses should either be hidden or removed or that at least some kind of spoiler warning be included in this page?

Michel Jansen (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that since they are going to a wikipedia article called: "List of House episodes", they would know that they are taking the risk of having the storyline spoiled. Also, does anyone watch House just for the diagnosis? Everyone watches it for the storylines and the way they get the diagnosis. No one actually cares what it is, or remembers it for that matter. It is not that much of a spoiler. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought these things were synopsis, and why would it give the conclusion to the show? It just seems rather illogical to have it in the first place on the generic list of all episodes. Obviously I don't see a problem if it were in the specific episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.59.173 (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2008
 * Sometimes knowing the diagnosis really does spoil things. For example, for Alone: "Allergic reaction to cephalosporins in misidentified patient". That's supposed to be the twist! Ilkali (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but unfortunately current Wikipedia policy on spoilers is that, well, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --86.135.122.208 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ermm, yes I'm sure that's what WP:SPOIL means then. This article should be at US pace, because that is the origination of House, and therefore there's not much you can do because your country is behind on the show. It doesn't reveal the final diagnosis on the upcoming episodes, just what has been shown. I've noticed that no one's complained yet about having the episode titles revealed of the upcoming episodes. Swanny92 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some would. People can get very passionate about spoilers. But I guess those people just avoid WP altogether. --86.155.161.26 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur about the spoilers of the final diagnosis. It's too much information to give on what should be just what it says on the tin: a list of episodes. If I want synopses and spoilers (not short abstracts, which generally don't spoil), I'd use those episodes' individual pages. None of the other List of XXX Episodes pages I've seen have this sort of massive spoiler on. 82.3.78.117 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr 82.3.78.117. Giving away the diagnosis (which in most cases spoils the entire episode) is not what an episode-list page should be about. The current practice is highly homosexual.Pretender (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Michel Jansen, giving away the diagnosis seems pointless, especially when we can include it on the individual episode pages. It's like having a page about a crime series with a list of whodunnits. 130.88.167.5 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The removal of each diagnosis from this paticular entry makes perfect sense, as this clearly is not the place. if someone is looking up the name of an episode then it is most likely that they have not seen the episode in question, in which case the discovery of the diagnosis can be a major plot spoiler, although apparently not to GuffasBorgz7, but i for one do feel this way. with a page dedicated to each episode it seems that if information is needed (more than the title) then it should be placed on the independent page, where logic dictates a spoiler will exist. the diagnosis does not belong here.

Downforthecount182 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With the premiere of the 5th season today, and therefore the update of the episode details, I think a proper decision should be made as to whether or not the diagnoses should be re/moved. The episode templates in use on the episode articles now have a "Final diagnosis" field in them, if you see the Pilot article. I also made up what the episode list would look like without the final diagnoses column (not really a change, though the writers and directors names have been put into their proper field names), you can see it here. So should we just stick with doing it like that and removing the diagnoses from the episode list? Swanny92 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I say remove it, if I get a vote :) I have to actually cover the right side of the screen with my hand when Im lookin at this page. I was working on trying to get a thing where if you click a link it shows up but that didnt work very well.. although dooable theoretically. Just put the swanny sandbox version in, I dont think there will be complaints. 76.180.69.113 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well in this case, seeing as the majority of people have agreed to it, I'll put my version in and over time I'll work in integrating the diagnoses to the individual episode articles. Swanny92 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

what I'm trying to figure out is why you would come to an episode list not expecting to see what the diagnosis was or what happens in the end...that boggles my mind and i know not just myself but many other people who would not want to sift through paragraph after paragraph of what goes on when all they are looking for is then ending..people do want to just look up the diagnosis at the end and don't want to read through all the episode summaries...just because you think a page shouldn't have something everyone else has to suffer for some people who whine and cry about it..even though its been the same way for years.....come on..get real--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't have to sift through paragraph after paragraph, they're in the infoboxes! All it takes is an extra click and a glance down the RHS of the page, and there they are. It just gives extra precaution to people who don't want to know the endings to the episodes, and if you do want to know the ending then go read the episode articles. And I don't think any other medical dramas have the "final diagnosis" given on the episode lists, so why should House? Swanny92 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * well seeing as though more people want it there than those who dont it kinda goes in our favor..--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you count but only 3 people have reverted the edits, only ONE person has bothered to come and object to it on the talk page. And EIGHT people help decided that they should be removed from the list. I hardly think that counts as a victory for your side Rlogan2. There are plenty of reasons why the FDs don't belong on this list. a) It's an episode list, and according to the style guides for episode lists, it doesn't mention anything about "giving away the specific ending" (see here), b) For people who haven't seen an episode, seeing the FD can ruin it for them. If they do want to see the FD, the new system can be just that they can open up the episode article and take a look at the infobox, and bingo! There it is! I noticed that you haven't even commented on the FDs being in the infobox. Perhaps you didn't realise that? Well hopefully you do now. In simplest terms, the FDs don't belong in the episode list. The House episode list should be laid out just like any other episode list, it isn't that special in the end, treat it like any other. It was a nice idea though it doesn't stay true to the MOS for episode lists. It's good enough that they can go in the infobox. Swanny92 (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * what im trying to figure out is why you would want to go to a page where spoilers are usually listed and expect to not see spoilers??/ a bit idiotic in my book..because you can go to the website of all places..im sure they wouldn't list the spoilers right out there in the open..however this is wikipedia and in wikipedia they divulge the facts of an episode..the summary and the ending...hence the summary is listed as well as the final diagnosis...whine and cry all you want, then after the tears are dried up go to the official site and watch the episodes there..and if you cant find them there go out and buy the dvd..wiki is not the place to whine about the ending of television shows..i think its funny that just because very few people have whined on and on about it that someone says..hey this hasnt been addressed so ill just up and change the format of it...try again because if something is not broken why fix it...--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mate, this is an episode list, not the full on plot details of each episode. I've already said, the FDs are listed in each episode article, so they're still there. Keep the episode list as an episode list. Therefore it still abides by the MOS for an episode list. Why does House have to be so special as to have it's own unique MOS for its episode list? Answer: it's not! Try actually reading the discussion above and then you'll be able to see why the decision was reached. You've had 5 months to try and have your say, it didn't need to go on forever. Swanny92 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * i dont see why you're getting so upset over keeping something here that has been there longer than the five months it has been talked about..obviously no one has had an issue with it before and again a bunch of whiners have decided it should come down?...i vote no on proposition whining..leave it how it was and move on to debating something else because honsetly this is getting to be really pointless..if you dont want to see it, dont come to the page where you know it will be listed..its simple common sense.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all just a matter of improving the article. It seems you're the one who's whinging about it, because I was just performing an action which had been discussed for 5 months and it had been overall decided to remove the FDs. I hardly think it's whinging, it's just a group of editors wanting to improve the article. Where's the harm in that? And honestly, what's the problem with having to take one click to check out what the FD is? And also, quote to me where it says that something like a final diagnosis for an episode has a place on a list of episodes? The point is mate, there was an entire discussion taken place and overall it was decided to remove the Final Diagnoses from the list. So why can't you just respect the decisions that were made by a group of people and "move on to debating something else because honestly this is getting really pointless". You can't win every vote. Swanny92 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

last time i checked it wasnt a requirement to read a discussion page to ensure that something you want to remain as it was to stay..and it really needed no other improvement other than the new episodes that were made..quote where it says you cant put the conclusion to an episode on a page. its done on every other page and the simple fact that you guys dont want it doesnt make it right..if there was a show like house, that poses a medical mystery than i would hope that there would be a final diagnosis included in a basic page..look it is obvious that we are not going to agree on this because the way we feel about it is not going to change...im not going to accept what you are trying to do and youre not going to accept what im trying to do...lets just find some kind of common ground and end this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlogan2 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A fair compromise would be to have it hide the column and have the user click to see the diagnoses.. Or in mean time have Huge spoiler alerts everywhere. Looks like diagnoses were added when this list failed to be featured the first time around, interestingly the second time around one of the reasons it wasnt featured is because of the diagnoses(in addition to a lot of copyright problems), I can see why its a good idea to have all the different diseases in one place (as opposed to the list of house diseases that was merged in) but it should be hidden from immediate view. Even a table all the way at the bottom would be better.. how about an anchor link from each row to the diagnosis table at the bottom. - RandomGUY


 * Look I already gave the solution that the final diagnoses can be moved to the individual episode articles. It's a better place for them as the rest of the info on the episodes can be found there, and the basic info can then be found on the episode list. What is the problem with doing that? And Rlogan2, when I meant read the discussion page, I was referring to the discussion that took place about removing them, so you could see why it was agreed to remove them. The point is, the FDs don't belong in this article. This list should be staying consistent with other TV show episode lists, and by having them on this list, it's not staying consistent. That is why it was thought of having the FDs in the episode articles. Can someone please point out to me why it is such a huge problem with having them in the episode articles instead? (besides having to make one extra click, which isn't so bad IMO) Swanny92 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * it does not have to do with it being one extra click. i wouldnt be opposed to almost like a rollover. i am however opposed to moving the entire final diagnosis peice. you know it has alot more to do with what i have said over and over like a robot. it wasnt broken before why alter it now...not everything has to be consistent and uniform. why is everyone worried about not being consistent...like i said a rollover or a spoiler warning thing wouldnt bother me...i wouldnt fight that.but moving it all makes no sense to me. i have come to this page for years and it is a shame that now people are asking for it to be taken away..thats my only issue.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're not opposed to having to make one extra click then what's the problem? And no, the page wasn't "broken", but it just had some unnecessary information that would better belong on the individual episode pages. It's just as simple as that, it's mostly to do with the way that WikiProject Television has decided that the episode lists should be planned out. So if you don't object to having to make one extra click to see the FDs, then you shouldn't have any other problem with moving the FDs from the list? I have given every reason under the sun as to why moving the FDs is a good idea, and it seems like you're the only one with the problem. And if I make the edits due to consensus, then well you couldn't just keep reverting it due to the three-revert rule. Just be fair, you had your say. Swanny92 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

i never said that i was not opposed to it..a a matter of fact i indeed said that was i wasn't opposed to a "roll over..spoiler" type of action...and i'm not the only one arguing..just the only one with balls enough to say no. and i haven't finished having my say because the only person besides me that has been arguing over it has been you...except for in one instance which really was irrelevant because he refused to say who he was. all im saying is our common ground shouldn't be where either one of us wins..but a place where we can both technically lose. --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "final diagnosis" coloumn is really a bad idea. I thought so for a while. The whole page does not include include spoilers except this one coloumn. 84.108.163.26 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there was an overall agreement to remove it though one person wanted to go against it and wouldn't stick to the consensus and repeatedly removed it. Swanny92 (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys I think I came up with a good solution check out this. Im using a template called hiddenmultiline that passes through the hidden template.. I think it does the trick really well. Hopefully we can all agree on this one :) - Rampagez99 (im also RandomGuy from before)


 * That's a good idea, quite like that. Makes the unnecessary info non-visible though still allows the info to be seen. Swanny92 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great Im glad you like it, Ill wait for more consensus maybe some from the desenters :), it will also give me a chance to fix it up a bit if possible.Rampagez99 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

this is what i was saying was needed.. im on board for it and im glad that this works out in alot of people's favor...--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Great just the desenter I was waiting for.. good deal. I will implement as soon as possible. Thanks. Rampagez99 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Ok implemented :). Thats democracy.. at least until someone else comes along and reverses it for some other reason. Rampagez99 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

i wasnt a desenter...just didnt want something removed...but if that makes me a desenter im okay with--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No negativity implied, im glad it all worked out :)Rampagez99 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(I didn't know there was so much controversy surrounding the diagnosis field, as I use it to find the episodes I am looking for when I remember the diagnosis but not the episode title.) Rampagez99, is it possible to add a button to the "Final Diagnosis" column header so that all diagnoses in the season are revealed with one click? – sgeureka t•c 16:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * thats exactly what he did..like two or three days ago..all you should have to do now is click show.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means all at the same time.. Ill look into it.. but may not be possible Rampagez99 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's great, now that Final Diagnosis is hidden! Thanks 84.108.163.26 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that the Diagnosis Sections have the button to show it instead of just showing the diagnosis, its kind of a hassle to be clicking every diagnosis just to show it?...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.229.47 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * dude we just finished hashing all this stuff out and it was agreed upon that it would be this way...no further discussion is needed on this matter because again in the final diagnosis section we decided for people who didnt want to see it, we would leave it in the box and simply click the show button...its there to deter a "spoiler" like appearance for people who haven't seen the episode.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good now. 84.108.163.26 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiding is great, but can we please PLEASE have a "show all" button? Like Sgeureka, I *do* often want to look an episode up by its final diagnosis - I just saw two very different shows back to back and wanted to identify which writers were responsible. Before, I could just search the page for the diagnosis and be taken directly to the episode; now I'm stuck reading every episode synopsis and spoiling plotlines I haven't seen. 24.11.188.203 (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It all comes down to if it is actually possible to make a Show all button. Until then, if you want to search for the episode that has a particular FD, and you (somehow) figure out how to spell it, just search it on Wikipedia and find the House episode article that comes up in the search. Not the best alternate solution but it works. Swanny92 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Im working on it but hitting some brick walls, in mean time i know its a pain but you can just edit the page.. and that will show you all the diagnosis and synopsis etc, that textbox is searchable..Rampagez99 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THAT BUTTON! Seriously, I've been avoiding this page to catch up on old episodes but didn't want to get spoiled. Much appreciative of the sanity - Waveblade [non-editor] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.15.86 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help :)..Rampagez99 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Came up with another temporary solution for people who want to show all diagnosis paste the following into your address bar (without the quotes): "javascript:var i=0;do{i=i+1;toggleNavigationBar(i);}while(i<=91);" and press enter. This will reveal 91 of the diagnosis.. you can increment the last number for more eps. Rampagez99 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not hide or remove spoilers simply because they are spoilers. Collapsible/hidden sections cause accessibility problems for older and portable browsers and should be used sparingly – if at all. Matthew (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record: I've no opinion as to whether the diagnoses should be there or not. Hiding them is not acceptable, however. Matthew (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh Rampagez99 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While personally I really liked the hidden diagnosis thing (I tend to read the summary before going out and buying the episode, and ended up having to tape a piece of paper to the side of my screen to keep myself from glancing over and seeing it), as per Spoilers, it is no longer Wikipedia policy to hide plot information. So while I might not like it, it is policy. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just make it a point not to read Wikipedia articles on shows by which I want to be surprised, knowing that WP:SPOILER is in effect. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to spoil the party here, but WP:SPOILER is a guideline, not policy. Further, it allows for common sense exceptions (thus, isn't a hard and fast guideline), and mentions nothing of show/hide issues. It merely says that spoiler information shouldn't be removed from an article - a show/hide option for the final diagnosis on this list of episodes isn't actually covered by that. I see absolutely no policy position that suggests that this is innapropriate. Hiding in an obvious, non-warning, and easy to access manner is not synonymous with removal of information from an article by any means. Crimsone (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

any chance of voting to get the hide/show back? i find it very irritating that i dont have the self-control not to look at the spoiler...it seems my eyes are drawn to that which is forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.202.56 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting means nothing in this place, neither does any amount of discussion, someone can always come around and reverse it if they feel like it. Im just going to use my own house test page for the list of episodes, you guys are welcome to it: House Episodes it has the show/hide links. Rampagez99 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

you know Rampagez99 i hear you dude..i think the fact that someone cam in and completely redid something that was agreed upon consensually. i mean it took forever for it to come to a happy medium ad now its gone...kind of unfair but i will definitely be going to your different page because like i said i thik it is only right to support consensus...indeed says the original desenter--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * anyone can always change it back too... discussion is key, always. Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha thanks EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere. Discussion is what we had over like 4 months in a section above, leading to a consensus. Action is random, there should be some kind of numerical vote tallying system for these kinds of disagreements. Also WP:Spoil says exceptions are possible so I dont know what the problem is here. Im not sure how valid his accessibility argument is consider the hide/show things are everywhere in wikipedia.Rampagez99 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah i don't know who came in and just outed everything without a general consensus because as everyone has said discussion is key...and the discussion ended with a general yes to the way it was before...well i mean i don't know what his accessibility is either but i hope that it gets changed back to the way it was before someone went and read a rule and then applied it to a page with discussing it with other people...i mean isn't that what a discussion/talk page is all about...i believe it is...could be wrong though.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is take our anger out on Matthew's star trek page ;)Rampagez99 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Crimsone said. We're not removing the spoilers, we are merely hiding them. You could use the argument that it's unnecessary info but it still contributes to making a complete list of diseases that have existed on House, and as people have said, some people use them to identify episodes. And there's nowhere that says you can't use show/hide links. So theoretically, using them isn't going against any policy. And EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere, I agree with what you're saying about the consensus, though don't forget you did the exact same thing that Matthew has done here, with the original agreement to remove the column completely and move the FDs into the episode articles... Swanny92 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * no i understand i originally did it but i stuck around and fought it out over why i didn't want it placed there..he just removed made a single statement and walked away and that i think is why people are getting upset..because also if you remember i simply asked for something to hide it away for the people with issues about the spoilers...that's what happened.. i support the page as it was before and the issue should be put back on the table because it was something we all agreed on and now someone else is fighting the consensus. cheers--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see what the problem is then. You guys have discussed it and thought it trough, the spoiler tag doesn't violate the guideline - reverse it back and everyone will be happy. And if not, heres enough space for discussion. 90.128.85.151 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

somebody changed it back to the "spoiler version" there's no "show" button anymore... what happened?--Camilorojas (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A troll, no doubt -81.167.95.65 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF? Someone seriously needs to add back in the spoiler tags. They completely spoil the episodes if you know the final diagnosis ahead of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.137.58 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys get rid of the spoilers, please!!!!! (hide/remove/whatever) --Rustamabd (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright I hoped that someone else would do this but im trying it again... restored the show/hide links. In response to Matthews(guy that reverted it) issue, I think that WP:SPOIL allows for the ability to make exceptions if necessary to improve the article and im not sure that it even forbids what were doing in the first place. The other issue about support problems of other browsers with hide links, I checked on several older browsers and it appears that if the javascript tags are not recognized they are ignored and the diagnosis is displayed fine. I hope this will stick..Rampagez99 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:SPOILER
I find this somewhat unsettling. The spoiler debate was one of the biggest and most heated debates I have seen in Wikipedia. For a group of editors that focus on this article to specifically do the exact opposite of what was settled upon, is a bad precedent, that surely will tsunami to other TV articles if left to stand. The spoiler guideline is a handguide for a stylistic issue. An issue that basically boils down to: "Wikipedia is not a TV episode guide". I would like to point out that a guideline is ALSO a form of concensus, and one which is much stronger, wider and "formal" than a concensus reached on a talk page of one article. The editors here should really consider wether they want to re open this entire debate. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, ergo, Wikipedia does not filter its information because it might "spoil" an episode for someone. If you've never seen the episode, why would you bother to go read a plot description of it? If you want a teaser, go to Fox.com and look at it there. Wikipedia does not omit spoilers, nor do they "hide" them just so people can avoid them. If you want to avoid them, close your eyes. That being said, the episode table shouldn't have the diagnoses anyway. The table is meant for descriptive, real world facts about the episode (i.e. director, writer, airdate), not plot information. The final diagnoses should be in the plot section, not in some separate column of the table. It should be removed outright.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)without getting into this debate, i will just point out that this discussion has been going back and forth for months, many believe that the diag's should be listed, others do not, others aren't even involved till they read one and get upset. By hiding them, both parties were appeased and the arguments stopped. If that's not an excellent use of IAR, please give me one better--Jac16888 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that suppressing information because some people might be offended upon reading it is a good thing for Wikipedia to engage in? Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, i'm saying that stopping a very-long term argument which causes lots of stress and stops people editing in other places with a simple solution that doesn't actually suppress anything is a good thing--Jac16888 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's why we have guidelines. So we can refer people to those and say: "this is how it is, if you want to change it, please discuss it on the talk page of the guideline" --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought: I only recognize 5 of the 22 season-1 diagnoses by name, and it's easy to forget them after five minutes. I am neither a doctor nor a native speaker, so it's entirely possible that I am the only one who (non-)absorbs the information in this way. But even when the non-hidden diagnoses are as in-your-face as they currently are, what does it matter when all you can read by accidental skimming is sdfdvm asjvrwja,ee sdf? (Wikipedia cannot be considerate to spoilerphob readers who read the diagnoses on purpose. The average spoilerphob reader who accidently reads a diagnosis will hopefully learn quickly to not read them the next time.) – sgeureka t•c 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

again i say, this discussion has been closed for weeks maybe even months..and as a major contributor to said discussion i think its ridiculous to go back and have complete disregard for a general consensus to the issue at hand...why go to a guideline's talk page to debate something that was already resolved on the page in question in the first place..fact of the matter is that people had little issue with the way it is now with the exception being that there was no show all button...and that was it..everyone got what they wanted...now after it has been settled,editors are coming in and removing what was already agreed on?!?!?! last time i checked a guideline isnt policy...its a general CONSENSUS on how something should be done...and the general CONSENSUS here is that the show and hide buttons were the ones that should be and remain in place...i bid you all good day.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm... no. Consensus can change, so the argument that something has been settled is inapplicable in any case in which it could ever be raised. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What if maintainers of the Cite template decided that they wanted linked dates because they don't agree with the new WP:MOSDATE. They would need some REALLY strong arguments to ever bypass the MOSDATE guideline and other editors would expect nothing less of them. Basically, that is what is occurring here. The simple fact that only recently i noticed these changes in my watchlist due to some "wheel-warring", is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. A widely agreed upon and heavily discussed guideline is being ignored with a clarification of "we don't like it". That is not something that will exempt the article. If you don't like it, get it changed at WP:SPOILER, if there is a reason to do this, not covered by WP:SPOILER, detail that reason. A guideline may not be a policy, but in practice, there is little difference. Violating a policy might get you banned sooner perhaps, then when you ignore a guideline, but that's about it. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the notion that it was changed because "we dint like it" isn't true..it was changed to benefit both sides of the debating party. now here we stand again debating the same issue so now the question must be raised. if both sides can't agree then what solution to the problem do you have other than just "remove it". because i would rather see a decent compromise between the two sides than an edit war that seemed to happen months ago. that's it..a simple compromise is all im asking for now because you were not involved in the last discussion i feel its ok to find a happy medium--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna just give up on this and just use that other guy's "House Episodes" page since this is just gonna be an edit war -- Waveblade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.13.47 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of edit wars on many pages is WP:SPOILER, and no one here has provided justification for the following: 1) why the information should be hidden, in violation of SPOILER and our Content Disclaimer (don't give me the compromise routine, because that's a flawed argument operating independently of SPOILER.) Perhaps more pertinently, 2), why is this information in the list in the first place? It is a show about diagnoses, but we aren't indiscriminate collections of information; if there's no discussion about the diagnoses or critical commentary on it in this article, there's no point to having it in the list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to (2): When a crufty list like List of final diagnoses on House (TV series) can be merged into an LoE and serves navigation (as it does at least for me), then there is a purpose to it. Since WP:SPOILER encourages episode summaries to be complete, the end of an episode should be reasonably mentioned in an LoE anyway, so the only question is if this should happen in prose or as an extra column (I feel spoilish info is easier to avoid when it is presented in columns, but that may just be me). – sgeureka t•c 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * List of episodes are not expected to give away the full plot; that's what full episode summaries are for, assuming it merits an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LoEs can (and should) give away the same full plot as episode articles, just shorter. And seeing in what a bad shape most House episode articles are, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of them gets merged/redirected eventually too. Then we have the question of style representation again, and it all comes down to the color of the bikeshed. – sgeureka t•c 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I cant believe you took off the final diagnosis...i check by here frequently to find out what the final diagnosis is when i didnt understand what it was the first time, or i dont know how to spell it and want to see what the disease/condition is. I think the final diagnosos should stay, with maybe a spoiler warning. wildboyz_211 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

the spoiler warning you were asking for is kind of there in the form of a show and hide button under final diagnosis--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)\
 * ...Which to avoid the whole circular motion of this discussion, is no longer used on Wikipedia, per WP:SPOILER. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a pre-existing strong consensus against hiding spoilers. A local discussion cannot override that. On one hand, there are technical concerns. Some versions of IE6, which is still widely used (around 30% of people, I'll guess) won't show the hide/show button, so any hidden templates are used sparingly. Secondly, Content disclaimer says in big text that "Wikipedia contains spoilers". As it has been said, you can remove the diagnosis field if you wish, but not because it "spoils" the episodes, but you cannot hide the field for the same reason either. Sceptre (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

before i really start debating this again i really hope you have been reading ALL of the discussions going on about it....the fact is that in the beginning i was for showing it completely...then it was removed...i argued and fought for it to be back on the main page...it was brought back with a hidden content button that was agreed on by multiple parties and not just some local consensus...then it was brought back to the table by others who had no idea the discussion had taken place...though they weren't to excited, the issue was dropped because really there was a consensus again that it was fine the way it is. now its being brought back because AGAIN you have failed to read the discussions about it and in accordance to wikipedias rules on consensus and the whole WP: spoiler thing that people love to pull out, it was agreed that we were waiving that GUIDELINE and leaving it as it was...--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't waive a core content guideline (and actually, it's policy, but that doesn't matter). IAR doesn't apply to cases. You really should read Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and its archives, which documents the deprecation of spoiler warnings because they were at odds with said policy. I'd say that less than a dozen people weighed in in this discussion. Twice as many opposed spoiler warnings on the global scale. Sceptre (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

note what you said....guideline..this is what you should do, but its NOT required to happen to every single article. the agreed upon content is and format was to everyone's satisfaction...clearly you were not involved in the process and for that, it's unfortunate. however it is still pertinent for you to understand that multiple people from both sides of the issue came together and found common ground...something that was then applauded by both sides and people who hadn't seen the article before...simply put it needs to remain solely based on consensus...it overrides GUIDELINES. simple and plain.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the unhidden version. Someday, I'd like to get this to WP:FLC status, and it's clear that this would prevent it from passing. Local consensus, even if it existed at one point, cannot and should not overrule WP:SPOILER. While I empathize with those who don't want to be spoiled, I'm afraid that Wikipedia guidelines are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. There can be plenty of non-spoiler places on the web--Wikipedia, by self-definiton, is not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very few guidelines are passed without a long community discussion with far greater numbers of consensus than article talk pages. Local consensus should prevail policy very rarely, and not without a very good reason. Sceptre (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As other people have mentioned, the final diagnosis is a silly thing to have in an episode list. Think about having a table of Disney movies with Results: "Bamby dies", "Fish found"... etc.  Having the final diagnosis shown on the episode list makes the list a lot less useful to those of us that go on it to check when a new episode is going to air, which after all is one of the reasons for the list.  The hidden template was a great solution, why remove it?  If you weigh the costs and benefits, having the final diagnosis where it is, has the potential of ruining episodes for people, where as having the hidden template just requires an extra click... how lazy are you people? Yes the spoiler policy is very clear and I agree with it, but the spirit of the policy is that a reader's purpose in visiting the page is to see the plot, especially under the Plot section.  But considering the fact that most episode lists do not have highlighted spoilers (where the episode air date normally lives), most users do not reasonably expect to encounter giant one word spoilers on while visiting the episode list... Stou (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion really centered around whether a local consensus should override an encyclopedia-wide consensus, specifically WP:SPOILER. Frankly, I avoid looking at this article during the season, since I know that Wikipedia will have spoilers.  While Wikipedia tries to be most things, the goals of providing an encyclopedic analysis of episodes and a repository of spoiler-free air dates are pretty much at odds. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler rules aside, the final diagnosis simply do not belong on an episode list. The entry is supposed to be encyclopedic, if you looked up an Agatha Christie book in an encyclpoedia, do you think you'd see the name of who-dunnit next to the title? Plot details belong in the plot summary.84.69.48.135 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree, if the plot isn't complete, it shouldn't include the final diagnosis. the thing is that the whole plot is on each episode's wiki, and these things being discussed now are just abstracts, like the ones you see on the back cover of dvds, which DO NOT spoil the episode. the guidelines on wiki that some people use to prove their point (Spoiler) refer to whole plot summaries. following their line of thought, you could write the spoiler on the back of the dvd and then say "why did you read it? you knew it had the spoilers!"--Camilorojas (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I come here to see if episodes have started to air again and if I missed any sue to random scheduling. Therefore it ruins my enjoyment to know what the final diagnosis is as I like to guess. It would be like doing a list of Agatha Christie novels with a Who did it column open for all to see. When people went to see if they could find any books they hadn't read they would instantly knwo the plot. I was just wandering does CSI have a list of who did it column? Jon Humphrey, UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.144.120 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why we should put the column back with the "hide/show" button. By the way, you shouldn't delete an entire column that's gonna take forever to put back and believe me, someone's gonna put it back, and everyone's gonna think you're a jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NocturneNoir and I (mostly him, cause he hates my writing) are indeed rewriting it, just give us some time. If you really want to see what happened, go look at the individual episode pages. See these three pages for why we are doing this. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching these episodes on DVD; presently in the middle of Season 2, and I find myself referring to this article, not to tempt myself with spoilers, but because my wife is also watching, but she's behind me, so she'll tell me what she watched (by episode name) and I'll go to the article to get a feel for what episode she was talking about. The final diagnosis is a spoiler and should not be on the list. There is always going to be someone who has not seen the episodes, hence why they sell on DVD as well as they do. Wikipedia is in sore need of a spoiler function, as I have no objection to the availability of the information, but I think the user must take an additional step to see it. This is an encyclopedia, true; a fact sheet, true; but also it's a technological marvel and should act the part. Spoilers you have to mouseover or highlight to reveal have been used on forums for years. I say we follow suit. NathanJ1979 (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want spoilers, don't look at the internet. Keep the FD where they are, many of us use them. Also, didn't the wikimods rule on this sometime ago (the FDs stay, live with it)? Why is this STILL being debated? Myene (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

cut spoiler from season summary
I usually use the 'list of house episodes' episodes to find out the schedule for the season. I was reading the latest season's summary, hoping to find out how many more episodes would be in the season. There was a spoiler about a major character dying. This pissed me off, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.24.40 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis for Season 5 Episode 20 'Simple Explanation' includes a pretty major spoiler. I realise it's hard to get around it, but does it need to be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.43.18 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does need to be said, and I'm re-adding it. This list is not intended to be spoiler free, and it's unrealistic to give a synopsis of the episode whilst leaving out a key plot driver. Also, it's not actually that much of a spoiler. It happens at the start of the episode (not the end), with the remainder of the episode dealing with how the various characters react to Kutner's suicide. Hibbertson (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed it, only to realise you're right, it is a key plot driver. Sorry. However, wouldn't it make more sense to say something along the lines of tragedy befalls Kutner, and the team are forced to suspend their grief to treat the patient, rather than stating exactly what happens? I think the manner of his death is far more of a spoiler than his death. Though, as you say, the list isn't supposed to be spoiler free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.43.18 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with this wording. I'd say this is the best way to appease both the spoiler and anti-spoiler crowds. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, edited as necessary. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And I've stuck it back in the episode summary - get this straight, if someone adds correct relevant information to an article - it stays in. We don't *care* about spoilers, we aim to provide the most factual correct summary - removing a key plot point does not do that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's people like you who drive people like me away from using Wikipedia as a resource for information. 71.131.7.152 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPOILER. Totally appropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we *care* about spoilers, it makes far more sense to word it differently. This way, it would say the same thing. It would not be removing any key plot point. 'A tragedy' and 'Kutner's suicide' both tell the reader that something terrible happens to Kutner. Are they not both correct? Are they not both factual? The only difference is that no one is going to complain about the former. What harm could wording it differently possibly do? It would still give factual and correct information. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One is precice and encyclopedic, the other is a vague aesthetic choice. If you were reading the Encyclopedia Britannica summary for House, season six, five years after the show was over, would you expect to get a vague "Kutner's tragedy", or would you expect "The suicide of Dr. Kutner during episode X of season six developed the characters of House and Wilson further through..."?  I'd venture the latter.  We are an encyclopedia first and foremost, and should accordingly be explicit, accurate and not try to be Entertainment Weekly.  Suicide is appropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the tragedy could have been that he got the clap off a hooker or caught House having sex with his dog, it's too vague - suicide clearly informs the reader what has happened. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Serisuly i was very pissed off cuz i watch the episodes online the day after it aired and i always check wikipedia to have a plot summary of the episode so i dont get lost into the story ( not a native english speaker) so it was very disturbing to read that sumtin happens to kutner, when its written all over the internet that a character from the show will die ,so anyway wasnt very clever.enough with the spoilers please. or at least write SPOILER WARNING before the episode section or write sumtin general not too specific about those kind of details... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.105.10 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Splits?
So this page is kinda getting REALLY REALLY long. I propose we split it into articles by season like other TV Shows (House (Season 1) et al) and on this page just have the titles, and airdates per season with a main link to the page for the season. Thoughts? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all of the episodes of this series fail WP:EPISODE. Therefore, I am trying to finish writing the summaries, split the article, and then redirect the articles. Is it possible to wait until I've finished the summaries? Thanks. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 13:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure no problem. I'm just asking because I had to go in and do a minor fix on one of the tables and it just took ages of scrolling and load time to get anything done. Each episode doesn't even technically need its own page. We could just have the summaries/synopses all listed together on the season page, kind of like, for example, NYPD Blue (Season 1) but prettier. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Individual articles for episodes are following a mix of standard layouts. Some include MUSIC sections, others don't.  It'd be nice if all articles could at least have the music section, maybe html commented out. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this page is "REALLY REALLY" long. Is it really necessary to split it into several articles? Shreevatsa (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more a case of it's getting long. And since it's really heavy on the templates, it takes a lot of effort to edit. I was just suggesting that many TV shows have a general list of titles on the "List of [name] episodes" page, and then more detail about each specific season on dedicated sub-pages. See, for example, CSI. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 02:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets not split. Going the CSI way would quite simply be really awful. If you're looking for a specific plot element, imagine all the clicking you would have to do.  Let's try to keep all the information together as long as we possibly can.  Who cares how long it takes to edit?  The article is here for the readers, not for us editors. cojoco (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm against splitting the article as well. It is more convenient (for "us readers") for it to be in one article. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I love this page, I would marry this page, please do not split this page. Polygamy is illegal in my country.[katerlachen]

"Something is long" isn't all that good of a reason to split it. You use the links at the top to get to the season you want. Simple as that. Leave it be. ER, 15 seasons, still has all of its eppisode lists on one page. House is only 1/2 that, it's fine.Myene (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at the plot summaries, they are far too long. Triming them may help with your issue. The plot summaries here are meant to be short, 1 or 2 lines, not a paragraph (thats what the seprate eppisode pages are for, THOSE are the long ones) Myene (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:EPISODE, the plot summaries are supposed to be a few hundred words each, and separate episode pages aren't even supposed to exist... NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate conflicting rules...I had thought they were abstracts. Still, having a short summary on the eppisode list, and then a long one on the liked page, could save room. At any rate, far longer eppisode lists are around on one page, and they haven't been split.
 * There really are no conflicting rules here that I can see. In any case, WP:EPISODE is backed by a consensus of Wikipedians, so it remains something that we should try to follow, even if it does make the page too long. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when you think they are ment to be abstrasts there is, hehe. Myene (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Myene, can you give an example of a longer/more extensive episode list? If anything I'd like to see how they went about doing it. And NW, as per WP:EPISODE, the singular episode pages are supposed to exist. Why else would they give examples of good ones? ;) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)'''
 * On that page, it says, "It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available...consider merging or redirecting them into another article." However, there are cases where there are enough reliable sources. Pilot (House) has tons of reliable sources, and so should be an article. Unfaithful (House), however, is just a plot summary with no actual secondary sources, and so should be merged into its parent season list. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The ER tv show eppisode page would be a good one. It's about three times (15 seasons) as long as House. Myene (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but like I've been suggesting here, each ER season has its own dedicated page with more in-depth analyses/summaries of episodes and shorter general synopses on the main page. This page should just have the titles or basic plotline (ex. for the pilot episode: "Rebecca Adler, a 29-year old preschool teacher, becomes dysphasic and collapses in her classroom.") while a dedicated season page could have a longer more in-depth synopses (liek what is currently listed for the pilot) in addition to a link to the episode's page (if applicable, which it is in the case of the Pilot). -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that wouldn't be too bad then, I had thought you were going like on the CSI page. 65.111.64.8 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) I was originally, but the idea has been revised. Now it stands to be much like the example Myene gave, with ER. The "List of..." page would include all the episodes, the production number, episode number, writer, director, and brief one- or two-line abstract. Each Season heading would also include a main to a dedicated season page, ex. House (season 1). On the season page, there would be more in-depth summaries, much like some of the ones currently listed here, and the final diagnosis, which would not be listed here because it's not production detail. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, someone has come up with a way to kill two birds with one stone. I think your idea of yanking the final diagnosis on this page and popping it into the aforementioned season page with this page being shortened as such, is by far the best way to do it. It keeps both sides of the FD happy, as well as shortening the page to a better size. I bow to your prowess.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis Section
i just edited the final diagnosis to season 5 episode 4, it was wrong. just letting you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.202.56 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think ep 4 diagnosis did have some element of iron overload from what i remmember, either way the section is probably more for the underlying medical revelation not the plot punch line, I edited to be more diagnosis focused rather than plot with the buda etc. Someone needs to confirm if there was iron overload also.I hope theres some medical things cause this is the first time without a linkable diagnosis :)Rampagez99 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

i double checked the episode to be sure, (rewatched the end). there was no mention of iron overload unless im being totally deaf. im happy with what it is just now. i felt my explaination was a bit long, thanks for rewording it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC) coolRampagez99 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the patient HAS iron overload. It's not explicitly stated, but check politedissent.com : some of the symptoms are caused by the iron. Writing it back... 82.248.243.166 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

the diagnosis discussions of this page should be merged
there are 3 sections discussing whether or not should the "show" buttons be concealing the diagnosis.i think that the final results should be hidden, but that's just me.on the other hand, i think everybody would agree that the discussions should be put together.

Agreed I merged the two discussions and arranged by order Rampagez99 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Diagnosis
OK. I've seen this before and I hate to see this again. The section keeps appearing and then disappear. What the hell? How bad can a final diagnosis affect the viewers? How many people do know what disease is that? How many people here understand what is "Patent ductus arteriosus"? I think all of us need a very serius discusion, and then come to a final solution, or this argument will never end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.85.210 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked for the final diagnosis to remind me about an episode, and it's gone! Why no discussion here about such a major change to the page? One of the edit summaries stated that the diagnosis would be in the plot summaries, but this turns out not to be the case. Why do people think it is OK to throw away so much information with nary a word of discussion??? cojoco (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:List of House episodes. It will be integrated into the plot summaries when I get a chance. Consensus was established (follow the links) previously, so we will continue on this path. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ( t &bull; c ) 12:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well why don't you wait until it's all ready before you throw all of this information away? As the article drifts it will be harder and harder to get it back. cojoco (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do that (and even if you do, the FDs should stay put, as was desided before) you need to use the same one. As it is, none of them match. You're useing the laymens terms of them in the plot summary, and the medical is used in the FD slot. Puting the medical one, and then the laymen's temrs in could work "Vascialitusious (purple blood)" Myene (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time this discussion took place, everyone on both sides decided to leave it in the original format. There were so many back and forths over the issue that amazingly, we all said that the FD is best left out in the open. Why discuss it further?? Read the above discussions, archives and all. Then, if you have a better solution that does not include removing it in its entirety, sure come back to the table with it. But it was already decided to not remove them and simply leave them out there. They technically are spoilers and because we are not Censoring anything anymore by using a hide and show button, to take them out anyway is in direct deviance from what had already been decided. NAMASTE--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Get the drift people, the FD STAY PUT! STOP changing them! It is the internet, you get spoilers ever place. Don't like it? Well, then don't log in! If you had bothered to look at the other posts, it was desided, quite some time ago, to keep the FD. Just because you don't like them dosn't mean you can edit them how you want. Can we stop this now? It got old months back. Myene (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of those who inadvertently (and very laboriously) edited the FD's in a collapsible way. After been warned of the previous rulling I reverted the article back. My though is that, given the current policy about spoilers, they should stay. However, IMHO, things in Wikipedia are decided in a very impractical (looong and convulted discussion lists, with relatively very few people actually keep track) and passionate way, sometimes ignoring common sense. I think that better than argue whether FD should stay or go, we should reopen that discution about spoilers warnings, and invite the entire community to participate on that - pretty much the same way that we call everyone to donate, for example. Or maybe a invitation should be placed on the pages dealing with TV shows, movies etc.Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I remeber that, it was a good edit. It solved everything (I wouldn't think the number of incompatable browsers woudl be that high, but I guess they were). Frankly, I don't see why you would look up a show if you *don't* want to know what happens in it. If you are jsut looking for the air date (or something like that) then use tvguide.com, as that would be the safeist way. You know, failing being able to put that collapisable back, why not white text with a highlight warning? Not overly tech, shouldn't mess up browsers, as wiki is set to white background only (or is there an option to change that? If so, I guess it wouldn't work). Myene (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking about spoilers, they affect people in different ways. I normally do not care to know if Bruce Willis is one of the ghosts in Sixth Sense, but bothers me a lot to watch a House episode and know that every guess is wrong (you can know that by the lack of the "House epiphany" anyway, but let it be).Jack O&#39;Neill (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I mean once again the discussion is still open and on the table, I wouldn't mind reopening a "wound" of sorts. My only thing is that something new be brought to the table. I personally was a HUGE fan of the show/hide button but that didnt last for some strange unknown reason. Anything NEW that hasn't been talked about should be open to the floor. As a refresher, the things that were discussed and shot down include a show / hide button, a spoiler warning above the episode listing, as well as removing them and placing them in episode summaries. NAMASTE.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys I've just opened List of House Episodes to read a preview of the latest episode - and it's spoiled by the freakin' "Final Diagnosis" column. Although I am not a doctor, "appendix cancer" is quite intelligible, both disease- and treatment-wise. Could you please stop this unnecessary and redundant discussion and agree on HIDING the final diagnosis under the "show" button? Or, at least, could someone just put a protection on this page, so that its format is ESTABLISHED and PREDICTABLE? (i.e. it is not changed several times a week) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.47.195.63 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to sound cold, but Wikipedia does not censor.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)