Talk:Insensitive (House)

Untitled

The "I got shot" quote should be removed. It's kind of dumb to have it there unless you have the entire dialog, or, at the very least, what the girl said first. Cameron's sex comment should also be removed for a similar reason.

I'll try to find the complete quote and fix it. Please remember to sign your posts. BethEnd 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the entire text of both quotes in question.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Removed Text

I understand what the person was trying to do, but if you decide to make sweeping changes across the article series, it should be discussed first. At least post your argument and let the other members have a say. This is a community project, a number of people come together and write these articles, not just one person alone. At least give us a chance to talk about it. I've restored the removed text through season three (that's all I've had time for tonight). BethEnd 02:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I was bold, was because I found that the massive amount of empty sections and pointless sections within the articles was extremely ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that I doubted that anyone would seriously disagree with me. Therefore, I did not believe I was being reckless. I thought it through, there's a difference. This notion that these sections should be left in the blind hope that another user will come along goes against Wiki policy. Wikipedia articles are meant to be edited or not edited, we don't hope that articles are going to be edited.

Next, with the sectioning.

• "Diagnosis" section: The diagnosis should be stated within the Synopsis section itself.
• "Medical terms" section: Medical terms should be wikilinked within the Synopsis section itself.
• "Clinic Patients" section: Clinic patients are typically not essential to understanding the plot and therefore (as with other media related articles) should be excluded.
• "Arc Advancement" section: What?
• "Happenings" section: This section consistentally is either redundant with the Synopsis or contains information that belongs in the Synopsis or contains information that should only be present on a Character article.
• "Characters" section: All information in these sections belong in either the Synopsis or more likely a Character article.
• "Referbacks" section: This is the most annoying, Referbacks isn't even a word.

The last three I mentioned also consistentally contain OR.

• "Trivia" section: Immediately with the title it violates WP:AVTRIV.
• "Behind the scenes" section: The only legitimate section and it's subhead for "Trivia".
• "Allusions & References" section: This section has to mention every single little quip that Dr. House makes. While is may be interesting, it's not important.
• "Memorable moments" section: Yet another section that contains extreme redundancy with the Synopsis.
• "Music" section: Again, interesting, but not important.

The Filmaker 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, some of this stuff can be removed, and some of it changed. These are my suggestions:

• Referbacks - I think what the writer meant something similar to "Allusions to Previous Episodes". But you're right, the name is poor. Keep the section, change the title.
• Medical terms, diagnois, clinic patients - actually I find these sections to be very helpful. Often when I'm looking for a particular episode, it helps to have the illness or character I'm thinking of right there, instead of needing to scan through the summery (for example, when I was trying to find the episodes where they deal with pica the other day). Why not compress the Medical Terms and Diagnosis sections together?
• Trivia, Behind the Scenes - these sections can be compressed, as well as have some things weeded out.
• Memorable Moments - yes, this can be taken out. Everything that can be posted is usually already on the page, and its a weak section
• Music - I agree, this isn't needed. It can be deleted or put in with trivia. There is a website that keeps track of the music in each episode. Perhaps a link can be provided from the show's home page or the episode page.
• Characters - I think this section should be kept. Mix it with the Happenings section it provides enough information about the characters in that episode. But it should be kept short.
• Arc Advancement - Shorten to just the Allusions to Previous Episodes, and Characters.

BethEnd 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Referbacks: The section still is not useful. Like with the "Allusions & References" section, why do we have to mention it everytime House or another character brings up something happened in a previous episode? This is another example of what should be noted in the Synopsis, if at all.
• Medical terms: This the least helpful as a seperate section, can just as easily find the term within the Synopsis.
• Diagnosis: The content is too short to present splinter off into a separate section. Most of the time the section contains only the medical term for the diagnosis.
• Clinic patients: The clinic patients are not essential to understanding the plot. They are trivial and should be removed.
• Trivia, Behind the Scenes: Most of the information that is not relevant enough to be included. When I deleted the content within these sections, it was because it was trivial.
• Characters: I still don't understand why this section should be kept. Any relevant information on the characters should either be kept in the Synopsis or in the corresponding character's article.

The Filmaker 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Medical terms usually lists of all the illnesses, procedures, and so one from the episode, not just the final diagnosis. If we put them all in the plot synopsis it would be overly long. Again, I think we should just have one section for medical terms and put the diagnosis in there. Likewise, putting every character's development for that episode in the plot synopsis would weigh that section down. We'd have basically a re-telling of the episode. The character section lets us have a brief line of relevant information. As for Allusions to Previous Episodes - a lot of articles on linear shows have this section. Its good because it helps tie episodes together, is fun to read, and can fill in details not mentioned in the plot synopsis. BethEnd 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Medical terms usually lists of all the illnesses, procedures, and so one from the episode, not just the final diagnosis. If we put them all in the plot synopsis it would be overly long."

• To wikilink, MRI, brain tumor, ketamine, etc would not make the Synopsis overly long. However they should be mentioned if it essential to understanding the plot, at which point they should be wikilinked. Otherwise, they should not be included at all.

"Likewise, putting every character's development for that episode in the plot synopsis would weigh that section down. We'd have basically a re-telling of the episode. The character section lets us have a brief line of relevant information."

• If the case is that there is some information that is given that is not relevant to understanding the plot of the episode or the entire series, but is relevant to the character itself, it should be placed in the corresponding character's article.

"As for Allusions to Previous Episodes - a lot of articles on linear shows have this section."

• If you could give me one featured article with this section, or one like it, I wouldn't mind. However, if it essential to understanding the plot, a note could be given within parenthesis.

"Its good because it helps tie episodes together, is fun to read, and can fill in details not mentioned in the plot synopsis."

• Interesting, but not important.

The Filmaker 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wish I had seen this discussion earlier.

Medical terms should be included not because the terms are useful for researching information in the overall plot but because then someone who saw the episode and had a question on an issue (such as: "What is an MRI?" or "What is Lupis?" can come here and get a link on it. You might argue that they could type it in themselves, but that would assume they know how to spell those terms which may not be accurate. Basically, they heard the term in the show and they wanted to know more - not because they're looking for plot information.

Arc development and referbacks address multi-episode matters. If a person is brand new to the series and going "What was Cuddy referring to when she said X?", they would have the ability to find out this information. This also allows them to find out this information without reading the plot synopsis. Further, a person who has casual interest in the series but full interest in a particular storyline such as, for example, the relationship between Cameron and Chase might be interested to know the specifics of that relationship without having to read through the entire synopsis. It isn't Trivia because it is intentionally put in to keep viewers interested in the series - it is relevant information to the show in the context of the entire series.

--Forgottenlord 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning medical terms: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, explanations of what an MRI or lupus are is trivial in the context of the article. However, some might not know what an MRI is, so they are wikilinked for that case. However, to create an entire section devoted to what terms are used in the episode, violates the policy linked above.

Your entire argument is very moot over the fact that you are catering to a maybe crowd that might exist. One that I seriously doubt does. Your suggestion that it is relevant to entire series crosses into territory of information that should placed on the main page or into character articles. The Filmaker 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your claim that it violates EITHER WP:TRIVIA or WP:AVTRIV (and certainly not WP:NOR). WP:TRIVIA discusses irrelevant facts or points. A list of relevant articles to help one improve their understand the termonology used or the very relevant continuity of the series isn't trivia. AVTRIV discusses having UNORGANIZED trivia sections, areas that become unwieldy and perhaps should be categorized or organized more correctly. Two components of the article in particular strike me:

Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions.

Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts.

Overall, these citations suggest to me that if all these 9 sections or so were grouped into a single section called "Trivia" or "Notes", it would be in violation of this policy. However, the fact that we have split them up and given the specific purposes is actually in line with that policy. As such, that policy has been satisfied and thus the only concern is trivia.

For fairness sake, because we clearly disagree on whether it is or isn't Trivia, let us argue that these sections would be classified as trivia. Let's look again at WP:TRIVIA

Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia?

Yes and no. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because the term "important" is subjective. That said, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, without spending much time on unnecessary details, yet while referring the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found.

The first bolded section suggests that you are actually the one violating the policy by unilaterally imposing your system over the series with minimal discussion and going against an established system - especially earlier when BethEnd originally raised concerns about the matter. Does it mean that you should revert...not necessarily. It means you should slow down and actually conclude our debate before you make the sweeping changes to how the House series is done.

The second bolded section, however, does justify the utilization of the medical terms list as it gives an organized manner in which a person can find information about what was utilized in the episode. I'm sure that if I spent more time, I could probably find a way to justify the existance of referbacks or whatever.

Finally, in reference to your comment about the "might exist", they do exist. I know they exist because I've been one of them in many instances - particularly before I got my VCR for Christmas and during the confusing time slots in January in which I missed a few episodes revolving around Tritter. It is a poor assumption to make that no one misses episodes and an even worse assumption that they aren't going "huh?" at some point.

--Forgottenlord 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized you'd linked an additional article.

While a listing of related topics or points for further research seem to fail to fall into that area nor would comments that link multiple episodes fall under any of those statements, the one area we haven't even begun to dispute is the plot summary. Yet somehow:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

The bolded word that I noted is bolded because I think that linking multiple episodes together might be considered "analysis". You might disagree

--206.75.46.254 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupid "Remember me" --Forgottenlord 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, the majority of that entire post of yours is the definition of splitting hairs. Here are the facts, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that trivial non-notable information should not be allowed and if found should be removed. Information that is redundant or does not pertain directly to the article should also be removed. You have yet to argue as to why this information is actually notable, not redundant, and does pertain directly to the article. Please bring a valid argument to the table instead of simply looking for loop holes within the system. The Filmaker 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. Been busy....

I made my arguments above and you shoved a bunch of WP pages which I deemed irrelevant. However, if we must go over the old ground again...

Medical terms. Earlier I argued that a list of links for resources to research further information into technical terms used in the episode isn't exactly uncalled for. Furthermore, there is a reason that we see things such as "Related Links" sections on various pages throughout Wikipedia. I'm not saying we need descriptions of an MRI embedded into the article, I'm saying we need a place where we can put a list of links if someone wants to further their research on the terminology used in the episode. Just because Lupus wasn't the diagnosis, doesn't mean that it wasn't important enough to mention in the synopsis - but that doesn't mean someone won't want to come here, click on the link to the Lupus Article and possibly find out why they ran whatever test they did to confirm or reject the Lupus theory. Wikipedia IS a starting point for research and enabling the research is far from against Wikipedia policy.

Arc Development and Referbacks (and the various nuances) are useful because they provide information on what a reference meant. For example, the recent episode "Jerk" had two references that might confuse some people - Foreman going to various interviews and "It's Tuesday" - though they are both, probably, relevant enough to be on Character pages (which, on an unrelated note, are sorely under-maintained). However, many other references (I can't think of any off the top of my head) won't be as evident or as important as ending up on a Character page. Yes, there have been more than a few of these points that haven't made it onto Character pages.

On another note, whether it is hairsplitting or not, if you're going to grab a WP page, at least make sure it is relevant to your argument on necessity of the issue and understand the policy well enough to be able to explain why it applies. In this case, you did not and the problem was that with exception to WP:TRIVIA, there was minimal application

In addition, we need to invite more people to this discussion because right now, you have 2 people saying that Medical Terms and Arc Development/Referbacks should exist in some form. Clearly there is a distinct difference in opinion here and unless you have a better idea or are willing to concede, I think more opinions are necessary to try and get a consensus about what style and approach should be used for this series.

--Forgottenlord 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Thought of a good minor example.

Cuddy: "I see you're no longer on Anti-depressants" (or something to that effect)

That's not something I'd consider relevant enough to be stuck on a Character page, BUT it is something that would be fairly appropriate to referbacks because it was a sub-plot to the previous episode and if someone hadn't seen the previous episode, they wouldn't have been aware of that.

--Forgottenlord 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical Terms: If we're going to link lupus, well the we ought to link cane in every episode because House has a cane in every episode. Oh, and he had hallucination once, so we'll need to link that, and they did ride in a bus once so we'll need to link that. This is the same reason that editors don't link every word in the text. We can't assume that someone will start here with there research. If the reader wanted to know more about Lupus, they could type "Lupus" in the search engine. The Filmaker 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, under and educated guess, I would say that the majority of featured articles do not contain "See also" sections. Particularly in the media section (where these articles would be placed). The Filmaker 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Referbacks and Arc Advancement: The issue with Foreman can easily be explained in a reasonable amount of time within the synopsis. "It's Tuesday" so far throughout the series is not particularly relevant to the plot of the episodes. Yes, I'm sure it will one day pay off but as of right now it is not worth being mentioned in synopses. As for the character pages being under-maintained, that is not part of this discussion. As for these supposed pieces of material that are not important or evident enough to be mentioned in character pages - than why are they mentioned at all?

Your dissection of the policy pages was hairsplitting. I established the facts based on the policy pages. You found specific phrases and manipulated them into a context that suited your argument. I'll write more about it in a while.

Your Cuddy quote can be viewed in the same light as "It's Tuesday". I'm not sure it's even as notable as "It's Tuesday". "Tuesday" is apart of a running plot. The "anti-depressants" could be over and done with. But the point being, should we add it into the synopsis? No, it does not impact the story enough to mention it in the synopsis. Should we put into character pages? No. Because it does not explain nor impact the story of the character. You're saying "Well, where else should we put it?" I'm saying "We shouldn't have it at all". Per, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Yes I'm using a policy page. Again, I'll write more about those later. The Filmaker 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be reviewed by someone who is a third party and familiar to Wikipedia and go with what they say. You impulsively delete section after section and brag that we can put it in the synopsis, well, WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT THERE YOURSELF? I know why, because its irritating and doesn't always fit into it. This is an encyclopedia where many people do come to read about things they don't understand. Look, cane, everyone knows what a cane is or a bus or lupus maybe. But when you've got someone like cluster headaches; I've never heard of one. I could search it, yes, but how about erythrocyte or thrombopoietin. I'm not even sure I spelled that right! Look, either let the important sections be or incorporate them into the article like you say is possible, because its a pain to argue over something so foolish as a little information. If you feel you are right, get a third party reviewer to review the situation and if they agree with you, I'm sure many of us with take it differently than if one person says against us. I don't want to speak for everyone though. Make a move.
Blindman shady 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Please remain civil in your discussions. 2) While I admit the first time I went through the episode articles that some notable information (very little I suspect) might have been lost in my deleting. Such as deleting a "Diagnosis" section without checking to see if the synopsis stated the diagnosis. That I am sorry for. However, the second run through I recently did, I only deleted information that was trivial and non-notable. All other information I found that could be placed in the Synopsis, I made sure to keep and place in the already stated section. 3) I have already asked an administrator to join us as a third party to concede to Forgottenlord's request. The Filmaker 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things:

1) 1) Please remain civil your discussions.

Is this even a sentence?

2) I am remaining civil, but the second you pull that card, it gets annoying. I haven't insulted you, nor have I cussed. A phrase in all capitals isn't too much to ask.
Blindman shady 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for leaving out one word. Hardly something to bring up as you obviously understood what I meant. Also, I was not referring simply to the caps. Your overall tone is rather hostile and you seem to be walking the borderline. The Filmaker 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You've found me out. I'm very hostile. Rawr. Meet the real hostile people.
Blindman shady 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Engaging someone in such a manner as to engage errors where the meaning and intent of their purpose is shown is neither helpful nor useful. Please refrain from going down such alleys in future. It is wearing on both ally and opponent in a debate --199.126.205.73 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Er....oops --Forgottenlord 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Your dissection of the policy pages was hairsplitting. I established the facts based on the policy pages. You found specific phrases and manipulated them into a context that suited your argument. I'll write more about it in a while.

You established "facts" that were unsupported by the statements in the policy pages and you acted in manners that violated the more complex nature of the policy pages. Thus far, you have only gotten one right and that's "Be Bold". You have not demonstrated an understanding of the policy pages that is more complex than having read the titles. Hairsplitting is haggling over definitions (and on sites other that Wiki, I have done such). This is not hairsplitting, this is refutting irrelevant claims. I welcome your own opinions (or the passing of others) regarding what the individual policies say based upon what is stated.

2) The issue with Foreman can easily be explained in a reasonable amount of time within the synopsis.

I agree, hence my concession it wasn't the best example.

"It's Tuesday" so far throughout the series is not particularly relevant to the plot of the episodes.

Though possibly worth merit on the character page anyways, again, my concession that it wasn't the best example - though

Yes, I'm sure it will one day pay off but as of right now it is not worth being mentioned in synopses.

Which is kinda my point. These are too minor of a detail for being included in the synopsis but they still are something that someone might like information on.

As for the character pages being under-maintained, that is not part of this discussion.

Hence my term "unrelated note"

As for these supposed pieces of material that are not important or evident enough to be mentioned in character pages - than why are they mentioned at all?

Again, for information.

Please, I've expressed my arguments twice as has BethEnd on his/her own opinions regarding the matter. I gave examples to try and explain my position and instead of approaching my position, you went and said exactly what I said about their inclusability. So far, you have not demonstrated an understanding of what were are saying.

3) I would like to reinforce a point made by BlindmanShady:

Look, cane, everyone knows what a cane is or a bus or lupus maybe. But when you've got someone like cluster headaches; I've never heard of one. I could search it, yes, but how about erythrocyte or thrombopoietin. I'm not even sure I spelled that right!

My Lupus comment, above, was an example - a simplistic example to be fair, but an example. BlindmanShady correctly demonstrated that this example could easily be expanded into multiple other terms.

By the way, yes I have started my searches from things such as TV episodes, movies and other media - and after I've read what I can find on the relevant page, I tend to do crapshoot searches. Fine, I've never done research on medical terms from a TV show, but it isn't hard to imagine that SOMEONE would be doing so.

On an unrelated note: you'd file cane as a medical term?

4) I have already asked an administrator to join us as a third party to concede to Forgottenlord's request.

Thank you.

--199.126.205.73 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Er....oops--Forgottenlord 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello,

Just something nice to note, the scolex, head, of the fish tapeworm in the show is like wrong. scolex of diphyllobothrium does not have suckers and a ring of hooklets as show in the episode. instead it has 2 "sucker grooves".

=)

Fair use rationale for Image:House s03 14.jpg

Image:House s03 14.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, who ever it was that said that some entries were not important, References to Culture for example, of course they are. Thats the genious of the show and how it all eventually pieces together. 90.240.232.142 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insensitive (House). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603011341/http://www.fox.com/house/ to http://www.fox.com/house/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)