Talk:List of House episodes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wrong David Foster?

The David Foster article linked to is about some musician. David Foster MD, the screenwriter for House, does not yet have an article about him on Wikipedia. Adding new articles or changing massive numbers of links around in multiple pages is a bit scary for a noob like me.24.255.243.186 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbering

Since the tables are transcluded to individual season pages, I was wondering if anyone would object if I reformatted the episode numbering and do it in the style of List of The Good Wife episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes and List of The X-Files episodes. This seems to be a popular format for the numbers and I wouldn't mind doing it myself. If anyone has any objections, just sound off and we'll see what happens. Thanks, everyone. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

do you mean add the season number episoe number? if so fire ahead it be better than current 100 (5-01) format it is jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what I meant, yes. If no one objects, that is. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want some help with that, let me know. I would additionally like to move the ratings into it's own section on each seasons page, like this is done on The Mentalist (season 1), The Unit (season 1), etc. making them look like List of The Unit episodes, List of The Mentalist episodes, etc. while I have no objection to the ratings in the episode list itself (like on List of Numb3rs episodes), I find that having two columns; viewers and rank; is just a bit to much, and would be cleaner in it's own section, making the episode list itself a bit less crammed with stats. And at the same moment making it open to more ratings info, like average season viewers and more extensive reception per season info (like reviews etc.), which is lacking from the individual season pages now (season 1–5 have it as an empty section, season 6 doesn't have a section at all). _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about having the ratings and rank listed makes the tables look cluttered. I have no objection to moving them elsewhere, if no one else does. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

the reaosn they where added was because of the feature list review, and there a lot of peopel liek it there as it shows them the poplour episodes, im not bothered eitehr way jsut giving oyu background--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the rest of the page, and think the rest of the page should be cleaned up aswell. I have made an example page in my sandbox for season 1, this includes edits beyond just the episode list, like the cast in an actual list, {{Empty section}} instead of {{Expand}}, cleanup of the infobox ({{Start date}}, DVD box image), use of a horizontal line instead of a line break in the episode list to reduce the white space in the summaries (like this is in List of Numb3rs episodes (season 1), …) and clean up of the DVD table. Thought? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

as i say i have nothing against it, but the ratings should be discussed serperately before splitting them as it was part of the feature list review and people perfer them on the main list, everything i say go for--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the three peer reviews and both FA-L requests and found nothing about the rating. Can you point me to that discussion? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 08:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good, although I would really prefer to have the number columns named "Series #" and "Season #", simply for the sake of clarity. Are we also sure that the use of the table template is necessary? I understand the reason it was created but this is the only episode list I've come across that has used one. Can it be deleted? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for that as it; is self-explanatory and obvious; stretches out the # column out unnecessarily much and many FA-L articles just use #. I agree on the table template, I think it also messes up the gray/white alternating rows (like on List of Numb3rs episodes, List of The Unit episodes, …) that are on the transcluded page. Yu can see what I mean when you put {{User:Xeworlebi/Sandbox}} on List of House episodes and do a preview. Additionally I have updated my Sandbox to include Production codes, these are also missing from the episode lists. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 08:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede on the numbers issue. There's no point in getting into a large debate over something as menial as that anyway. I will say that "airdate" is not a word, and should be "air date". Other than that I think it looks pretty good. I'm sure someone will say something about using the American DVD cover as the image as it is an American show, but whatever. Good work. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just took the image from the DVD section and moved it over to the main infobox, if anyone wants the US DVD box, they can simply replace it, but it hasn't been done before so I don't see it as a problem or see it happen in the near future. Didn't know that (the air date thing) most episode lists I've seen have it as airdate. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

unless the production codes can be sourced they can not be put on, ill post later where the discussion was--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The production code is normally on the copyright frame at the end of the episode. But it's not that important, besides the first season the production order doesn't seem to deviate from the airing order. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're a week later and no-one objects the proposed changes. I will replace House (season 1) with what is in my Sandbox in an hour or so and then will start on the other seasons. This is what I've changed and will change on the other seasonal pages as well:

1. move DVD image from DVD releases section to main infobox, replacing the generic House logo
2. move full known DVD release date from DVD releases section with references into the main infobox
3. move reception part of lead into Reception section, create section where missing
4. remove the crew section, they're empty in every article and I don't see them filled out any time soon
5. de-bolding character names and transforming the section into an actual list instead of the use of <br>
6. split seasonal and overal episode number into own columns
7. replace <br> above Final Diagnosis with hline for reducing white space
8. clean up DVD section
9. general reference formatting clean up, in later seasons this will include the actual title of the TVbytheNumbers article instead of just "Weekly Program Rankings" and author of article, full date consistency, use of citation template where missing, some things often complained about during FA status requests
10. general formatting consistency throughout the different articles

That should be it. I've left the ratings in the main episode list, would still like to see the discussion though anyhow. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

have the name as weekly program rating is far nicer than the article name--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I consider not using the actual article name less accurate and less informative. This is the only article (that I have seen) that didn't use the actual article titles from TVbytheNumbers. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page looks great. Good work! SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Composition of team

The opening paragraph includes this passage: "... who heads a team of diagnosticians; Dr. Allison Cameron, Dr. Robert Chase, and Dr. Eric Foreman, ...". That was changed in season 4. I think these first two paragraphs should be revised to reflect the changing lineup. One suggestion (actors' names removed for clarity):

"During the first three seasons, his diagnostic team consisted of Dr. Allison Cameron, Dr. Robert Chase, and Dr. Eric Foreman. In season 4, those doctors were transferred to other duties at the hospital (although they remained on the show). A new team emerged: Dr. Chris Taub, Dr. Lawrence Kutner, and Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley. Changes since that time include Dr. Foreman's return, Dr. Kutner's suicide, and Dr. Cameron's apparent departure."

cite notes

I think that this enormous list of sources is unnecessary, and should be truncated or somehow simplified. I understand that Wikipedia needs to cite its sources, but one separate link for every single episode on this page is really an overkill. For example, the long list is distracting when one wants to look out the title of current episode.--Azarien (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The references are for the rating which have to be sourced. Unless you can find a single source for all the ratings it can't be simplified. Unless they are split into there won table on each seasonal page, but that wasn't done due to some earlier discussion which wanted them in the episode table itself (haven't seen it myself, see above). Not sure how it is distracting as the episode titles are in the current season table while the references are at the bottom of the page. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

there are a lot of broken and bare links (which are easily broken). These should be fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Season Six colour

The boxart for the home release of Season Six has been released, and the colour is sky blue. Will it be changed here? Source http://tvshowsondvd.com/news/House-Season-6/13780 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.55.25 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments? Marzolian (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I see that this has already been done for the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzolian (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The color code for cyan is #378e98. It has been changed everywhere except the Series Overview box at the top of this article.Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed.Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

copy editor's comments

There are a lot of deadlinks and barelinks in here. I've tweaked the prose and fixed grammatical errors. I also added a couple of missing citations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC drive between seasons?

Anyone up for taking the summer and trying to get this to featured list status once again? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Navbox House episodes

Template:Navbox House episodes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting episode articles

I went through all the episodic articles, conclusion: the vast majority could probably be deleted on sight, seven articles could go either way and only 6 seem to assert notability. Some of it might be merged back to the seasonal articles, like award nominations and some production info like music composed by Laurie for the episode "Games", Kutner's death from "Simple Explanation", filming info from "Both Sides Now" etc. but really doesn't warrant its own article. See individual season article talk pages for slightly more in-depth assessment: season 1, season 2, season 3, season 4, season 5, season 6 and season 7. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So i found the big, main discussion that was started as your proposal to redirect all of the episode articles. WOW! I am the first responder. Clearly you have no consensus for what you did. A discussion on a single season's talk page, where you were unanimously opposed, is hardly consensus; lack of response elsewhere is not an OK either. Since you declare that most every article ought to be deleted without so much as adding a CSD tag to it you clearly are not in a position to accept input from others on this matter. Even a proposed deletion runs for 7 days. You started redirecting well before then. As noted on your talk page, there was a relevant AFD on this matter just a short time ago. You have gone against consensus and used lack of response to your proposal as approval for it. On those grounds alone i call on you to undo every single related edit you have so far done and to bring this to an appropriate discussion instead of continuing this mass-redirection campaign. Perhaps make this an RFC so people are broadly notified of it. Something where it is just not your opinion alone because this affects well over 100 articles. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll revert, just to let you know this type of action has been done for other shows with such low quality of articles. Since these articles have been subpar for years I would not expected such baseless opposition. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the redirect. Most of the individual episode articles offer no information beyond a plot synopsis and minor ratings information. Unless someone has plans to add notable content to the articles in the near future they should be deleted as per Wikipedia's notability policy. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The baseless opposition comes from the base approach you decided to take; and thank you for insulting me, may i have another. You chose to do it as a discussion. Not a bad idea since there is that AfD to keep them from a few months back. I found the season 7 discussion last night. Noöne has responded to the discussions on seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 last i looked and the discussions have been there about a week from what i recall. If you had maybe notified a few people of the 8 discussions you had set up then perhaps they would not be mostly unnoticed. Also, 8 concurrent discussions is a bit much. Bitch all you want about my opposing your actions in this but you chose to go the route of seeking a consensus and when that didn't bring any response at all you declared the absence of response to be support for your motion. As for the proposal of redirecting i do actually support. As for the deleting on sight that you declared above i do most certainly see you going a whee bit crazy there as i have yet to find a single House episode article that so blatantly qualifies for CSD that if i were an admin i would just summarily delete it. As to your picking which episodes are worth keeping, i disagree with some of your choices. As to taking the whole lot to AFD because you don't like them and i called you out on the mixed-processes/channels you took to redirecting them you will have my opposing the deleting there as House is one of the few shows i can think of where it would be possible to have articles on every single episode. But i don't like the show enough to write all of those articles. As for the AfD, please nominate the whole lot of them not one season at a time. Imagines the outcomes of the 7 AfDs: Redirect seasons 2, 5, & 7; delete seasons 1 & 4; keep seasons 3 & 6. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not intended as an insult at all, so no you can't have another. I decided to take the first season first, and then the entire lot, because, and this has already happened at the AfD with the all 7 season motion, people say "keep: to many to fix in time" rather than to respond on the issue. You say here you support redirects, would you mind saying that at the AfD? You have not given your opinion at the AfD yet. Thanks. Sorry that this seems so crazy, but I've seen redirects like this being done several times, and never met with any substantial opposition, but the occasional IP. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted my actions on season 1 and 2, after having done season 3 and 4, I'll start an mass AfD for the articles in season 1. To see where that one goes and then continue with the rest of the show, following the outcome of the AfD. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's sad to see such a popular show get mass AfDed, but redirecting for all those stubby episodes seems to be the logical way to go for now. Anyways, whoever is mantaining this list in such a great shape should really consider wp:FLCiing it. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The shows popularity means nothing there more poplour show a having there episode articles being deleted ore redirected, 99% of the articles are not notable and no one does anything to improve them and most do not have enough sources to give them notability, people will jsut object at afd because they want them kept people forget wikipedia is not a fansite go a fan wiki for those episode articles, post the afd here i will support the vast majority foi them being delted--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sad thing is that it indeed had to come to that and that these articles have been in such poor shape for years. You can always vote redirect on the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House), as others have done. I see several respond here who have not voiced there opinions at the AfD, your input would be greatly appreciated there. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical reviews

For a long time, each article on every House episode had a link to appropriate "medical review" at politedissent.com, useful and interesting. Today I looked several episodes in Wikipedia right to navigate to their medical reviews, but now all (?) these links seems gone. Moreover, various people try add them in variable periods (what, kind of, confirms the demands), but these changes get rejected and reverted as "blog spam". I haven't found any topic on any talk page discussing the "new policy" of delinking the medical reviews. What's the story about that, why this undoubtedly useful information is now banned from Wikipedia? Honeyman (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "new policy". However, there are several "old" policies that apply here. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources explains that "anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." It does go on to say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The problem is that there is no evidence that the owner of politedissent.com, kown only as Scott, is an expert in the field. Therefore, his blog constitutes a self-published source and it's not appropriate to link to it in articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed these. This is just the blog from some guy named Scott who claims to be an expert doctor. AussieLegend sums it up nicely for the cases were it was used as a reference. They were also used as an external link on almost every page, for which WP:ELNO#EL11 says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)", random guy Scott doesn't really meet those criteria. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Blu-ray nonsence inclusion

This is not a repository for the release of every single format of every single series. All but the last series have not been released on Blu-ray and are not scheduled to be. What next we put a VHS column complete with N/A for all but the first series. Absolute nonsense. The DVD releases are complete and applicable for all series. Adding Blu-ray is ridiculous and destroys the view-ability of the table and what’s more it is not encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.54.0 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV supports the inclusion of DVD (and obviously Blu-ray). The content has been in the article since August 2010. Why isn't the inclusion of this information encyclopaedic and how does it "destroy the view-ability of the table"? It looks fine to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because something has been there sometime doesn't make it right. Adding extra columns which have no content other than N/A is ridiculous as it shows absolutely no information of any kind, let alone of any relevance and has no encyclopdic value. Also assuming whatever source you are quoting must assume something other than what is written in the source is like the tail wagging the dog, idiotic. The table becomes too wide on the screen and harder to pull out the necessary information, with the vacuous extra columns. If you are desperate to include it why not have a separate Blu-ray table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.54.0 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem you seem to have. The table looks OK even at low (<900px wide) resolutions. Your comment that "adding extra columns which have no content other than N/A is ridiculous as it shows absolutely no information of any kind" ignores the fact that there is content in these columns. Obviously there is presently none for seasons that haven't been released on Blu-ray but this is something that exists now in many tables for DVD entries. As Blu-ray versions are released, this information will be supplied. A separate Blu-ray table would unnecessarily duplicate content ad somebody would no doubt complain about that. An all inclusive table seems the best compromise. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have heard it all now. Stating that the content displayed is no content ("N/A") at all qualifies as content, is just absurd. Also how would adding just a season 6 table for Blu-ray is duplication. Also you have still not justfied inclding the unecessary information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.54.0 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the "N/A" content (they're actually TBAs and TBDs, not "N/A"s), I was talking about the cited content from season 6. Any table added would duplicate the season number and colouring. Granted, it's not much but it's unnecessary when it can all be included in one table. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow changing the name of the same thing. TBA and TBD are speculative weasel nonsence to cover up the fact there is no information to go in the boxes. Just have the small table and this all ends. As the scree is not destroyed and the information is much easier to extract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.54.0 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please keep in mind that you (IP) have now both broken 3RR, please stop reverting each-other, continued reverting will most likely result in a block. I have requested temporary protection for the page to stop the edit warring. On the issue itself: I don't see an issue with including the Blu-ray releases. Unlike VHS, Blu-ray is the new format and is replacing DVD, VHS is dead. Creating an entirely new table jut for Blu-ray would be more excessive then including them in the table as they were. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the relevant style guideline, MOS:TV#DVD releases

The inclusion of DVD releases in episode list is not a requirement, but up to editor preference. If DVD releases are included, however, they should include all primary release dates (e.g. Region 1, Region 2, and Region 4). If the series was also released on VHS or Laser disc, name the section "Home video releases" instead and note the VHS releases with the DVD info. Expand the table to include a column for VHS release date, if it is different from the DVD releases. How this is presented is up to the editors of the article; feel free to look over any featured list, or featured article to find a presentation of DVD releases that is appropriate for your article.

So, while the MOS recommends a style, it's not a prescription. Accordingly, discussion needs to be held on this page (and ideally, it should include other interested editors, and not just the two people who have participated so far) to determine whether to keep the status quo and include the columns for Blu-ray, whether to omit them, or whether an alternate presentation can present all the information and still keep the table "pretty."

That said, while the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is only an essay, I think it reflects the spirit of how to proceed here. I'm reverting to the version before the unregistered editor's bold change to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Until more than one season (possibly at least 3) will be released on Blu-ray, it is fine to include the information as text only. Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok firstly bluray release for hte older seasons have been annouced by the publish but not firm date set, secondly the table is acutally fine if oyu think it needs tweaked we can discuss a way but MOS says to include home media release, i dnt support vhs releaes unless there for something that old and no other media release, bluray is as importantr as dvd, unless a vsalid arguement can be given or a valid point or refernece to say there not ever ocming then i dnt see why having NA is a bad thing--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

secondly i created this ages ago there was no objection then so why now? can the ip user register so it bit more credible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note you do not own this page and just beacuse you created it a long time ago dosen't mean you have the final say over its inclusion and that you have the final say as to it being correct. Stop claiming ownership. Its inculsion is complete crap. When all the seasons are released on Blu Ray then include but only one region is advertising and nonsence cruft.--95.147.53.79 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As has previously been pointed out, inclusion is supported by MOS:TV and the general, albeit liited, consensus seems to be that the content should stay so your removal of the content was inappropriate. Please don't edit war as you did before. You need to discuss this and gain consensus for it to be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did i say i own the page???? i just said i created it ages ago and there was no objections so why now, it should be incliuded as per mos:tv gain consesus before removing it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra Episodes

The series has a number of Extra Episodes or Special Features. I don't know if these were originally on the web, or if they were added for DVD release or what. But it would be nice to have a list of those as well in this article, would it not?

In the main articles for each season 1-6, it appears that these are listed in Special Features area, but there are no areas like that for seasons 7 or 8. Could be that no Special Features were released those years, or that the editors of Wikipedia missed them so far???

Here is the list as I am aware of it:

Season 1

The Concept

Casting Session With Hugh Laurie

Medical Cases

Set Tour

House-isms

Dr House

Season 2

Blooper Reel

It Could Be Lupus

Sleeping Dogs Lie (Alternate Scene)

Daddy's Boy (Alternate Scene)

An Evening With House

Season 3

Alternate Take from Cane and Able

Blooper Reel

Anatomy of an Episode - The Jerk

Soundtrack Session With Band From TV

Open House - The Production Office

Blood, Needles and Body Parts The House

Season 4

House's Soap Prescription Passion

Meet the Writers

The Visual Effects of House

New Beginnings

Anatomy of a Scene - The Bus Accident

My Favourite Episode So Far

Season 5

House Meets A Milestone - The 100th Episode

Anatomy Of A Teaser - House Divided

Dr Mom - Cuddy's Storyline

House Guests - Casting The Crew

Keeping It Real - Accuracy In Writing

Season 6

Before Broken

A Different POV - Hugh Laurie Directs

A Different POV - Hugh Laurie Directs, Cast Talks

A New House for House

New Faces In a New House

Crazy Cool Episode - Epic Fail

An Insiders Guide

House MD Re-examined - Episode 01 & 02 - Broken with Hugh Laurie

House MD Re-examined - Episode 07 - Known Unknowns with Robert Sean Leonard

House MD Re-examined - Episode 11 - The Down Low with Robert Sean Leonard

House MD Re-examined - Episode 12 - Remorse with Olivia Wilde

House MD Re-examined - Episode 13 - Moving The Chains with Omar Epps

House MD Re-examined - Episode 14 - 5 to 9 with Lisa Edelstein

House MD Re-examined - Episode 15 - Private Lives with Jesse Spencer

House MD Re-examined - Episode 16 - Black Hole with Peter Jacobson

House MD Re-examined - Episode 17 - Lockdown with Hugh Laurie

House MD Re-examined - Episode 22 - Help Me - First Look (Season Finale)

Thanks for your consideration. KellyCoinGuy (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of House episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615145702/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/afp/20090612/ts_alt_afp/entertainmenttelevisionmediaratings_20090612112217 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090612/ts_alt_afp/entertainmenttelevisionmediaratings_20090612112217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of House episodes. 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/20120210093759/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com:80/2012/02/08/current-season-to-be-the-last-for-house/119252/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/08/current-season-to-be-the-last-for-house/119252/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623063544/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)