Talk:List of House characters

Marco the pharmacist

Shouldn't Marco the pharmacist get a mention? He appears in more episodes than most of the minor characters mentioned and House calls him by name in at least one episode. --81.224.39.148 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kutner attended Hopkins

In "Mirror Mirror" this exchange happens between House and Kutner at the Clinic:

House: Lesion on the liver. Possibility... Why are you doing a pelvic for food poisoning? Kutner: She said her hoo-hoo burned.

And we know from this exchange in "Need to Know":

House: Your four weeks just expired. Your reign of terror is over. Mine has just begun. Now go stick a needle up her hoo-hoo and find that cancer. Chase: Hoo-hoo? Foreman: He went to Hopkins.

That "hoo-hoo" is an inside joke at Hopkins, within the House universe at least. RUL3R (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2008 (GMT -6)

Problem is, this is original research. Also, there are other explanations. For instance, an equally plausible explanation is that Kutner would know that House went to Hopkins and could be sucking up to his boss (as he is so prone to do) by imitating his Hopkins vocabulary. Also, less likely (in my opinion) but also plausible is that Kutner was quoting the patient. (I don't remember what exactly was said in the episode in question and so I can't say for sure.) --Hnsampat (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to Amber Volakis & Dr. Cole

This is probably going to incite a rebellion, but I trimmed some of her entry. About half of it was just editorial (simplifying speech) and half was cutting down on superfluous examples of things like why she's called 'cutthroat bitch.' It's sort of a subjective matter, but I think that referencing the events of too many episodes creates unnecessary overlap between character pages and episode guides. (The difference between SAYING she's a cut throat bitch vs. pointing out 3-5 incidents in which she is a cutthroat bitch). Very receptive to what everyone else thinks, though. Triptych2 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

& Dr. Cole Triptych2 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Waiting until events actually occur

I know some of you are getting very antsy, but you're getting heavy handed on the "edit" button and keep adding facts which have not yet occured. For example, Michael Michelle's character has not actually recurred, yet there she is on the recurring character list. Even if we can get such information, it seems spoilerish and getting ahead of oneself to add it before it actually occurs on the show. Same with Thirteen's "real name." I'd like to see it in canon before it gets added to the Wikipedia page. For now, she should still be called "thirteen" becuase that's what she's being credited as.Mooshimanx 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to Dr. Cole's entry

I made a change to the entry on Dr. Cole. It said, "Unusually, Cole is a Mormon...". I removed the word unusually as membership in the Church of Latter-Day Saints is not unusual, regardless of the dramatic tension created in the series.Cuindless 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

New Character Pages

At this point, I think it's a bit premature to add character pages for Thirteen, Kutner or Taub, even if they are going to be added to the main cast because a) the final decision has not be made on the show (and furthermore, might not be made for a long time if they haven't worked this out before the writer's strike), b) there really isn't enough information about them to add to their own full pages that's not just plot summary and most importantly, c) it's spoilerish because you've got their names listed on the main character tab on the bottom of all the main House pages, and presumably, most people aren't coming onto Wiki looking to spoil future episodes. I'm not going to delete their pages, but I am probably going to clear the links to them in the quick link template and character list. If and when they make it onto the actual opening credits, we should put them back, assuming a consensus is reached that they need their own pages only one season in.Mooshimanx 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I would ask why Jody and the Twins are listed under recurring characters, when they've been in just as many episodes (or 1 more) than Samira has; they (to me) are as minor as she is, whereas the other fellowship candidates have been on much longer. Can they be moved down to the bottom? Talon 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship Candidates "Table"

The "table" needs to go; it's just a silly plot summary that has little to do with characters who have any meaningful storyline because apparently someone wanted to reuse the table from "The Right Stuff." The final ten were picked, but in the only episode featuring the other 30, the final ten were the only ones to speak and the one ones that recurred. I'm deleteing them because they are clutter and add virtually nothing to this page other than clutterMooshimanx 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted it. It is your opinion that it's clutter and I find it quite the opposite. Cburnett 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't say I find any real reason to keep it. We don't list every character here, most of them never recurred. mattbuck 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely merited on "The Right Stuff" but the contents spans multiple episodes so I put it here. Cburnett 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

According to your theory, it would also merit having a chart of every patient from every episode too, since the vast majority of them have more speaking lines than the doctors you're cluttering the page with; it's gone again. It's clutter and wholly and utterly unnecessary. And you're wrong, the characters that merit further discussion due to "The Right Stuff" already have their own sections on this page; everyone else appeared in less than one episode. And the comparison to Rodney Foreman, etc. is inapplicable because they either appeared in more than one episode, or were a plot point in more than one episode, such as Rowan Chase. I understand it makes you feel slighted to have a whole table you created deleted, but it's not in accordance with the philosophy at Wikipedia. Mooshimanx 22:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I never put forth a theory. You're putting forth a "theory" based on your irreversible position that you're right and I'm wrong. You need to learn WP:CIVIL. Cburnett 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about whether you think it's a theory or not. I fail to see what makes you the be all-end all of what goes on the page; you're trying to put a table on there that's half blank, and refers to characters that appeared in ONE episode. If you'd like to take some kind of vote on it, that's fine, but that is not gonna fit on that page; it belongs on the Page for "The Right Stuff" where it was improperly removed from in the first place. Mooshimanx 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's ironic is that you lecture me about being a "be all-end all of what goes on the page" when you're the one who started the deletion of the table and being non-negotiable. More hypocritical than ironic, I guess. The whole Survivor-esque competition spans multiple episodes and this is the most logical place to summarize the whole lot of them (you know being a "list of House characters"). The one-offs get a line in a table; the rest get a paragraph summary. I call that a fair compromise compared to a summary for each one (which I'm not advocating at all).

What policy says you are right? None.

What policy says you can revert, be non-compromising, and demeaning to me? WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL say you can't. Cburnett 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy answer: WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:NOT#STATS. But, more in depth, because you're putting something on the page that just inherently does not go there. That's the only argument that's necessary; if you wouldn't agree on putting the "patients of the week" on this page, I don't see how you can argue FOR putting one-off doctors on the page, considering ALL of the patients of the week have more lines, more personality and are frequently referenced in more episodes than the doctors fired in that episode. The policy that says I should remove it is WP:NOT#PLOT. Because all the table does is create a plot summary of what happened in the second episode of season 4. If you want to use that table that badly, it would arguably go on the page for "The Right Stuff," although it still is a plot summary and stat table even on that page.Mooshimanx 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the characters in the table are not significant enough to be on this article. But the table should still be on the article for the one episode to which it is significant. - Shaheenjim 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A list of characters is not a statistic IN ANY UNIVERSE. A table of characters is not a plot summary IN ANY UNIVERSE. If you weren't being such an unbiased jackass, you'd see that you're grasping at straws. You don't understand the difference between policy & consensus, and article & a single table in an article. You don't understand the policy you're invoking and you're being a hypocrite in your arguments. Cburnett 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue it's not statistics...it's a table that lists each and every actor ("doctor") that appeared in a single episode; given that it provides NO useful information about "House, M.D.", it's just a data table. Just saying "You're a dick" and a "jackass" doesn't prove your argument; in fact, it's just an ad hominem attack which is unprovoked when you consider I never said anything mean to you at all, you just took it that way and ran with it instead posting some kind of logical refutation. Frankly, you haven't even presented one valid point as to why that table should exist on this page, other than "you said so." I posited three theories. Even assuming, arguendo, it's not statistics or a plot summary, the initial argument that I, and others who have commented, have made is that it fails to contribute anything useful to anyone reading the page and it's out of place with every other character page for every other television program on Wikipedia. Feel free to point something out, other than the fact that I'm "mean," especially your theory on how those are significant enough characters to appear on the MAIN character page for the entire television show. Mooshimanx 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume Cburnett's latest comments were directed towards Mooshimanx, and not me. - Shaheenjim 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked the table it gave a useful summury of who is who in an easily viewed resource mystic force —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Characterization issues

"Of all the members of House's staff, Cameron is the most empathetic almost to the point that it impairs her ability to be a good doctor."

I would argue (but I'm not going to change it, since I understand this is not really a consensus) that the "almost" does not belong, for many reasons...chiefly, the first episode of season two when she deprives a patient who has cancer of a week of what little time of her life she has left by refusing to admit that it is, indeed, cancer. >.> Vignettelante

Horrible Merge Decision

I understand the desire to do a merge although I disagreed with that because there is enough information to warrant their own pages; but frankly, the merge as implemented is an unmitigated disaster; as the information contained in the character pages was simply deleted and not "merged" at all. There's nothing wrong with a short blurb on the characters when there is a link to a whole character page, but not when that's all the information you get on a character that's been in 70+ episodes for four seasons. The absolute minimal essential information on the side characters makes their articles now longer than say, Lisa Cuddy's, despite the fact that Cuddy has appear in over 70 hours of House so far; she is in every single episode to date. Absolute wiki-butchery. Should be undone and keep the character pages because wikipedia is designed to provide information, not to show how streamlined and basic you can possibly make something.Mooshimanx 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if wiki is trying to discourage fans/fandom members from creating articles, if they see it as frivolous wastes of space. I'd understand if that became the policy, but I wish they'd do it in one swipe instead of just sort of hinting at it. poopadoop

You complain about loss of information here...yet you're vehemently advocating its removal above. I don't even know what to say. Cburnett 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Dr. Cuddy appears in every single episode over four seasons, Dr. Cameron is in every episode other than two, and Drs. Chase and Foreman in every episode but one. And the "information" I removed above wasn't "information" in any relevant sense, it's just data that provides nothing to the reader. There's a big difference, and you're skating around it to further your "you're a dick" argument you postulated above. Mooshimanx 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

It has been suggested that the articles on the individual characters of the series are merged into this one as they would not comply to the fiction notability guideline WP:FICT. Any thoughts? --Van helsing 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) DON'T EVER DO IT. it is a stupid idea.

Van Helsing, TTN, all you lot - quit it. You've been shot down every time you suggest a merge, this one will be no different. The characters are notable, and the information is relevant. I believe I saw someone say this to go against you on the Talk:Scrubs (TV series) page - you want all information to be out-of-universe? Then by your own logic, the article about elephant shouldn't be written by anyone on Earth. It's a hyperbole admittedly, but you cannot deny that this is your argument. It is flawed.' Thanks to whoever said that originally. mattbuck 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you noticed that I didn’t express an opinion on it? I altered what I consider to be a too bold action (plainly redirecting the individual articles) into a less bold one. --Van helsing 09:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blame me, not VH and quoting about the most spurious argument I think I have ever seen is not helping the issue here. The guideline is clear and unequivocal: out of universe notability must be asserted for individual articles about fictional characters. The same is true for episode articles but we'll get to those later. As a result, interested editors need to introduce content that establishes notability, backed up by reliable, third party sources. Otherwise, the character pages should be merged per the consistent application of policy. Eusebeus 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging the suggested characters is ridiculous; they are as notable as can be and there is more than enough to fill an article about them - though I concede that at the moment they are all too long and need to be trimmed down. Isay a very strong 'no' to the merging. asyndeton 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am very sorry asyndeton but beyond your plaintive and emphatic WP:ILIKEIT, masquerading as :notable as can be", can you please point out, with specific examples, where in the WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines there is anything that suggests this is actually notable? As I see it, per those guidelines these need all to be merged unless interested editors (like yourself, maybe) can add Out of Universe assertions of notability backed up by reliable, third party sources. Eusebeus 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that at the top of that WP:ILIKEIT you linked to is this:(link removed - matt's point is it is an essay)

Now, the information contained in the articles is most certainly verifiable, and is all well sourced. It seems like you're trying to delete it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. mattbuck 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unsure what your point is in noting the ilikeit essay. You seem to be confused about the criteria. Have you read the guidelines? I will paste the WAF below, so please indicate how you intend to rewrite these character articles to satisfy the WAF and FICT guidelines. Eusebeus 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How would this information be improved by including it on this page over the status quo? Atropos 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Why would someone merge the main characters of a related TV-series into another article that possibly can only contain the very minor characters of that specific TV-series, i say a strong no, by merging the maincharacters into another article where they possibly can loose some of there importance. --Rutherfordjigsaw 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The character is notable enough to have its own article. mirageinred 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the user above me. Each regular character possesses unique characteristics and is prominent enough to warrant their own article. Besides, cramming every thing onto one page will be a shambolic affair. I'm completely against merging. Kiki 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that this is not a vote. Individual discussions cannot trump larger and long-standing community consensus, which is variously described in the Wikipedia guidelines. I urge interested editors to review WP:FICT and WP:WAF and add the necessary content needed to let these articles remain; that means the assertion of out-of-universe notability backed up by reliable third party sources. I understand that fans of the series feel that individual characters deserve lengthy and detailed articles, but wider consensus explicitly dictates that such content is inappropriate and recommends, instead, a merge to a single article. Eusebeus 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that consensus on every series you propose this for is that they should remain separate articles, and thus it would seem that wider consensus is that characters deserve individual articles. mattbuck 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Individual series pages generally attract the attention of fans of the series; as a result it is not surprising that different fan bases express support to keep these pages, in spite of the wider consensus. Do not conflate, however, the expression of fan support with wider notability. If you wish, take up the issue at WP:FICT and WP:WAF to make your case that the existing requirements of sources and general out-of universe notability should not apply. Absent that wider solicitation, your argument is tendentious. Eusebeus 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Not because the charactes are not notable, but because there are not enough characters like Scrubs, or Friends, or Seinfeld. The characters can be done just like they have been in the Mash or 3rd Rock from the Sun articles. When the list of characters have increased like some of the more established Sitcoms, then it would be a good idea to break it off. But for now, I think a Merge is a good idea. --Maniwar (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The House character is notable, I'm not sure if the others are. Curmudgeon became word of the year because of increased usage when applied to him. 69.140.94.185 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a suggestion? Each character could have their own page as a bio for each notable character would be helpful to people researching the show, but once there is House (TV series), List of House characters, and individual bios there will be a lot of redundant information. You could easily skip the middleman and just have House (TV Series) and then link each character's name to the bio. Think list of characters page would quickly become redundant to the list on the main page and the information on the individual pages. --In Defense of the Artist 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The list has several other characters on - I'd agree with your suggestion, but alter the list to be MINOR characters only, as is done for Scrubs (TV show). mattbuck 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The protocol is pretty clear here. Any character for which there exists the assertion of out-of-universe notability backed up by reliable third party sources should have its own article. All others, major or minor, should be redirected to a central list of characters page. As for the Scrubs (TV show) characters, they will be redirected according to the same guideline.

  Let me make a point here, since there seems to be some confusion. Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

  Thus, if editors disagree with the principles being adduced for establishing fictional character notability, this is not the place to raise those issues. Instead, I urge interested editors to make their point at the WP:FICT and WP:WAF guideline. The merge and redirect is a matter of applying community wide consensus to this particular series. If you disagree, you need to change that community wide consensus, not simply indicate your opposition here, since - and this is the point that some editors are apparently unaware of - the consensus to redirect already exists per that community-wide guideline. Eusebeus 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this odd debate. I am always wary when people continually quote policy at me. How does maintaining this separate character page harm Wikipedia? Separate major fictional character pages add an interesting and useful encyclopedic dimension to Wikipedia. --- Taroaldo 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Homer Simpson has a page, why not House? -Flubeca^Talk 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear, not another one! Why do so many people have it out for fiction articles? It should be noted that the still changing policy has changed; "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead, and editors should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.". I.E, if merging these articles would make this one too long (it would), then creating a sub article is perfectly fine. On these grounds oppose merging House, and any other character article that, once redundant information is removed, would still be too large to include in this article. Any smaller articles should be merged. Iorek 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per arguments above! LordHarris 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons stated above. Furthermore, if we merged them, the result would be an extremely long article that would then be flagged as too long and be recommended for splitting. Cmcfarland 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because sometimes fictional characters actualy are detailed enough to deserve their own pages. --Piemanmoo 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Important. Per Iorek's point above, I strongly urge all the editors who have commented and mistakenly think they can !vote here to take up their concerns at the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction).

Let me repeat my point above since it seems strangely ignored. WP:CONSENSUS is clear:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice

At the moment, consensus is still moving toward requiring real-world context to establish notability, so if editors feel these pages should be kept they should weigh in on that debate ASAP, especially since no-one has suggested that any real-world content or reliable third-party sources exists to establish notability as required by the existing policy. At the risk of repetition, editors need to understand that, 'if the result of those discussions determines that individual fictional character pages are not considered encyclopedic without real-world context, then individual comments here are irrelevant since they fall outside of community consensus.

Sorry for all the bolding but it is important editors who feel strongly about this issue ensure they participate in fora where their views can be considered. This is not such a forum and as the current discussion is unfolding, the individual character pages will be merged. Eusebeus 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is there even one keep vote that has anything to do with bringing these up to standards? From here, it looks like all should just be ignored. I would leave House, though. The creation section is a good start, and I have to imagine that it can easily be improved if someone just puts some time into it. TTN 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm amazed that TTN actually wants to keep one. --Maniwar (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: I've never watched an episode of House in my life, but I know that Gregory House is notable. Other medical dramas, such as Scrubs, frequently refer to the show, even going so far as to have Dr. Cox parody him in an episode entitled My House. As for the other characters, I'll leave it up to those more familiar with the show. Do they receive equal or near equal time as House? Do they have episodes dedicated to their plots? If so, they probably deserve their own article as long as it's written properly and sourced well. Notthegoatseguy 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if nobody can provide valid reasons to keep them (i.e. providing real world information), I will redirect all but House soon. TTN 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The major cast should have their own pages, and the minors get their summery of the list page. As it is now, this list page and Gregory House are going to get longer and longer as people add on details, trying to make up for what got deleted with the individul character pages. BethEnd 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Mst o fthe arguments are baseless the arguments are from fans who cannot see the bigger picture. If there were 10-12 seasons and house appeared in everyepisode then yes give him his own page at the moments not enough T.V has been produced to warrant a seperate page for all characters currently with a seperate page.--Lucy-marie 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- It's an Emmy award winning show whose ratings class it as one of the top shows in America. If that's not notable enough to merit a page per character, then I suggest you delete about 100 articles about fictional characters who are less notable by that definition. 68.183.182.214 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The fact that the entire main cast (save maybe Wilson?) was spoofed on Saturday Night Live along with the aforementioned Scrubs parody provides quite a bit of notability for all the characters. Add in the frequent appearances of Lisa and Jennifer's "Valley Girls" character spoofs on the show Extra and the high ratings of the show overall, and I would say that notability for the characters beyond Gregory House has definitely been attained. CrashCart9 05:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Real world perspective

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Exemplary aspects of real world perspective include:

• careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
• the presentation of fictional material
  • particularly for film and TV related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects
  • for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique
• description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
• making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real world perspective.

The problem with in-universe perspective

The in-universe perspective describes the fiction from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. See also the sections on fair use, notability and undue weight, and templates.

Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:

• Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour.
• A plot synopsis written like an historical account.
• A fictional character article or section written like a biography.
• Description of fictional places written like a geographical account.
• Using infoboxes intended for real world topics.
• Discussing a fictional topic's appearances in major works and obscure spin-off material in equal detail.
• Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information.
• Trying to reconcile contradictions or fill gaps in a fictional continuity, rather than reporting them as such.
• Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them.

Jennifer Morrison image

Here is a possibility for a picture to be used for the Jennifer Morrison's image.

The image is used on the "Allison Cameron (House)" page:

Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Cameron

The image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Cameron.a.jpg/250px-Cameron.a.jpg

Greg Gates

Lake Oswego, Oregon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringdesigner (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea - it wouldn't be fair use to illustrate Jannifer Morrison - it's a copyrighted House promotional picture, so fair use only extends to critical analysis in House articles. mattbuck 10:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Characters?

Don't any of Wilson's exes, or Foreman's mother, etc, get mention? Dylan 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we need out-of-universe notability for that. Also a note from your third grade teacher, and a librarian over 40 in your county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.185.80 (talk • contribs) 7:37:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The row that left

Do you remember early in the second episode when Cuddy was getting angry at House, so he fired a row 9like D or something). Can we assume that all the numbers we can't account for were in that row? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.76.102 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He fired row D then rescinded and fired row C. I tried to step through and catch numbers in that row. As the list reveals I only found two. I don't think we should assume anything. Notably, numbers 1 & 40 are taken but the twins are assigned 15A & 15B. So either there is a number missing or he hired 41. Cburnett 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth

Does one character (Cameron) continue to have an article while the rest are being debated? She had just as much screen time as the others; Foreman has probably had more.

I agree with this comment; who exactly made this decision? And by cutting the profiles down to a paragraph, you're cutting out huge amounts of information and character development from three plus seasons! Now if people want to know about these characters, instead of just going to one page about the character, they have to look through dozens of episode synopses! All of the main characters are important, and randomly having one of the former fellowship members is a very odd choice indeed. --Allie 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have zero problems with anyone recreating full articles. Cburnett 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand shortening the pages to little blurbs with the exception of maybe House (since he's the main character), but I really don't understand how Cameron is considered more important than the other cottages, Cuddy, or Wilson. If you don't recreate the full articles, at least delete her page, too? Keeping it long like that only makes it look like she's a much more important character than she is. Just my random suggestion. 67.189.241.139 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to actually existing other than as a redirect. Articles exist for Wilson, Chase & House, I'm sure Foreman will get an article when someone gets the time to rewrite the old one in a way that works with WP:NOT#PLOT - the articles used to be VERY extended plot summaries with no real world information. Now they have that information. Also, please refrain from judging the merits of one article based on whether another exists or not. mattbuck 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Department issues

Since Cameron, Chase and Foreman left House's team at the end of season 3, they are no longer considered part of the Department of Diagnostic Medicine. I would like to change Chase and Cameron's listed department to reflect their current position (surgeon and ER doctor respectively). However I am not sure what these two departments are called. Does anyone know for sure? Typer525 ^Talk 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins has a "Department of Surgery" and "Department of Emergency Medicine". Whether or not PPTH has these names isn't guaranteed. Cburnett 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article vandalism?

Not sure where to put this, but, I noticed that in the minor characters section, the entry for Steve McQueen has been replaced with:

"Steve McQueen is House's nickname for his vagina, in which he frequently loses small odds and ends, such as pennies (as seen in Hunting), french fries, and small amphibians. Wilson, being House's homosexual lover, is the only one to have seen the delicate ecosystem dwelling inside."

Which is rather obviously untrue. I don't know much about this place and don't want to mess things up by fixing it, so maybe someone else can?

67.189.241.139 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it was article vandalism. (Therefore, I've updaded this talk section's title from the less-informative "?".) Whenever you spot such questionable content on Wikipedia, feel free to check the page's History to find out what the previous version was, and revert or edit it as necessary (WP:Be Bold) to expunge the vandalism. Memetics (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

let people add what they want.65.9.29.236 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What House learned watching Mark Warner ?

I know this is old stuff, but the explanation under Mark Warner's section bothered me - that House turned Stacy down because he realized he wasn't willing to go to the lengths Warner did for her. I don't think this is ever specifically stated, and my take on the "grappling" scene was different: House saw what might become of himself if he committed totally to staying with Stacy and she let him down again. He didn't want to be the one begging on the floor like that some time in the future. Anyone else see it like this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menme (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Dobson

The article states "It is also implied the two men may actually maintain a friendship, as Dobson already knows to go through Wilson if he ever wants to get together with House." I took the line "go to Wilson" as a Joke that House has no friends and if Henry wanted a friend he should go and see Wilson (a nice guy(!)) rather than House —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.120 (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The exact conversation is: House: 'If you wanna hang out...' Dobson: 'Yeah, I know. Call Wilson.' This seems to be interpreted in two ways: 1) Dobson says he will call Wilson in order to get in touch with House; 2) Dobson says he will call Wilson to hang out with Wilson himself. As regards the first explanation: why would Dobson need to call Wilson in order to get in touch with House? This explanation does not make any sense to me. On the other hand, the second explanation would make much more sense, as it was already established that House doesn't want to keep Dobson around as a member of his team because they think too similarly, and therefore Dobson's thinking is not stimulating for him, does not make him realise anything he hasn't thought of before. It would make sense therefore that House would not want to hang out with a man whose thinking is very similar to his own (Dobson), but instead would jokingly suggest that since Wilson's thinking complements House's, Dobson might also enjoy hanging out with Wilson. And of course House does not have to say this out loud, as Dobson, again proving how similarly they think, realises his meaning and finishes the sentence for him. However, I don't actually think Dobson started up a friendship with Wilson either, this seems to me to be clearly a joke, intended to make clear that House and Dobson think too similarly to really enjoy each others' company. Jobberknoll (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia?

I spent alot of time to specifically find the exact episodes in which Kal Penn and Amber were guest stars on ER. After taking the specific time to edit in the exact details which I found personally interesting, someone edited it out. What kind of Wiki-Nazi stuff is that? If I edit it back in, it better not get deleted by somebody with a powertrip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.15.42 (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As you say, you found it "personally interesting." What is "personally interesting" to you, though, is not necessarily encyclopedic by Wikipedia's standards. Remember, everything contributed to Wikipedia must abide by the five pillars of Wikipedia. This isn't a question of some other editor being a "Wiki-Nazi" or being on a "powertrip." The information that you posted was simply not deemed particularly notable and so it was deleted. If you feel that you can make a case for including the information, then please by all means discuss it here. However, please note that any contribution by anyone to Wikipedia can potentially be mercilessly edited by others (for more details on this, please read Wikipedia's policy on "ownership" of articles and contributions). Remember, Wikipedia operates by consensus and, as a result, sometimes the hard work and good faith efforts of a user like yourself (or like me or anyone else) may get ruthlessly squashed. It may not seem fair but it's the only way Wikipedia is going to work. So, please make a case on this talk page for including your contribution in this article. Discussion and consensus-building is how Wikipedia works. Just remember to remain civil during those discussions; name-calling (e.g. "Wiki-Nazi," "somebody on a powertrip," etc.) won't get you anywhere. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have been your wikinazi. Fact is, this is about house characters, not the actors. What the actors do is not really relevant to the characters. If it were the characters appearing in ER, it might be notable, but just the actors... Actors act in different things, it's what they do. mattbuck (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The actors who play Amber and Kal both have their own stubs. It would be a great contribution if you mentioned their ER appearances on there. Amber's page doesn't mention ER at all. Triptych2 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bio criteria?

As far as I understand it, the decision was to allow characters their own bio pages. My question is at what point a character warrants their own page. I ask because Thirteen's paragraph is twice the length of some of the others - and even then omits some information. She's had more screen time in the last six episodes than the old team, but is there a threshold a character has to reach? Ten episodes? Twenty? A whole season? 71.202.238.214 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Amber Volakis

Should she be moved to Reoccurring characters now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.110.14 (talk • contribs)

I'm thinking so, but I'm not 100% certain. 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.17.97 (talk)

I think it's jumping the gun since she technically hasn't recurred yet [as Wilson's girlfriend]. Cburnett (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But we know she appears in the next episode airing on Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.110.14 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but remember Terzli? Everyone thought she was going to be a regular or a recurring character, and then she got fired the next episode. I don't think the same fate will befall "Cutthroat Bitch," but who knows? --Hnsampat (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Epitats?

What the hell are epitats? Epithets written as epitaphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.116.146 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo in question. It's supposed to be "epithets." FYI, if you spot errors like this, feel free to go ahead and fix it yourself. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen's name

Her real name is "Remy Hadley"

Here is a scan from the ballot with her name on it, from process of elimination

[http://bp2.blogger.com/_RrObyQ3XzcY/RyibopfSsoI/AAAAAAAALjg/4pKvAMUR9Tg/s1600-h/%2313_2.jpg

I am not the one who made the scan but I stumbled on this info in a forum.122.53.178.112 (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Look half-way down her paragraph. It's been in there since that episode. Cburnett (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, check out the discussion at Talk:House (TV series)#Remy Hadley?. The consensus there is that the show hasn't "officially" declared that her name is Remy Hadley and that the name on the ballot really doesn't prove anything; it could have just as easily been a placeholder. Also, note that the official House website on FOX.com simply refers to her as "Thirteen." --Hnsampat (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side discussion (heh), I was rewatching some episodes and realized that House has her file: he knows who her mother is, etc. You also can't prescribe controlled substances unless you have a DEA number (and a state license). You can't get a DEA # with just "Thirteen" as your name, no SSN, and no medical license. So, in the House universe, House & Cuddy know her real name. They have to. I chalk it up to bad writing that they keep up the charade of "not knowing" who she is because it's utterly ridiculous. They just as well not observe the existence of gravity or time! I should look and see if I can find any sources putting 2 & 2 together... Cburnett (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, also, in the episode "The Right Stuff," House asks Thirteen something to the effect of "Who are you?" and Thirteen responds, "You have my name in my file." So, yes, House knows Thirteen's real name. Whether her co-workers do or not is debatable. However, the show has as of yet not revealed what that name is, other than this Remy Hadley business which may or may not mean anything. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah: bad writing.  :) Cburnett (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate because Hnsampat deleted this part. The conversation on Talk:House (TV series) predates this conversation by 3 months and this conversation itself happened 3 months ago. Why all of a sudden there is "consensus" boggles my mind.

The show is, by definition, canon and utilizing canon cannot possibly ever be considered original research. The name "Remy Hadley" is canon and the only fellow not named (then and now) is Thirteen (or Thirty-one if you wish) and "Remy Hadley" is the only name not to match a named fellow. I am positively, 100% fine with outlining what I have just said here in the previous sentence. State the facts and let the reader make their own conclusion. If rewording is in order then fine.

Selectively disregarding canon for whatever reason is, frankly, WP:POV pushing and WP:V violating. The POV being "it has to be explicitly stated in Canon to 'count'" (which is a totally made up rule to suit your position) and the WP:V-violating is removal of a citation using a primary reference (the show) about itself (the show). Cburnett (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The conversation here doesn't discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion of "Remy Hadley" in the article. It merely discusses the "Remy Hadley" issue in general. The most recent consensus is actually the one at Talk:House (TV series)#Remy Hadley?. Note that I cite that consensus above and that the rest of the conversation is, in your words, a "side discussion." The last time you and I had a conversation about the issue of whether inclusion is appropriate was back in November 2007 (see User_talk:Hnsampat/Archive_1#"Thirteen"). Subsequent to that, a consensus was reached at Talk:House (TV series)#Remy Hadley? to NOT include the name "Remy Hadley." I am now merely applying that consensus (which, like I said, represents the most recent consensus) to this article. I hadn't done so up until now mainly because it slipped my mind. But, that doesn't change the fact that a consensus was reached. Now, clearly you disagree with the consensus and I respect that. We can restart this discussion if you want and try to see if consensus has changed. But, please understand that this is why I acted the way I did. I'm not being unilateral here. We had a discussion and this is what was decided. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, after the airing of tonight's episode, the plot thickens. Cuddy very clearly called Thirteen by the name of "Dr. Hadley," not once but several times. This does lend credence to "Remy Hadley" indeed being Thirteen's real name. However, I should note that the first name ("Remy") was not spoken tonight and that House implied that "Dr. Hadley" was not her real name (although his logic could be that "Thirteen" is her real name). Nonetheless, since the last name has indeed been spoken on the show now, I think we can justify including the reference to what was seen on the ballot and mentioning her last name. I wouldn't jump to start renaming everything "Remy Hadley" yet, though. (Eventually, maybe, but not yet.) That's my take. Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with including both facts: "Remy Hadley" on the ballot and "Dr. Hadley" spoken by Cuddy. Cburnett (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the article accordingly. We present the facts as they are and draw no conclusions. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"According to a ballot briefly seen but not explicitly described in "Mirror Mirror" that lists the six remaining applicants [1], her real name is "Remy Hadley"." - Isn't that still a bit OR still? The ballott never says thirteen=Remy Hadly. Saying so still requires some connecting the dots on our part. Wouldn't it be better if we said, only Remy Hadley is unaccounted for and Cuddy's referring to her as Dr. Hadley suggests its thirteen's name? --soum ^talk 05:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cuddy's referring to her as Dr. Hadley suggests its thirteen's name?" - it does more than suggest it. If you're going to take that logic, how do we know anyone's name is DEFINITELY what they're being referred to as? If Cuddy calls her Dr Hadley, Hadley must be her last name. That's how the rules of western naming conventions go. Additionally, if the only person left unaccounted for is a Dr Remy Hadley, then logically that must be her. I don't see how any of this is unclear to anyone possessing at least half a brain. You know, unless you think there were 2 Dr Hadleys applying at the same time. But then, wouldn't that be more speculative than editing in the obvious truth? 124.148.41.66 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no consensus on how reliable a source that ballot is, given that it appeared very briefly on screen and has never been explicitly described in the show nor referred to by outside reliable sources (e.g., the show's producers, writers, or actors). Some argue it is canon, some argue it isn't. Regardless of that, there's also the fact that, although Cuddy called Thirteen "Dr. Hadley," House then went and said that Cuddy got Thirteen's name wrong. So, Cuddy says that Thirteen's last name is Hadley, but House says it isn't. Now, it's quite possible (and I believe) that House was being sarcastic. (Maybe, according to him, Thirteen's real name is "Thirteen.") But, we don't know for sure. Also, the first name ("Remy") has not yet been spoken on the show. Now, given all of these bits and pieces of evidence, I certainly think that Thirteen's real name is "Remy Hadley." But, that's my conclusion drawn from the various bits of information that the show provides (the ballot being a VERY subtle clue). Our job here, though, is not to connect the dots for readers but simply to point out what's been said on the show and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. That is why there are a lot of "maybes" and "implies" and such here. --Hnsampat (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

""Cuddy's referring to her as Dr. Hadley suggests its thirteen's name?" - I used "its" to refer to "Remy" not "Dr. Hadley". Sorry, should have been clearer. I never said we should ignore the ballot. What I said was that we should still not refer to the ballot and say "thirteen" is Remy Hadley canonically ("According to a ballot ... that lists the six remaining applicants [1], her real name is "Remy Hadley")- because that connection has not been confirmed officially. I still think we should state that it was the only name that was unaccounted for, and Cuddy's referring to her as Dr. Hadley suggests that "Remy Hadley" indeed is her real name. --soum ^talk 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You and I agree. We just said it a little differently. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So, apparently, the ballot is not a reliable source after all. According to FOX.com, her real name is "Rena Hadley" not "Remy Hadley". For more, please see Talk:Thirteen (House)#Rena Hadley. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncharacteristic behaviour on House's part

I've edited Amber's entry to reflect the implications of House's rather un-Houselike behaviour toward her in the most recent episode, I'd like to take this chance to explain my reasoning. He displayed serious concern for her ("Stay with me" - he himself remarked it was not like him), not to mention affection toward her "stand in" in his initial flashbacks/hallucinations. Given that we've already seen concern as an obvious giveaway for emotional attachment ("Frozen", he shows concern for the woman in antarctica; other characters note this means he has feelings for her, a sentiment he does not contradict), it is strong evidence to SUGGEST an illicit affair. I'll acknowledge that it doesn't cement it as being fact, however the only other choice is to assume that House has all of a sudden undergone a practical character reversal. I'd like it if either my edit remained intact, or was further edited to remove any bias or over-speculation. 124.148.41.66 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speculation isn't significant evidence. Is it stated so anywhere as canon, in any episode? Or in any other reliable source? If not, then it isn't enough for Wikipedia. Debate all you want in fan forums, once incontrovertible evidence is presented, it can be included here. It doesn't belong here till then. --soum ^talk 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, more likely than not, much of this speculation is going to be put to rest with next week's season finale, so let's hold off until then. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And with this week's episode, we see once again why we should be careful about how quick we are to speculate. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortening "Thirteen"

Since Thirteen has her own article (Thirteen (House)), I thought to shorten her section on this page to a summary and provide a link to the main article. I figured that this would centralize all of the information about her on a single page. Sound good? --Hnsampat (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary additions

Some unnecessary additions have been made to the page, especially pertaining to Amber, due to the events of tonight's episode. Keep your eyes out, people. 68.227.163.40 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Organigram

User:IByte clearly put some effort into making the organigram currently on the page and that's commendable. However, do we really need to have it on the page? It's not like Princeton-Plainsboro has some kind of complicated hierarchy that we need a visual to help us understand it. I feel like it unnecessarily clutters the page. Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary, but not harmful either, in my opinion. And it could possibly be useful on this page, if someone just wants to get the gist of it right away and not have to read the entire article just to get the basics; sort of like an infobox. I'm either way on this. faithless (^speak) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Taub

So how come Taub doesn't have his own article? Did he have one in the past and it was got rid of or anything? Seems odd whatever the reason. I'd make one myself, but I'm not sure I could get it up to the same standard as Thirteen's article, though I could probably get it to Kutner's standard. Still, I don't fully understand the character personally, he seems rather ambiguous (more so than Thirteen even although that sounds silly), so it would be hard for me to write about him. Deamon138 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's gotten around to making a Taub article yet. I suppose the main reason is that we don't know much about him. But, I suppose we could start one and make it at least at the level of the Kutner article. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a Taub article now as we've all been saying we needed one for months, though the infomation made need tidying a little (some of the characterisation in biography and vire versa). I'm currently very tired so I will try and get around to it next week if nobody else beats me to it (hint hint) 86.131.166.103 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that you will have to register an account if you want to create a new page? Deamon138 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, page already existed as a redirect! Silly me! Deamon138 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know more than me so I just thought I'd mention that if you search Chris Taub it's still redirecting rahter than going straight to his page and I haven't a clue why. Any ideas? 86.131.180.171 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Past vs Present tense

I noticed my attempt at putting the numbers into past tense was reverted. I see that this was probably because the rest of the info about the other applicants was still in the present tense. Would it have been okay if everything else was in the past tense? I think we should be working towards getting everything into the right tenses, i.e. getting all past events into the past tense. It's not like we don't have anything in the past tense on this page, as a quick example, about Foreman it says, "During that time, he saved a patient's life by going against their protocols." That's past tense. I believe we should be identifying the passage of time whenever it happens, and not just with the main characters. Deamon138 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Per this guideline, articles on fictional subjects are written in the present tense. faithless (^speak) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that fictional events are not actual historic events and therefore do not exist in the past. Hence, we don't use past tense when referring to them. I know we tend to think that the events of an episode that aired last week occurred last week, but that's really not true; if we watch last week's episode again today, then the events "occur" all over again. This is why things like past tense and statements about a character's "current" status (e.g., "Amber is currently deceased") are meaningless. For more information, check out WP:TENSE and an excellent discussion of the subject at Talk:The West Wing/Archive 2#Regarding literary present tense (was and is). Hope this helps! --Hnsampat (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links guys: it makes sense now! One thing does strike me as odd though, it may just be a mistake, or it might be meant to be like that, but it's this: there are places in this (and other fictional articles) where past tense is used (e.g. the quote about Foreman I used above). Is this reconcilable with the fact this sort of stuff should be in the present tense? Deamon138 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the context of the Foreman quote is, but if it's about something that happened in some episode, then we use present tense. The only time that we would use past tense when referring to fictional events would be if they are in the past tense in the work of fiction as well. For example, we never see the birth of Gregory House and it is treated as a past event throughout the entire show. So, we can say "House was born [insert date of birth here]." However, we can't say, for instance, that "Amber died at the end of the 4th season." In that case, it would instead be correct to say that "Amber dies at the end of the 4th season." We should go through the article and correct the tenses accordingly. (Really, what I would like to do is to either initiate a Wikipedia policy or guideline or maybe something at WikiProject Television to get this corrected in all fiction-related articles, especially the television-related ones, as they are probably subject to tense errors the most due to their ongoing, episodic nature.) --Hnsampat (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The context (I think) was at the start of season 4 when Foreman was working at the other hospital and he saved a patient similarly to the way he killed that woman near the end of season 3 (incidentally I just watched that episode!). So it would be similar to your Amber point you make here. I apologize for my argument above that initiated the past vs present tense section here, I didn't carry my argument through to it's conclusion which would appear to lead to a logical absurdity (pointed out to me in those two links). If you (or someone else) initiate something about a using the present tense in fiction guideline/policy, let me know and I'll back you up! Deamon138 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologize, you didn't do anything wrong! Glad to know that I have your support. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just add that past tense may be used in relative referencing to help contextualize something. Consider this example: "Since House had just lied to get the patient to agree to treatment, Wilson wonders aloud whether House is lying to him, too." The main idea is still in present tense; past tense is used to refer to something related that had happened earlier in the show/series relative to the (in-universe "current") event being described. Memetics (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Walter House

I dont know about you guys, but I'm thinking that we should add Walter House, underneath family members. He was the hallucination of a character that appeared in the episode Mirror Mirror, and was said to be House's grandfather. Later, we found out that he wasn't real,but he was in the show, and I think he deserves a mention. Aibs 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He was not real. He was only a patient's hallucination. It is pure trivia. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay: Walter may not worth a listing here. (I didn't see the episode yet.) However, in general, that a character is a hallucination doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to reject the character as "pure trivia." (Hobbes, from Calvin and Hobbes, provides a counter-example of sorts.) A recurring character that only manifests as a hallucination would seem to merit a listing as a character, as would a hallucinatory character who only showed up once but was significant to the plot. Seems to me that a listing decision should only be made depending on factors like recurrence and plot significance.

If Walter had a significant effect on the plot, then I'd say list him - not strictly as a "family member," but perhaps in his own category, to distinguish him from "real" family members. Otherwise, I'd agree that an entry for Walter would be ... well, "trivial." Memetics (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

His grandfather isn't actually Walter. I remember Wilson saying, "You have a Grandpa Walter?" and then House says, "No...etc" Deamon138 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I knew he was a hallucination, but I figured since he was mentioned in the show he might deserve a spot. Im new to wikipedia, so Im glad I got an opinion first. Aibs 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdy117 (talk • contribs)

Why the pictures?

I feel that the images of Thirteen and Kutner are completely pointless here - no other character has them on this page. They should be removed so as to match the rest of the article.Also Taub needs an article really - and then his image can be removed too.

Also is the graph showing the structure of the hospital staff really needed? It tells us that Cuddy is the boss, House,Wilson and Stacey work under her the others under House. It just seems a little stating the obvious / pointless to me. - i have no idea how to do any of this, I am merely suggesting improvements.86.131.176.213 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with each of those points. The pictures of the characters belong in their respective articles and (as I stated above) the flowchart is unnecessary clutter. --Hnsampat (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok so if there's no objections I'll delete the pictures of Thirteen and Kutner from this page in two or three days time. Taub's can still until there is an article made specifically for him (as I lack the skills to do that myself) 81.132.45.145 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

new character

Lucas, the Private investigator from the latest episodes needs a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.177 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Amber should get her own page

I think that Amber is important enough to get her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.68.173 (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blythe House's name

Is House's mother's name a reference to Blythe Danner? The character's backstory is very similar to Blythe Danner's character in The Great Santini: the wife of an abusive Marine aviator.

PhantomWSO (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be though no sources appear to state so. So if you were thinking of adding it to the article then you'd need to reference it. Swanny92 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

House's precognition/Amber's poisoning

"In the two-part season 4 finale, Amber is involved in a bus crash alongside House, who had seen symptoms of an unknown disease in her immediately before the crash, later found to be amantadine poisoning caused by kidney damage in the crash." -- I can't make heads or tails of this sentence...could someone who knows the show better than I do rephrase it? How would House see symptoms of amantadine poisoning in Amber "immediately before" the crash if the poisoning was due to kidney damage that happened "in the crash"? Esk (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

makes perfect sense if you've seen the two episodes. go to http://www.surfthechannel.com/show/99.html click on season 4, ep 15 & 16. Headlikeawhole (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

this article's subheading structure was a liiiiittle wacky

before I started tweaking certain headings. I think they are a little tough to follow. but I just NEED the world to know that chase and cameron are still on the show. morrison and spencer still get billing during the opening credit/theme. Headlikeawhole (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kutner's death

Might be worth adding the fact that the character 'Lawrence Kutner' is now dead, I refrained from editing though because the section says that it is intentionally short and that any new information should be added to his main character page, however, I think this piece of information is quite important and is worth having on this page. Thoughts? 81.129.112.16 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutthroat Bitch split

I think Amber should be a separate article, because she's appeared in a tonne of episodes last season, and she's appeared this season, seeing as Tritter has his own article, Amber seems to have more episodes under her belt. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't she be listed as a main character for season 4? Shouldn't several of the interviewees be listed as part of the main characters for season 4? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone else does it. I'll pitch in. --GOPTeen1995 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Amber Season Finale Vicodin

In the most recent season finale, it's revealed that House hasn't detoxed and resumes seeing Amber hallucinations. If you look at the bottles in the recap though, he isn't taking vicodin at all, but rather a prescription ending in -codone. This should be changed in the Amber section.131.202.11.233 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vicodin — Generic Name: acetaminophen/hydrocodone. (Google search.) Memetics (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 Team

We do not fully know who the team will be in this new season until the actual episodes are shown, which they have not

Darryl Nolan

Dr. Darryl Nolan has appeared in two episodes, making him a recurring character this season rather then just a one time guest star. I have written a biography on him and entered him into the characters section. --NJObama2008 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dibala

Alright, hear me out. I realize he only appeared in one episode. But it seems as though he will definately prove to be a very influential character who may eventually determine what characters stay on the show or not. Bascially I'm saying he should have a section on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.184.132 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Taub's Wife

Doesn't anyone else think that Taub's wife (I think her name is Rachel) should have an entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Head of Surgery

I removed Chase from the list of department heads because there's no evidence he was ever in such a position, plus in 5 to 9, Cuddy is confronted by a doctor who describes Chase as "...a doctor I only took on in the first place because of pressure from you". He later asks "You want to convene a search committee and start looking for a new chief of surgery?", to which Cuddy replies "No Dave". When she walks into the conference room, the chairman asks "Is there a problem with Dr. Thomas?". The only conclusion is that a "Dr. Dave Thomas" was chief of surgery.

Since the column in the table now becomes somewhat pointless... shouldn't it just be removed? In fact, the entire table is a bit pointless to be honest. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing a column for the above reason is one thing. Removing the entire table because you think it's "pointless" is altogether different. Please wait for a consensus. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well can anybody supply me with a good reason why it should be kept? It doesn't add anything to the article and is factually inaccurate in at least one place. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Three days with no reason for keeping it: I've deleted it again. Please don't simply re-add without discussion. The table is not accurate and offers an oversimplified version of the characters' history. --rpeh •T•C•E• 09:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Cuddy

Who plays her? Zabaznov (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Kayla Colbert. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

...although I also see a Rylie Colbert being credited for the same episodes. I've left it as Kayla for now on the article. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanx! Zabaznov (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I proposed this article be merged with List of House characters. This is a minor supporting character in a television show. A lot of the content is in-universe or trivial details which read like something out of a soap opera. This content could easily be trimmed and added to List of House characters. It seems the article mainly consists of fandom. Boone jenner (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Boone is referring to Lisa Cuddy, hardly a "minor supporting character", IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose If it's about Lisa Cuddy or Thirteen,

Neurosurgeon

Dr. Richardson, a neurosurgeon played by George Wyner in "Now What?" (Season 7, Episode 1). --Djadjko (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of House characters. 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/20090508163254/http://www.hulu.com/watch/4406/house-creator---david-shore to http://www.hulu.com/watch/4406/house-creator---david-shore
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907061010/http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/31/michael-weston-returns-to-house/ to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/31/michael-weston-returns-to-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) 05:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)