Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House)/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Pilot (House) Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:20, 5 October 2006 editThe Filmaker (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,873 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:05, 20 December 2022 edit undoSheep8144402 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers33,719 editsm →[]: fix linter errors using AWBTag: AWB 
(58 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
Self-nom. After working on the entire ''] ]'', I decided to work on something smaller. I decided to try to get the first episode article FA. It has received a copyedit from ] and has been rated as a ] and has had ]. <s>I will address what might seem to be a major flaw in the article, as a user may ask about providing the ratings for the episode. I can honestly say that I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find anything on the ratings for the show. If anyone can provide a site that does or may have them I would be extremely grateful.</s> Otherwise, I think that this article fulfills the FA criteria. ] 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Restarting the nomination () The old nominations made a number of referneces to a medical glossary (which rightly appears to have been deleted). ] 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Support''' per my own nom. ] 00:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It's okay, but I don't think that the featured article should be on a single episode of House. Possibly the actual show, but not this. Plus, this is almost as short as a stub.~]
**As it's been stated before, featured articles are not chosen by topic. In a perfect world, every article on Misplaced Pages would be a featured article. Length is also not an issue, there is no maximum or minimum for a featured article. The article is broad in coverage, that is what is important. ] 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Support''' per my original nom. ] 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I supported before and now the article has improved. ] 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''object''' you may not accept my objection, but at least my consciense doesn't feel guilt for doing nothing. I would support it for it to be deleted though. Plus, it is a bit more than a stub and no behing the scenes pictures. --] 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
**Well, yes, your objection is inactionable and therefore Raul will disregard it. But the article is too big to be worked into an episode guide, hence why it should not be deleted as it's information is relevent. And, for the record, a behind the scenes photo would only be pushed down to the synopsis section by the infobox. ] 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, but please change the name from ''Featured Articles'' to ''Featured Trivia''. I did my share, so that's not my problem anymore. The article is too long?!?! No it isn't; it lacks a lot of useless behind-the-scenes "stuff". The article's style looks fine though, so many useful articles at stub-level, people loose time with this. --] 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
***I did not say that the article was too long, I said it was too long to be merged with the episode guide. I'm starting to lose sight of exactly what your objecting to. Your first sentence sounds as if you're calling the article trivial. Than you make a sarcastic (I hope) claim that there needs to be more useless "stuff". And I haven't a clue what you're getting at with your last sentence. Apparently, you've done your share. So why do you keep coming back? ] 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I also supported before and I concur--the article has improved. As before, it is well-written, concise, and is formatted with excellence. --] 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak support'''. Much of the creation and critical reception section seem to be just as applicable to the series as a while instead of just this episode; I don't see any pressing need to structure this information in this way. That's not really an actionable objection, though, and this is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''Object''' no character or cast list. Too short and hence not enough depth. On a project scale, I'd only rate this B-class. ] 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
** Even though there isn't a list for this particular episode, there is information about the cast and characters of the series at the bottom of the article. --] 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
**A cast list would be redundant with the '']'' article, Robin Tunney is the only notable guest star and is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. Your objection of it being "too short" is inactionable. ] 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I was not sure a few weeks ago, but I am now. My support is leaning towards weakish due to the concerns of AMIBlack (bet you've never seen that abbreviation before!), but either way, this is, in most regards, an exemplary article. -- ] 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' comprehensive and well-written. ] 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' best espisote article I seen in wikipedia. ] ] 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. This just doesn't represent our best work. The prose isn't captivating. Only 11 citations. <s>The article isn't even correctly named (it should be ] surely?)</s> --] 09:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
** While I can't argue your opinion about the prose or citations without knowing specifics, I can say that the title is correct. The naming guidelines at the television project say "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name." So it is correct not to say Pilot (House episode). ] 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
***Thanks. The guidelines are wrong then ;) It looks like an article about a House called Pilot to me :) --] 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
**Thanks to Jay for explaining the title. As for the rest of your objections, I'm not paticularly able to satisfy your objection to the prose not being captivating as I'm unsure how the prose is ''not'' captivating. As of right now, an objection like that is just as inactionable as only saying that the article is not wikipedia's best work (mind you, I know that's not all your saying). The article may only have 11 citations, but the article is relatively short, therefore it is not in-need of anymore. Everything is cited, that's what is important. Not how many citations there are. ] 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
***FAC has two components: are there actionable objections, and is there consensus that this is one of Misplaced Pages's best articles. I feel that whilst there are no actionable objections I can make, that this article isn't FA standard. Note that ] and ] said pretty much the same thing. --] 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good prose and follows the same structure as the relevant Wikiproject outlines, in fact, does it better
* '''object''' is a copyvio from . user:Dr. Zaius alledit is copyvio. see ]--] 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
**A version of the page is a copyvio, not the verison that's nominated for featuring. ] 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ **Yes, and your objection is inactionable. ] 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
***Not to mention the fact that it's obvious that the website in question got it from Misplaced Pages.--] 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' rather weakly</s>; I really wish it was longer, but perhaps it is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say. Could there be any potential for expansion in the plot synopsis section? ] 09:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
**To expand the synopsis section, merely to make the article longer would be uncomprehensive. ] 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
***I don't follow. ] 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
****The writing on Misplaced Pages is meant to be as short yet understandable as possible. To expand the section merely to make the article longer would result in unneeded fluff, going against the featured article criteria. ] 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*****Also, if the synopsis is too detailed then it may serve a s a replacement for watching the episode, which is a big "no-no". ] 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
******This is an incorrect philosophy, so if the writing of the article was based on it I must assume the article is seriously flawed. Therefore I change my vote to '''Oppose'''. ] 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*******Please note that the objection is currently not actionableand is direct contradiction with Misplaced Pages's standards. ] 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
********How so? ] 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*********Misplaced Pages calls for clear concise articles, trivial detail is always frowned upon. Because of copyright concerns, we can never do anything that serves as a replacement for copyrighted media. That means the plot synopsis cannot be more detailed than it already is. Length in itself is not a concern of featured artciles; comprehensiveness is. If you feel a major topic has been left out, that would be actionable, but saying "everything is there but the article is still too short" is not actionable. ] 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*Yes, per Jay above. Your first downfall is that you are "assuming" that the writing is flawed, your vote should not be merely based on assumption. For my "incorrect philosophy" I will point you towards the ] as well as ]. I would most likely be able to find other policy pages that state this "incorrect philosophy". Your objection isn't so much inactionable (as I could expand the synopsis section) it is actually irrationale, as it goes against the featured article criteria. Therefore it will most likely be disregarded by Raul654. Unless he happens to say otherwise. ] 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
**He might disregard my objection, but the protests from you two are absurd. I object to featuring an article when its authors acknowledge that they have written the article from a deletionist standpoint, because that tells me the article must be fundamentally inadequate and non-comprehensive. That's based on an assumption, but it's about as reliable an assumption as they come. ] 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
***I am certainly no deletionist, nor an author of this article. However, there is a general consensus on Misplaced Pages not to include trivia, because trivia is trivial rather than encyclopedic. It is not absurd to refuse to make this a fan guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Again I must say, that adding further detail to the synopsis risks serving as a replacement for the episode, which creates a legal issue we don't want to deal with. Detail should only be added for the necessity of understanding, not for the sake of length. If you look at the featured article criteria you will notice no minimum length requirement. If there is an important, non-trivial detail that you feel is missing, then mention it. ] 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
****So you're attributing viewpoints to me that I don't hold, great. A) I did not request the inclusion of "trivia". B) I do not want the article to be a "fan guide" as opposed to an encyclopedia article. C) Your purported legal concerns sound preposterous, and I cannot see how, even if I accepted the basic validity of that argument, a meaningful distinction can be made in that regard between the article as it is now and the article with one or two additional paragraphs. D) "Length" is being used as shorthand for comprehensiveness concerns; the brevity of an article is typically a good indicator of its comprehensiveness. Note that in my original support, I specifically said "...perhaps is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say." It was only when I started hearing defensive and strange comments about "unneeded fluff" that I got alarmed. ] 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*****The article cannot get any longer without adding trivia. You are asking for a longer article. Therefore you are asking for trivia. Not only is that argument valid, it is sound because both premises are true. You cannot judge the comprehensiveness of an article by its length, you must actually read the article and decide whether or not it seems something is missing. That's why I've been asking you to spell out exactly what you think is missing, otherwise your objection isn't actionable. Basically, if you say what you want added rather than saying the article seems short, we are likely to handle your request. ] 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
******If there is nothing more to add, then that is, as I said at the beginning, fine with me. Contrary to your continual claims, I never did anything more than ask if there was any potential for expansion. You two jumped into an overreaction, as if I was flatly asserting the need for greater length unconditionally, and started ridiculing "useless fluff", "trivia", and giving me some bizarre, turned-on-its-head definition of comprehensiveness. Now there's been so much deletionism exposed that I can't trust that the article is comprehensive at this point. ] 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
*******I think that you guys have lost the issue at hand. Here's the long and short of it. Everyking asked if there was any room for expansion in the synopsis section. The answer is no if we are going to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines for quality articles. Plot synopsis sections are written to be a short and yet understandable as possible. Certain elements of the episode are not mentioned in detail because they are not essential to the plot for the reader to comprehend it. To add these small ''trivial'' elements in would go against many policies that Misplaced Pages has set in place. This is not deletionist stand point, my own userpage I call myself an inclusionist. As ] puts it, trivia is classified as "interesting but not important". The characters discussing their criminal records does not have a large baring on the plot, therefore it is not included in the article because it is ''trivial''. If I expand the synopsis section, than the information added would only be trivial moments such as this (or "fluff") in order to make the synopsis section bigger. ] 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
'''Stop'''. The report that this is a copyvio is, I'm afraid, correct. The early edits are clear copies from earlier-dated revisions on an incompatibly licensed wiki, certain passages are preserved intact into the present revision; much of the rest, due to the incremental development of the article, would probably be considered a derivative work of an incompatibly licensed source. I have refrained from deleting this outright at the moment, but large parts of this will probably have to go, and the whole thing may have to be restarted. Please bring any discussion/insights to ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:I . Fortunately, the sections we had in common, "Plot" and "Behind the scenes", had been extensively edited until there were only a few stray phrases taken word for word. "Behind the scenes" only had two stray phrases left&mdash;"House counters that she cannot fire him"&mdash;the rest of the information was never mentioned on the version just before the September 1 update of TV I.V. "Reception", "References" and "External links" are most definitely not plagiarized from TV I.V.


:I just wish I knew how to rephrase, "in the initial casting session for the role of House."--] 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', As episode articles go, this is very good. But neither of these sentences are clear:
::"In the preliminary casting phase for an actor to play house," perhaps. --] 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
**"Cuddy attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's clinic which he despises."
:::Thank you.--] 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
**"The dialogue in 'House' attempts to use real medical hypothesis of the patient's condition." ] 01:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
::All parallel sentences I found are listed at ]. You might want to fix those in the temporary subpage. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
***Both sentences have been rewritten. ] 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I helped copyedit this article, and think it is very good, it is nice to blaze new trails in featured articles :) ] 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
*In general, it looks nice. Quick question before I support. Later episodes mention the Plot Arc development, but in the pilot are there any foreshadowings towards future plot developments? ] (<small>]</small>) 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
**The format of having sections on arc developments is non-comprehensive, the format of this article is not meant to follow that of the other articles. Any plot or character developments that could be relevent to the rest of the series can be found inside the Synopsis section. Such as House's dislike of the clinic and his explanation of his limp. ] 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
***OK, just checking. '''Support'''. BTW, great TV show, I must say. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The word "episode" in the article title seems unnecessary. The format recommended by the television project would have the title ]. ] 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
⚫ **The article has been renamed as such. ] 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
***'''Support''' The article is comprehensive and avoids useless trivia, speaking from experience, that is hard to maintain for this type of article. The references are in limited number, but the article is short, so it seems appropriate. The only complaint I could have at this point isn't worthy of objecting, or even remaining neutral. That complaint is that the Season 1 template is causing a self-referential link, which I'm sure anyone familiar with template code can fix. ] 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
****Fixed. ;) ] 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
*<s>(Conditional) Oppose</s> The article (Reception section) should include information about the episode's original ratings. ] 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
**As I stated in the nomination for this article, I've searched high and low for the original ratings for the episode but have turned up nothing. If someone provides a link to a website that may have them, than I will gladly include them. ] 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Just take a look at the main House article: ]. ] 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I've added info on the ratings to the reception section. ] 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Neutral''' I think the article is rather short overall, though I'm not sure whether there is more information available. ] 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Short and sweet. Couldn't find anything out of place, though this article doesn't quite tread in the domains most other articles fail. — ] (]) 13:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' a little too short I believe ,but at the same time I doubt you can extend an article like this much further.Citations are done nicely and overall it is written good ] 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
*'''Support'''. Well written and well organized; not long but very much to the point.] 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Object'''. A fourth of the article is a medical glossary. Another paragraph is a loose, OR-ish (even if referenced) comparison to Sherlock Holmes. The sentence "Singer commented on how well this "American actor" was able to grasp the character, unbeknownst to him at the time, Laurie is British." Most of the rest is a staid plot sypnosis. Respectfully, I contend that this is not Misplaced Pages's best work. And the topic very much limits its potential; how about a FAC on the ''series'' House?. –]&nbsp;] 01:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
**Your objection is inactionable. I can't do anything about the medical glossary being a fourth of the article, short of expanding the article with useless trivia. "OR-ish (even if referenced)" the definition of OR is unreferenced material, this material is referenced. You haven't completed your objection to Singer's comment on Laurie the "american actor". Again, I can't do anything about the synopsis than I can with medical glossary. To simply say "this is not Misplaced Pages's best work" is again, inactionable. And an article's potential is not based on it's limits inside of it's topic, as long as the article is thorough on whatever that topic might be. Featured articles are not chosen based on topic. ] 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Support'''. Short, well-referenced, the sentences flow easily (thanks to my copyeditting), succinct. You may want another screenshot... ] may be able to help you out there... I know there's one in the infobox, but one more can't hurt... Whatever. It's up to you. ], ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ]</sub> Save ]! 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' very good article ] 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' whilst I fail to understand why not make House itself featured, I have to recognise great work nonetheless. ] 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''
**The comparison to Sherlock Holmes is original research, sourced only to a fansite. A fansite's theory, unreferenced anywhere else, isn't material for an encyclopedia.
**The "medical terms" section is...well, a mess. It's referenced to a half-dozen pages that have nothing to do with House, it's unnecessary (why not just wikilink these terms from the plot summary?), it bloats the article...ugh. This is a list of trivia, albeit not a bulleted list; there's no need to define every single medical term used in the episode.
**The behind the scenes section is sourced entirely to a special feature on the House DVD, save for a single quote from Inside The Actors' Studio.
*:The only section that is well-referenced to something other than primary sources is the critical reception section. This just isn't FA material. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
::I've added a reference for the Holmes references from the Philidelphia Inquirer. I also added another reference to the BTS section, making the DVD references the minority. And I've removed the medical terms section. ] 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:05, 20 December 2022

Pilot (House)

Restarting the nomination (Old nom) The old nominations made a number of referneces to a medical glossary (which rightly appears to have been deleted). Raul654 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It's okay, but I don't think that the featured article should be on a single episode of House. Possibly the actual show, but not this. Plus, this is almost as short as a stub.~Happyfacesrock
    • As it's been stated before, featured articles are not chosen by topic. In a perfect world, every article on Misplaced Pages would be a featured article. Length is also not an issue, there is no maximum or minimum for a featured article. The article is broad in coverage, that is what is important. The Filmaker 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my original nom. The Filmaker 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I supported before and now the article has improved. Jay32183 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • object you may not accept my objection, but at least my consciense doesn't feel guilt for doing nothing. I would support it for it to be deleted though. Plus, it is a bit more than a stub and no behing the scenes pictures. --Pedro 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, your objection is inactionable and therefore Raul will disregard it. But the article is too big to be worked into an episode guide, hence why it should not be deleted as it's information is relevent. And, for the record, a behind the scenes photo would only be pushed down to the synopsis section by the infobox. The Filmaker 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but please change the name from Featured Articles to Featured Trivia. I did my share, so that's not my problem anymore. The article is too long?!?! No it isn't; it lacks a lot of useless behind-the-scenes "stuff". The article's style looks fine though, so many useful articles at stub-level, people loose time with this. --Pedro 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I did not say that the article was too long, I said it was too long to be merged with the episode guide. I'm starting to lose sight of exactly what your objecting to. Your first sentence sounds as if you're calling the article trivial. Than you make a sarcastic (I hope) claim that there needs to be more useless "stuff". And I haven't a clue what you're getting at with your last sentence. Apparently, you've done your share. So why do you keep coming back? The Filmaker 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I also supported before and I concur--the article has improved. As before, it is well-written, concise, and is formatted with excellence. --Cliff smith 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Much of the creation and critical reception section seem to be just as applicable to the series as a while instead of just this episode; I don't see any pressing need to structure this information in this way. That's not really an actionable objection, though, and this is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object no character or cast list. Too short and hence not enough depth. On a project scale, I'd only rate this B-class. Rlevse 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was not sure a few weeks ago, but I am now. My support is leaning towards weakish due to the concerns of AMIBlack (bet you've never seen that abbreviation before!), but either way, this is, in most regards, an exemplary article. -- Kicking222 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support comprehensive and well-written. Cardinals57 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support best espisote article I seen in wikipedia. Jaranda 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This just doesn't represent our best work. The prose isn't captivating. Only 11 citations. The article isn't even correctly named (it should be Pilot (House episode) surely?) --kingboyk 09:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • While I can't argue your opinion about the prose or citations without knowing specifics, I can say that the title is correct. The naming guidelines at the television project say "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name." So it is correct not to say Pilot (House episode). Jay32183 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Jay for explaining the title. As for the rest of your objections, I'm not paticularly able to satisfy your objection to the prose not being captivating as I'm unsure how the prose is not captivating. As of right now, an objection like that is just as inactionable as only saying that the article is not wikipedia's best work (mind you, I know that's not all your saying). The article may only have 11 citations, but the article is relatively short, therefore it is not in-need of anymore. Everything is cited, that's what is important. Not how many citations there are. The Filmaker 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • FAC has two components: are there actionable objections, and is there consensus that this is one of Misplaced Pages's best articles. I feel that whilst there are no actionable objections I can make, that this article isn't FA standard. Note that Rlevse and Pedro said pretty much the same thing. --kingboyk 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good prose and follows the same structure as the relevant Wikiproject outlines, in fact, does it better
  • object first edit is a copyvio from this site. user:Dr. Zaius alledit is copyvio. see User talk:Dr. Zaius--Zyaudi 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support rather weakly; I really wish it was longer, but perhaps it is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say. Could there be any potential for expansion in the plot synopsis section? Everyking 09:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • To expand the synopsis section, merely to make the article longer would be uncomprehensive. The Filmaker 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't follow. Everyking 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The writing on Misplaced Pages is meant to be as short yet understandable as possible. To expand the section merely to make the article longer would result in unneeded fluff, going against the featured article criteria. The Filmaker 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Also, if the synopsis is too detailed then it may serve a s a replacement for watching the episode, which is a big "no-no". Jay32183 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • This is an incorrect philosophy, so if the writing of the article was based on it I must assume the article is seriously flawed. Therefore I change my vote to Oppose. Everyking 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Please note that the objection is currently not actionableand is direct contradiction with Misplaced Pages's standards. Jay32183 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
                • How so? Everyking 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Misplaced Pages calls for clear concise articles, trivial detail is always frowned upon. Because of copyright concerns, we can never do anything that serves as a replacement for copyrighted media. That means the plot synopsis cannot be more detailed than it already is. Length in itself is not a concern of featured artciles; comprehensiveness is. If you feel a major topic has been left out, that would be actionable, but saying "everything is there but the article is still too short" is not actionable. Jay32183 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Jay above. Your first downfall is that you are "assuming" that the writing is flawed, your vote should not be merely based on assumption. For my "incorrect philosophy" I will point you towards the featured article criteria as well as WP:TPA. I would most likely be able to find other policy pages that state this "incorrect philosophy". Your objection isn't so much inactionable (as I could expand the synopsis section) it is actually irrationale, as it goes against the featured article criteria. Therefore it will most likely be disregarded by Raul654. Unless he happens to say otherwise. The Filmaker 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • He might disregard my objection, but the protests from you two are absurd. I object to featuring an article when its authors acknowledge that they have written the article from a deletionist standpoint, because that tells me the article must be fundamentally inadequate and non-comprehensive. That's based on an assumption, but it's about as reliable an assumption as they come. Everyking 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am certainly no deletionist, nor an author of this article. However, there is a general consensus on Misplaced Pages not to include trivia, because trivia is trivial rather than encyclopedic. It is not absurd to refuse to make this a fan guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Again I must say, that adding further detail to the synopsis risks serving as a replacement for the episode, which creates a legal issue we don't want to deal with. Detail should only be added for the necessity of understanding, not for the sake of length. If you look at the featured article criteria you will notice no minimum length requirement. If there is an important, non-trivial detail that you feel is missing, then mention it. Jay32183 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're attributing viewpoints to me that I don't hold, great. A) I did not request the inclusion of "trivia". B) I do not want the article to be a "fan guide" as opposed to an encyclopedia article. C) Your purported legal concerns sound preposterous, and I cannot see how, even if I accepted the basic validity of that argument, a meaningful distinction can be made in that regard between the article as it is now and the article with one or two additional paragraphs. D) "Length" is being used as shorthand for comprehensiveness concerns; the brevity of an article is typically a good indicator of its comprehensiveness. Note that in my original support, I specifically said "...perhaps is adequate for a TV show episode, and there may be nothing else to say." It was only when I started hearing defensive and strange comments about "unneeded fluff" that I got alarmed. Everyking 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The article cannot get any longer without adding trivia. You are asking for a longer article. Therefore you are asking for trivia. Not only is that argument valid, it is sound because both premises are true. You cannot judge the comprehensiveness of an article by its length, you must actually read the article and decide whether or not it seems something is missing. That's why I've been asking you to spell out exactly what you think is missing, otherwise your objection isn't actionable. Basically, if you say what you want added rather than saying the article seems short, we are likely to handle your request. Jay32183 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • If there is nothing more to add, then that is, as I said at the beginning, fine with me. Contrary to your continual claims, I never did anything more than ask if there was any potential for expansion. You two jumped into an overreaction, as if I was flatly asserting the need for greater length unconditionally, and started ridiculing "useless fluff", "trivia", and giving me some bizarre, turned-on-its-head definition of comprehensiveness. Now there's been so much deletionism exposed that I can't trust that the article is comprehensive at this point. Everyking 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I think that you guys have lost the issue at hand. Here's the long and short of it. Everyking asked if there was any room for expansion in the synopsis section. The answer is no if we are going to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines for quality articles. Plot synopsis sections are written to be a short and yet understandable as possible. Certain elements of the episode are not mentioned in detail because they are not essential to the plot for the reader to comprehend it. To add these small trivial elements in would go against many policies that Misplaced Pages has set in place. This is not deletionist stand point, my own userpage I call myself an inclusionist. As WP:AVTRIV puts it, trivia is classified as "interesting but not important". The characters discussing their criminal records does not have a large baring on the plot, therefore it is not included in the article because it is trivial. If I expand the synopsis section, than the information added would only be trivial moments such as this (or "fluff") in order to make the synopsis section bigger. The Filmaker 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop. The report that this is a copyvio is, I'm afraid, correct. The early edits are clear copies from earlier-dated revisions on an incompatibly licensed wiki, certain passages are preserved intact into the present revision; much of the rest, due to the incremental development of the article, would probably be considered a derivative work of an incompatibly licensed source. I have refrained from deleting this outright at the moment, but large parts of this will probably have to go, and the whole thing may have to be restarted. Please bring any discussion/insights to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Other. --Robth 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I took advantage of the "temporary subpage creation" feature of the copyvio template today. Fortunately, the sections we had in common, "Plot" and "Behind the scenes", had been extensively edited until there were only a few stray phrases taken word for word. "Behind the scenes" only had two stray phrases left—"House counters that she cannot fire him"—the rest of the information was never mentioned on the version just before the September 1 update of TV I.V. "Reception", "References" and "External links" are most definitely not plagiarized from TV I.V.
I just wish I knew how to rephrase, "in the initial casting session for the role of House."--Rmky87 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"In the preliminary casting phase for an actor to play house," perhaps. --Zeality 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.--Rmky87 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
All parallel sentences I found are listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Other. You might want to fix those in the temporary subpage. – Quadell 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)