Talk:Desperate Housewives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Desperate Housewives article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Desperate Housewives as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] General talk

Lynette has always been my favourite housewife, and I also thought Tom was the right man for her. Now I hate him! Can anyone in the USA tell me if he gets his comeuppance? Speedway 11:33, 2 April 2005 (GMT)

We haven't seen his comeuppance...yet. However since Doug Savant has been added as a regular for next season I doubt Lynette will leave him or at least for a long-term. So far the "biggest" secret we've seen over here is Andrew's rather unusual tastes. 3:49, 9 April 2005 (GMT)

I don't understand why Paul dug up the body/toychest in the first episode. Why didn't he just leave it where it was?

[===]I agree, why did Paul Young dig up the toychest? If he had left it where it was (buried underneath the pool) nobody would have found it and he and Zach could have continued to live their lives on the show. I understand the toychest adds to the shows development on a different tangent, but, really if one killed another person and hid the body, why would a killer expose themself by exposing clues and evidence of a dead/missing person? I don't get it.[[[User:221.147.16.224|221.147.16.224]] 08:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)]

[===] In the pilot's last scene after the girls find the note and the camera pulls away showing the lawn, Mary Alice's "ghost" is not standing on the lawn looking at the girls. I paused and frame-by-frame forwarded the scene many times and can't see a ghost on the lawn looking at the girls. According to Wikipedia, it claims the ghost is there. I'll look again, but I doubt it's there. Maybe I just don't see it. Can someone clearly explain where the ghost is located on the lawn, using reference points so I can see it? Thanks. [[[User:221.147.16.224|221.147.16.224]] 08:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)]

      The ghost is only there in the original pilot which never got aired.  It also features some different actors whcih got replaced in the aired pilot.

Why is there no mention that Desperate Housewives is "inspired by" the British hit show Footballer Wives? http://www.footballerswives.tv/

Um, because it's not? Certainly, they both have similarities in that they are dramedy/soap operas about wives, but they are two separate entities. 150.203.2.85 18:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

On that subject - what are the sources of the statement that DH is influenced by American Beauty? Pjär80 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes

Could someone maybe revise the list of crimes or the description, as 'Adultery' is surely not a crime as such (at least in the UK, and I would guess in the US) - although I will double check.

At the very least, surely it is not a 'major' crime.

Neo 16:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't against the law, but it is grounds for divorce so it isn't looked on by the law as 'ok'.--Speedway 16:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Divorce represents a legal proceeding; nothing to do with criminality. Under the law, divorce is 'ok' or else it would be illegal.

what's the arson (by way of explosives) in the paul young section? I can't remember that!

When did Alisa Stevens (the deaf woman) commit child neglect? Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
That is ridiculous of course she didn't commit child neglect. --Speedway 16:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
She exposed her pre-teen child to details of she and her husband's rocky marriage and forced the child to discuss these details as a translator, which is extremely neglectful. Pacian 19:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hahahaha. What a load of bull. I am exposed to my parent's rocky marriage every time they argue. Am I neglected? No, I live in a very loving home. My parents love eachother although they fight like cat and dog when they do fight. I can't really say Alisa and her husband loved eachother, but her daughter is soooo not neglected. You really need to live in the real world.--Speedway 15:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
That's not neglect. Bad parenting, possibly, but not neglect. Neglect would be leaving the child at home by herself for extended periods of time or not feeding her. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes Section - Community Input

Speedway arbitrarily decided to completely delete this section of the article without garnering input from others, which obviously is unacceptable. Wikipedia has procedures that are expected to be followed. As such the article has been reverted to the previous edit. However, I am more than willing to open the topic up for discussion, and should a concensus be reached that the section does not belong, I will remove it. Pacian 19:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously my vote is to KEEP the section in question. "Desperate Housewives" has been held up by religious and conservative groups as a huge indicator as to the decline of family and moral values in America. It is cited as evidence that people hold despicable individuals up as icons and heroes. This section (which is referenced at the beginning of the article in a statement about said conservative groups) serves as a guideline and point of reference for display of exactly what kind of things these groups object to. It is relevant, is it accurate and it is a positive contribution to the article. It should stay. Pacian 19:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be kept. It needs a bit of editing, since adultery isn't technically a crime, in the legal sense, but it is something that the conservative groups would point to. I also don't think Alisa Stevens' "child neglect" should be included, since it's not neglect, just a bit of a bad parenting decision. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I did change the heading of the section to specify that some of the crimes listed are not criminal crimes but civil misconduct, which means that they are subject to litigation without being punishable by the law, so I think that covers that concern. Perhaps you're right about the Alisa Stevens' bit though; I suppose it is a bit of a stretch. Pacian 23:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this section on their crimes is truly unnecessary and mostly duplicated information that can be found in their little mini-bio. Second, the entire section is not an accuracy dispute. It's disputed whether it should be here, but not because of its accuracy - this tag should be removed. Lastly, the page needs a hardcore revision. I suggest we change "Plots and characters" to simply "Plots" where the "plots" of the show can then be expanded upon. The infomation in the bios we should then move to Characters of Desperate Housewives where they can be expanded if necessary. The section "Main cast" should then be changed to "Cast and Characters" with cast names and character names and a "main article link" to the page I proposed above. K1Bond007 04:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. The tag that is placed is the correct one based on the instructions provided at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy: "dispute over article content" should use the tag "disputed", as it says quite clearly. It doesn't say "dispute over article content ONLY when involving factual accuracy." Pacian 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. K1Bond007 16:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore on the discussion you brought up, if you want to talk about the "indication to the decline of family and moral values in America," then thats a different section to write about with a few examples (paragraph form), not a list of what people and the commandment/law that they've broken. I can't disagree with the section more. Some of the points you make are valid, but this is the wrong way to explain it - in fact the section as is says nothing about these being examples of the decline of moral values in America. It's just a list. K1Bond007 04:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. You would be hard pressed to assert that any of the acts listed are ones of high moral character, so simply stating that characters in the show have done these things is demonstrative of the type of things the people in question are referencing. If your disagreement is format, and not content, then don't mix your arguments. Pick one or the other, or both, but don't be vague. The goal of the list is to provide a quick point of reference to these things, not a paragraph-format oratory on the moral decline of Western civilization. You're saying it doesn't belong becaus of format, but you're not saying WHY being "just a list" is not acceptable. There are lots of lists on Wikipedia. Pacian 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Because what we don't need on this page is another list. I didn't just complain about the list, I did give a solution by saying, "if you want to talk about the "indication to the decline of family and moral values in America," then thats a different section to write about with a few examples (paragraph form), not a list of what people and the commandment/law that they've broken." I also talked about it in LENGTH in the first response I gave with suggestions for the page. Saying "this section on their crimes is truly unnecessary and mostly duplicated information that can be found in their little mini-bio." I thought both of these were pretty clear. Apparently I was incorrect. I don't feel I was vague, but I do feel that reasoning for this this list is. What is the point to this full character list where we list all their sins. I need a better reason than it's come under heavy fire by conservative groups. The Godfather as someone pointed out is continously under fire by Italian-American's for stereotyping them. Should we have a list of all the crimes in the Godfather because of this? I think not. This section is irrelevant. I hope I don't have to explain myself further. Perhaps you should explain your view more instead of merely attacking mine. K1Bond007 16:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Not attacking, merely debating/challenging. :) You have more expressly clarified your point of view with this response, and I understand it fully now. I don't agree even slightly, but I understand. Pacian 16:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep (if this is being treated as a formal poll rather than just discussion). Coming here in response to the RfC, and never having seen one minute of one episode of this show, I offer my thoughts: The section is a legitimate one. I might read a media criticism of the show for its moral depravity, and come to this article to get the lowdown. Having all these items collected in one place (instead of my having to compile the list myself from the individual bios) would be useful. The heading is poorly worded, though. It's too confusing to label the section "crimes" and then say that some of them aren't crimes. (If something's prohibited by law or has legal repercussions but the perpetrator can't be criminally prosecuted for it, then it's illegal but not a crime, except in a metaphorical sense.) I suggest changing the section heading to "Characters' misdeeds", which will pick up crimes and noncriminal bad acts. Then the sentence about what constitutes a crime can be dropped. Also, note that words in the section heading after the first word shouldn't be capitalized. Several section headings in this article need to be conformed to Wikipedia's sentence case policy. JamesMLane 05:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not a formal vote, but I thought simulating a VFD discussion would be helpful in deciding if a concensus was reached in the end. Pacian 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, But add to EP page or type up into EP page !
Hi. Please sign your comments by adding four tildas at the end of your post. What is the "EP page"? Pacian 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this section is irrelevant and I have never seen one in any other article. Whats next, a list of crimes in The Godfather or any other such film? The crimes are integral to the plot of the programme and I think that the list should be replaced by a more complete plot summary that includes these crimes with perhaps an additional mention. Additionally I dont see adultery as a crime and definately dont believe that what Lynette did could ever be classed as fraud, just because she lied doesnt make it fraud. Gfad1 15:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It's definately fraud. Misleading someone with a lie in order to gain from the lie in any way is the perpetuation of a fraud. However I respect your opinion on the relevance of the section. Pacian 16:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Vandals Opinion

So here I am, Speedway the 'vandal'. This is my reply to Pacian that I posted on his talk page. Okay whatever. I think I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know what is and what isn't vandalism. The show does not revolve around their crime(s). I think a section devoted to the various crimes - wait, the significant crimes - would be far better. Nearly every character has committed a crime of some sort, and to list them all is ridiculous and space consuming. It is also slightly pathetic. Keep the goddamn section, I'm just thinking of the aesthetic and informational qualities of the article - it brings the tone and style of the article down. I personally hate it, but hey - I am not prepared to lower my reputation by getting into a silly edit war like on the Spice Girls article. Keep it. --Speedway 15:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

And oh yeah, I think this is more of a case of your enlarged ego being deflated. Get a life, I have seen this so many times before on Wikipedia. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. - taken from the bottom of all Wikipedia edit pages. --Speedway 15:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

There you go. That's my opinion.--Speedway 15:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion seems like little more than a cry for attention. Why did you feel the need to add a new section instead of simply contributing to the section that already exists? Why did you feel the need to be sarcastic? Why did you feel the need to curse? Why did you resort to name-calling? The strength of your argument is greatly lessened by these features. An adult would be a lot more courteous. Pacian 16:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes of course. Off the top of my head, I couldn't name one reason why I would want attention....it seems you are using the oppotunity to ridicule me as an attention seeker simply because I posted on the talk page what I posted on your user page. Why did you feel the need to be condescending and patronising? Oh yes, an adult would be a lot more courteous. Is User:DrippingInk an adult?--Speedway 18:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


You can post whatever you'd like. I'm not being condescending. I'm asking you genuine questions. You are not even discussing the content of the article anymore, you're just personally attacking ME. You have yet to acknowledge that you understand that you violated wikipedia policy/procedure. You have yet to acknowledge that "merciless editing" and the complete removal of a section of an article is not the same thing. Common sense would dictate that the complete removal of a section without getting input from other users was the wrong thing to do. If you genuinely think that's wrong, I'd be happy to invite the opinion of some of my admin friends. The remarks you are making simply don't make any actual sense. How is the "crimes" section "pathetic"? How is it "arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity?"...as that is the definition of pathetic as I understand it. NO, what you meant was to call me pathetic, and you know it full well. I am sorry if I stooped to your level by inferring that your age places you at any level lower than myself; please explain to me, if it's not your age, what it is that has put you in such an immature state that you are responding to things in such a disrespectful, confrontational fashion? What is it, if not your age, that is preventing you from simply being forthright and steadfast to your opinion rather than to insult and attack? And just so you know, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now; I'll thank you to let me decide for myself whether or not it's "for me". Pacian 22:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well obviously we are not going to come to a conclusion if you insist on thinking that I was making a personal attack on you. Cheer up, and remember to have a great day! --Speedway 15:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE Irrelevant speculation and original research. If you want to write about this stuff, get a blog --Dtcdthingy 17:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind that the section at all, except for two things. Adultery? Let's stick to actual, punishable-by-law crimes. Also the section looks like crap, I'll try to fix it up, but I can't promise anything (my wiki-skills leave something to be desired :P). Other than that, I don't see the problem with the section. It's informative, accurate and relevant (relevant because this is a big part of what makes this show special, unique even). Gkhan 12:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think that a sections explicitly statting that 'Character X did X, Y and Z' is inappropriate for a general article. I would suggest that it someone should write a paragraph if one does not already exist saying something like
The show has been attacked for the last of morality of the main characters; almost all have commited a misdemeanor [or felony, being British I don't understand the difference], these include [brief list].
Infomation on individual characters should be added to their articles, or possible a 'characters of Desperate Housewives' section... --Neo 12:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to DELETE the section. It is totally unnecessary, and a too much of a judgemental view of the characters. The show really isn't about what they have or haven't done, right or wrong, its more about how the women change and learn. It really isn't about their 'crimes'.

Besides, it has a huge amount of opinionated bias and total innacuarcy. Paul Young didn;t commit arson, that was actually his son, Zach. And since when was adultery a crime!? This section really is inane. Definitely should be deleted.

[edit] "disputed" tag

After reading over the Wikipedia page on accuracy disputes, I don't think this tag is appropriate for the issue at hand. It really is only for disputing the factuality of the article, not a dispute over content (whether or not the section should be included). I think the tag should be removed. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Bush

Didn't Laura Bush jokingly call herself a Desperate Housewife at the White House Correspondents' Dinner? -- Joolz 22:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I seem to remember that. Yeah, I just checked. Here's a link to the transcript: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-01-laura-bush-comments_x.htm. I couldn't find a more official source--whitehouse.gov doesn't seem to have the transcript, but perhaps someone else could find it? Should we add a section "References to Desperate Housewives in popular culture? Theshibboleth 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the fire in Susan's house

The info under Zach/Dana was changed to remove the implication that he caused the fire, so what is the current-official story on this? Was it Zach or Paul (or did her mom really forget to blow out her candles)? Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation on Zach's biological father

I have moved this section to a more appropriate place however I don't particular think all this stuff about Dana, including statments in other sections saying that Mike is his father, should really be included due to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Until it airs it's not confirmed. Soaps have been known to leak incorrect info or even film alternate endings to throw people off. At the very least the speculation section should be cleaned up so that it's only about the speculation. Anyway, what does anyone else think? -- Lochaber 10:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Marc Cherry also confirmed on the Season 1 DVD (Stroll Down Wiseteria Lane with Meredith Vierra) that Mike was Zach's real father. Sfufan2005 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication of Zach's biography

I don't see the need for duplicating the biography for Zach, both as a member of the Young family and a member of the Delphino family. I mean, the exact same words and the exact same sentences are used. This is unnecesary duplication, specially since those paragraphs are almost together! Therefore I removed one of them (as a Delphino member) since even though (uh, spoiler) Mike is his biological father, Zach acts and belongs as a member of the Young Family. In any case, a pointer that his biography is at the other family should be added. drini ☎ 18:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is in bad need of a cleanup. First off I still object to the Crimes BS. This is about as nessecary as a list of all the people Jack Bauer has killed in 4 seasons on 24. Second, WAY WAY WAY WAY WAYyyyy too many images. This article is almost unreadable. It needs to be split up with an article dedicated to the characters. Too much stuff for just this one article. K1Bond007 19:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I really couldn't agree more. The person who contributed did a nice job making the show come to life on wiki with all the extra sections but there are WAY too much images. Wasn't the crimes section deleted at some point previously? Sfufan2005 19:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it was. K1Bond007 20:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Fixed it... again? --213.65.178.124 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a huge paragraph on Andrew/Bree in the Season 2 section, when all the other housewives barely even get a sentence?

[edit] The Philadelphia Eagles

I didn't find any link to the advertisement starring Terrell Owens and Teri Hatcher, I believe. Terrell was injured soon after the commercial aired, and a month later the New England Patriots beat the Philadelphia Eagles in the Super Bowl, in February 2005. This event is still a latenight talkshow staple.--McDogm 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the commercial you're refering involved Nicollette Sheridan and Terrell Owens. Kwazyutopia19 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Kwazyutopia19

[edit] Previously Main Character

I think this title is a little dumb since all three are still main characters and not recurring (except maybe Culp). I think we should watch the premiere before making assumptions. Sfufan2005 11:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Song and Episode Titles

I think it would be good to list all the episode titles and the songs they reference...maybe on a seperate page though. Thoughts?


[edit] Desperate Housewives named in another country

  • In Sweden the show has diffint name?--Brown Shoes22 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In every country the title is translated. Most use the translation, but some keep the original title, like Germany. Dan777

[edit] Who will die.

Looks like it might be David Bradley, the solis family lawyer. Previews for the episode show him being shot at it. Jack Cox 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it was George in episode 2.09 from suicide after Bree found out the truth about him. Hypernick1980 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)]

[edit] Six housewives?

Who are the six housewives mentioned in the intro to the article? I count four. I suppose if Mary Alice is included in the tally, that makes five, but we're still one short. Edie and Betty are not housewives, they are (in Edie's case, intermittently) single. I should point out that I'm only seeing the show on the second screening of the first series, so if there are more housewives yet to be introduced, then feel free to ignore this. However, from my reading of various articles here, I can only count four (perhaps five) housewives. Help? - 211.28.79.52 10:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how that got there but some consider Edie a "housewife" since she is part of the poker group although technically she is divorced. I think it should be changed since neither Betty nor Edie are wives. However since Bree is widowed and Susan is divorced, Lynette and Gabby are the only married so its sort of complicated. Let's just say that Bree, Lynette, Susan and Gabby are best friends. Sfufan2005 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
People consider Edie a housewife. Plus Mary Alice for season one and Betty for season 2.85.158.34.253 10:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Bree's not a wife anymore, and Susan wasn't either until she remarried Karl for health benefits. It's more a term designating them part of the group. 18:48, 17 April 2006 (EST)

Naja das würde ich nicht sagen.....

The term "housewives" when talking about this show, I've noticed, is just used to describe the main women in the series who have plots. Bree, Lynette, Gabby, and Susan obviously are the main ones. Mary Alice had Season1 focusing around her and Betty got Season2. Edie contributes to many story lines, mostly Susan's. All 7 are considered "housewives" (although Betty may not since she probably won't be back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoborder93 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Too many images!

This article is cluttered up with too many images. In particular, I think the pictures of the individual cast members need to go, since there are much better pictures in the character article. Thoughts? -- MisterHand 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the pics in the "Trivia" section but the cast member pictures I don't really care about, the character page does have better images. That will have to be left up to Dan777 since he uploaded them. Sfufan2005 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I reduced the image size for the cast photos so it leaves some space. Hopefully this solves the problem. Sfufan2005 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think an article looks nicer with photos. As long as they are not leaving the page out of proportion, I don't see anything wrong with it.Dan777 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title cards

Dan777, title cards displaying the show's logo used in the opening credits are the uniform image used on TV infoboxes all throughout Wikipedia. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%27rent_Strokes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Facts_of_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jeffersons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%28TV_series%29
Including the top 2 shows of all-time,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seinfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy
The TV pages that don't have title cards are because title cards haven't been uploaded.
Secondly, that particular image is far from perfect. It's too big to be constrained to such a small size, and barely any of the actress' are visible. I moved the image down to the section dealing with Season 2, since that is the cast of season 2, but I agree that they the images used in this article are pretty poor. And am I the only one that thinks that leaving out Teri Hatcher is odd? I'll try to screengrab some nice shots from this weeks episode. They would look better here. 65.9.254.68 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There should definitely be a picture of Teri Hatcher instead of James Denton. I'm for the title screen in the infobox because like 65.9.254.68 said several other articles have used this which also include Grey's Anatomy, South Park, The West Wing and Supernatural. Sfufan2005 00:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
But it's a nude lady covering her boobs with one hand. How about this promo of season 1? And Ok, I'm totally responsible for leaving out Teri but her hair is just flying all over the place and I can't cut her out well.Dan777 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So what if it is a nude lady covering her boobs, IT'S STILL PART OF THE TITLE SEQUENCE. That's absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Sfufan2005 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty dumb reasoning. Title cards are the norm on Wikipedia television pages. The consensus is with the title card. Re-inserting image. This is getting kind of old. HeyNow10029 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Have it your way. It's ugly. It doesn't belong there, it's giving people the wrong impression about the show and the quality is kinda bad, but whatever.Dan777 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
One comment before I let the discussion die. It's not giving people the wrong idea, people watch the show because they enjoy watching the show. They don't care what the title sequence looks like on an info page on an encyclopedia. I inserted a title screen with better quality. I hope that pleases everyone. We should probably move on. Sfufan2005 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously guys, just shut up and stop arguing, it doesn't really matter who uploaded the damn picture.. - selmaelbeyati

[edit] Spoof & references of DH, and spoofs and referances from DH

There is no information on any spoofs, where several MUST have taken place, due to the popularity of the show and the "too clean, but dirrrty" effect it has. Indeed, I've seen bits from national lampoon and mad TV make fun of this.

National lampoon :

http://nationallampoon.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=135&Itemid=32

Mad TV :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA64e6pIwpg&search=desperate%20housewives%20madtv

Jackpot Den 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First off we're trying to create a page with some integrity and adding spoofs only adds to a decline in quality. Just saying I think adding this is not such a great idea. Sfufan2005 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genre

Changed "dramedy" (sic) to drama-comedy. An encyclopaedia should not contain made up words. --Brideshead 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dramedy isn't a made-up word, its actually used. Many TV critics used the word dramedy to describe Desperate Housewives. Kwazyutopia19 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19


[edit] Second Season Inferrences

The entire portion recounting Bree in the second season (particularly the portions covering the later part of the season) are riddled with inferrences, speculation, and conclusions that we can not really make with certainty. In my opinion, examples of this include the following:

1. "...leading to Bree realizing how wrong she was to condemn her son for his homosexuality"
Have we ever heard Bree admit that she was wrong to condemn her son for his homosexuality? How are we to know that she ever came to accept his sexual orientation, instead of simply changing her behavior just to keep Andrew from running away during the period immediately before he slept with her boyfriend? Perhaps Justin merely convinced her that it was wrong for her not to be doing everything she possibly could to hold her family together, even if that meant hiding her true feelings about Andrew's sexuality. We have no way of knowing which of these interpretations is "correct," beacuse the show is intentionally vague about this.
2. "Andrew's actions made Bree realize that Andrew was a sociopath"
Are we sure about this? The only thing we know is that his actions pushed her beyond the point where she was able to tolerate his actions anymore. I'm not sure Bree has concluded that her son is actually sociopathic instead of just consumed with rage or revenge.
  • In the season two episode where she sees a shrink, he gets her to say whats wrong, and she say "For starters, my husband's dead, my son's a socipath and my daughter's a whore. Or something like that.
3. "Andrew gloated that "he won" and that his evil actions towards his mother was all part of a plan to make Bree hate her son, since in Andrew's mind it was better to make Bree hate him for being evil and cruel towards her than being hated by his mother for simply being gay."
Earlier in the season, Andrew indicated (possibly to Justin) that his thinking was that his mother would eventually stop loving him, so he was going to stop loving her first. We don't really know if he wanted her to hate him for being cruel instead of for being gay, because he never says this.
4. "Bree responded by telling Andrew that she never stopped loving him unconditionally until that moment, at which point Bree told her son that so long as he allowed himself to be consumed by hatred for himself and his mother, that she can't give him unconditional love."
This is not how the conversation went at all. Here is the actual text of the conversation:
Andrew: "Why'd we stop here? We have half a tank left."
Bree: "There's so many things I wanna say to you, Andrew. But mostly, I just want you to know how sorry I am."
Andrew: "Sorry for what?"
Bree: "Every child deserves to be loved unconditionally and I thought that was the kind of love that I had for you. Maybe if I had, it would've been different."
Bree was not specific about when she stopped loving him or why, as we are left to infer this. It is up to the viewer to try to infer whether she was referring to her inability to show unconditional love for his homosexuality or whether it was her inability to show unconditional love because of his recent actions. The latter is what most of us probably hope, but she never tells Andrew either way.

The amount of unsupported speculation in this article is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I wanted to put this out for discussion here for a few days prior to my going in and cleaning up the article. --DavidGC 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate use of Fair Use images

This article is littered with Fair Use images blatantly violating WP:FU. I suggest you decide on which ONE image you wish to retain (that is if no free image can be obtained). Superfluous images will be removed from this article shortly. __meco 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There are a lot of images in this article that should not be here. I'm surprised Disney/ABC hasn't complained to the Foundation yet! --Coolcaesar 07:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
All copyrighted images but one have been removed. __meco 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently employs two copyrighted poster pictures. This is one too many, so please remove one. __meco 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not one too many since other television pages have more than two pictures in an article. Would you like it better if there were no pictures on this page at all? The picture in the infobox illustrates the title theme which is used on most infoboxes throughout Wikipedia and the group picture is a promotional picture from Season 1. I also think you are being very rude and unfair. If you would like for the pictures to refer more to the plot a la The West Wing than that's a different story, just be civil. Sfufan2005 20:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
When you wrote the above the problem had already been remedied. Also, referring to transgressions of Wikipedia policy in other articles does not constitute a fair use rationale. __meco 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur again. "Everyone else is doing it too" is never a defense to copyright infringement! --Coolcaesar 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a copyright infringement. There is a fair use rationale attached and a source of where the image was obtained, which in fact displays and sells the posters for the public domain. If the company and/or Disney, the distributor did not want users to view, purchase and/or save the image fearing copyright infringement, would it still be available to any one who wanted this? No. If we all thought like you we might as well delete all images from Wikipedia if they don't agree with your perception of fair use or not. Sfufan2005 20:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The principles behind Wikipedia's current policies on the use of copyrighted material is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. This article page and its use of copyrighted images is in fact currently being discussed at that page. __meco 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. By the way, I apologize for being so hostile before. Sfufan2005 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HBO passed

I either read (or heard) that HBO passed on this show before it was pitched to ABC. Can anyone confirm or deny this and if true, add to the article? I wouldn't have worried about it, except the fact that Fox passed on Windfall seems to be of some importance.--Attitude2000 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Pursuant to Wikipedia:External links, I have removed unofficial blog and forum links. I also removed news article links because they also do not belong in the external links section -- if the news article was used as a source for the Wikipedia article, it should be in a References section. Finally, I removed a broken link that appeared to be a news story link. Please do not add improper links to the article. Erechtheus 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


    Yes. This is actually confirmed by Marc Cherry in the book Desperate Housewives: Behind Closed Doors. It was passed on by HBO for not being "gritty" enough.

[edit] Nice color scheme

The new colors on the info boxes look quite sleek. The only downside is that I cannot read any of the text… __meco 13:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold! Change them! If you think you know a better colour then change them, when i added the reds i was trying to get the shade from the apple in the intro (it didnt go well) but feel free to change them ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The scheame has been changed see: Template:Desperate Housewives :-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Cattrall?

I heard she was going to make an appearance on the show, (google "Kim Cattrall Desperate Housewives"). Is tha t true? Should I add that to the "Third Season" section?

That was just speculation, I doubt that will happen. Cheater1908 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Desperate Housewives

I think this is a good article and should be linked to on the page:

Truly Desperate Housewives - http://www.buddytv.com/articles/desperate_housewives/truly_desperate_housewives.aspx

[edit] Video game

They announced a Desperate Housewives video game at the 2006 E3. How would such information be best presented (probably Desperate Housewives (video game))? Xaxafrad 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guest Star policy?

I added an uncredited guest star to a recent episode, only to have the credit removed, with the explanation that "We only put the people who are credited at the beginning". Obviously this isn't entirely the case, since credits from the end of the episode were not also removed. So what is the actual consensus on this issue, particularly where a guest star isn't credited onscreen? The credit I added was factual, verifiable, and cited an external source, so I fail to see why it should not be included. Thanks :)

--JCub 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took a while to answer, but yeah, a policy has been made wehere we only credit guest stars who were credited at the beginning. Read more about it at Talk:List of Desperate Housewives episodes#Guest Starring. Cheater1908 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julie White

  • Just wanted to let y'all know that Julie White is NOT returning as Amanda, as she has decided to do theatre work on Broadway (according to tvguide.com). I've removed her from the recurring list because they aren't recurring if they only appeared in one episode. Cheater1908 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy-drama?

Hmm.. is it just me or does anybody else think DH isn't actually a comedy :-\ - I propose we remove the comedy part from the infobox, opinion? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, DH is a definitely part-time comedy, at least it is in my case. Carlos and Gabrielle's war...hilarious! And Lynette dealing with Nora was a huge LOL!!!! I was just in tears during these 2 hilarious stories, so we should keep the comedy section. :-) Cheater1908 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
DH is a dramedy, but the show entered award shows last year as a comedy. I don't know... Solanus 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there has been some debate in the media which it is. I think it's worth including both, especially since the emmy nominations were under comedy. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should "List of Desperate Housewives characters" be merged into this article?

It has been suggested that "List of Desperate Housewives characters" be merged into "Desperate Housewives". Any thoughts on this? Personally, I think it is very unnecessary (sp?) because these two articles are both pretty long and to merge these two articles would not make a lot of sense.

Others' opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! :-) Cheater1908 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Per WP:FICT, separate articles for long lists of characters is good practice. --Muchness 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a joke right? That user has been going around proposing a few (silly) merges, hmm.. I've reverted him anyway, the page is 69kb, a merge would be preposterous. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, not a joke. I fully appreciate that this article is way too long to merge as is, and I'm just trying to come up with some solution for what I see as articles straying gradually away from policy and guidelines. I certainly wasn't going to propose this for deletion, as a LOT of work has been put into it and it generally reads very well, and is full of information. However, from policy listed at WP:NOT#IINFO, "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: ... Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." You have acknowledged that the article is 69 kb long now, which seems really, really excessive as a list. In fact, this is because it contains page after page of plot summary, though no information about real-world context, and no sourced analysis. I don't mean any offense, and I'm not sure why any of my proposed merge's are "silly," I am merely making a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. If the consensus is against me, so be it. Charlie 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, what WP:FICT has to say about characters is this: Major characters should be covered in the original article unless "an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." And for minor characters: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice." Making a separate article is good practice, yes, but note the important caveat: they should be merged with short descriptions. Also, note that WP:FICT is a guideline, while WP:NOT is policy. Charlie 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It contains plenty of real world information, and is a perfectly acceptable page, and would probably survive an AfD with a snowball keep (example: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford - that ended with a speedy keep.) - if anything though the page could be trimmed down though. Also I can bring in policy if that's what you want :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, all I'm saying is that the fact that the article is too long be merged is very likely due to a need to trim it down. Note that I wouldn't consider AFD, both for the pragmatic "snowball" reason, and because I don't actually want to see the list deleted! Charlie 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Even trimmed it would still be way to long to merge here - lists like this are good because it is just a single list, Wikipedia is also not paper.. and because Wikipedia covers a wide spectrum, it is also a matter of opinion if it is all plot summary. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree on that point. To be clear: I will make no attempt to propose merger for this article: you can consider that proposal dropped. I merely suggest that the article be trimmed a bit. Charlie 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur, and if no one else does it by then end of the holiday period I my self will take on the task of cleaning it up.. it needs some TLC as well (for example "Carolyn's dog: It is revealed in episode 3-7, Bang that Carolyn had a dog." will be exterminated.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion to trim down the article: remove any filler characters such as "Lynette's sisters" or "Carolyn's dog". Anybody we haven't met yet or was barely mentioned isn't an important character. Characters that appear more than once should be kept but the rest of the article which includes the listing of many unseen characters should be removed. Sfufan2005 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I am calling for a cleanup and that improvements be made to this article. First, we need to list citations which are extremely important. We can't say that Eva Longoria isn't doing the show anymore without a source. The lead is great but could be a little shortened with pieces spread out into different sections. The season overviews are WAY too long. I don't think every single plotline of the show needs to be stated on this page, that's what the episode articles are for. Season descriptions should only be about 1 paragraph. I will be periodically checking in to do some improvements but I also recommend that others who would like to participate check out other model articles such as The Wire (TV series) and The West Wing (TV series) which are featured lists. Sfufan2005 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Im gonna work on grammar becauuuuuuuse i feel like it. It seems like the entire arcticle is a run-on... Hopefully i can improve readability...

It also seems like im cutting out a few things, or moving them into better spots. If anyone disagrees with changes i make, please let me know. thuglastalk|edits 05:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted the link for Eva leaving the show and the whole thing about Marcia's pregnancy and another character getting pregnant. And I agree with SF that the season overviews are too long. The Lynette-and-Art storyline was only a 3-episode-arc and that wasn't significant, so I removed all that. Also, the paragraph on the season mystery (Orson) was also listed in Bree's paragraph, and it shouldn't be that way because that results in the page being cluttered. I have shortened Bree's paragraph by only saying that Bree married Orson and the finding Andrew storyline--that story was pretty significant. I have also removed the section about the supermarket incident. That was just one episode and people could look at the episode pages for that. The reason season 3 looks longer that the first two is because it is an in-progress season and future stories are listed--after the season's over, it should look the same size as the first two. There, that looks much better! :-)

Also, I wish you all a very happy holiday. :-) Cheater1908 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Cheater1908. Sfufan2005 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maya

  • The woman who became the hero at the supermarket by killing Carolyn, Maya, is set to move onto Wisteria Lane and become a housewife. I had this listed before, but for some reason it was removed, even when I had the link posted. It has not been determined when she will move on, but according to the NY post, it will happen. Cheater1908 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airdates of Desperate Housewives AfD

I have listed Airdates of Desperate Housewives for AfD. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversy

I swear I read a review before the show premiered indicating the creators intended the characters be unhappy because they didn't have traditional Christian family values. In fact, I was and still am hesitant to get behind this show for that very reason. The more immoral the character, the worse their situation becomes. Am I totally wrong? Rafaelblock 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox at TfD

A guy has nominated the episode infobox for deletion, [[1]] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors' statues

No actor has ever been credited as "Previously starring". An actor starring in season 2 isn't any less starring than a "currently" staring actor. Also - by devinding the starring actors into currently and previously starring ones it makes the article dated; which definitely should be avoided. And lastly - if we part the starring roles into "former" and "current" and not do the same with the recurring roles the article also lack in continuently.

So can we please stay away from such devidings? Pjär80 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted starring actors from the list of recurring guest stars and co-stars. My reason for doing this is that the list already is quite extensive (and will keep growing) and to have the same actors listed more than once makes, imo, the list rather cryptic. The main point of the cast list is, as I see it, not to list how the actors was/is credited, but to create a easily read list of wich actors that have appeared on the show. The dividing into "Starring" "Also Starring" etc. actors, is, once again imo, that the starring roles are the most importent ones for the show.
Other opinions?
Pjär80 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked it better WITH the formerly starring, because it enabled us to see a current cast list. This way is just confusing, and quite frankly long...I feel it should be reverted Small5th 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You do certainly have a good point - although I still believe that the reasons for not reverting as I statet above are even more valid. By creating Desperate Housewives (season 1), Desperate Housewives (season 2) and Desperate Housewives (season 3) I hope we can both be saticefied. :) Pjär80 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy with United Kingdom networks

I can't seem to understand what it's trying to say. It confused me. Is someone willing to tidy it up? I have no clue what it's saying

--Spacninja 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs removing.. just junk. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

There's already a seperate page for Desperate Housewives awards, so I'll put down "notable Awards" and add a link Small5th 08:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atempts to improve

Since both the trivia part of the article as well as the article itself had grown far to extencive to be satisfying, I've moved some stuff around. Most of the trivia has been moved into the actual text (some more work to have the text flue smoothly is needed though), while some are moved to the character articles.

I've also created Broadcasting of Desperate Housewives and List of recurring actors on Desperate Housewives since these lists had grown far to big, but their contents deserve to remain in Wikipedia.

Nothing has been deleted, except some minor details that were mentioned twice.

Finally I've tried to improve the disposition of the article.

I hope that these changes is OK by everyone. Or did I do any notable misstakes? Pjär80 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I kind of wish you kept the Nielsen rankings on the season desciptions (unless you moved it into another section) because it is useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoborder93 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
As of now they are to be found in Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Desperate Housewives (season 2). Pjär80 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starring?

The standard way of working, both at Wikipedia and other sources, when it comes to which actors who works on a show is to specify what episodes they STARS in. This has also been the way of this article, but now there are users who want to include every season they have appeared in - even if they only appeared in one or two episodes (like Richard Burgi i season 1). This maes it look like every actor appeared all through the show, which most definitely isn't the case. We definitely need a desicion in this matter. Personally I can't see any reasons why we shouldn't stay with the old model - to only include those seasons in which the actors stars, while noting recurring appearances in other season. Pjär80 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD cover in infobox

I don't really like the second season DVD cover being the main picture for the show's infobox. First off, the picture will continually change every year since some will think it needs updating if we continue to use the covers. Second, the show's title design is the show's trademark. Not having it displayed is disappointing since the apple dropping logo is such an essential part of the show. I think this should have discussed first before an anonymous user decided to change this. Any thoughts on this? Sfufan2005 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's std. practice to use a shows intertitle in the infobox, it should not be changed to the DVD cover. Matthew 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future event of the show

Many of the articles about the Desperate Housewives characters have gotten to include more or less trustworthy information about future of the characters. I'm not sure this is such a good thing - it's difficult to know what's just merely speculation and what's official. And even official sources tend to be wrong, or misstaken.

Therefor I suggest that we keep upcoming details in the articles covering individual episodes and seasons. This would also - IMO - make it easier to keep a resonable quality of the character articles.

Does anyone disapprove? Otherwise I delete such passages in the character articles and move it to episode and season articles (although I do believe that the information already exist there). Pjär80 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/s/Talk%7EDesperate_Housewives_2892.html"