Talk:Top Secret (House)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
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.
Assessment comments

Can anyone pick up on what prescription House wanted from Wilson? I've tried googling it but can't find it, looks like something to stop spasms in the bladder.

Alfuzosin - an alpha blocker which relaxes the prostate/bladder - Swakeman 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to have separate sections for "Referbacks" (a non-sensical term), "Clinic Patients," "Diagnosis," "Quotes" and "Medical terms?" It seems to me that over the article series, these are generally one sentence long. In particular, although I did not remove it, the "diagnosis" section is wholly unnecessary as it's just a plot point and serves no other purpose; it should simply be stated at the point at which it occurs in "Plot Overview" I removed the subsections and condensed them into "trivia and notes" which makes much more sense as each episode only has about maybe four sections which require any further explanation. For example, we don't need to make a new section every time Chase makes some coment to Cameron, either make a single short note about developing relationships or put it in "Plot Overview" Mooshimanx 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections exist for ease of perusal, so a reader doesn't have to read a 500 word plot summary to find a particular piece of information. This is especially true in the case of "diagnosis". Swakeman 09:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct; there doesn't need to be 12 sections; please review WP:TRIV. While one trivia section is fine, all of these can be worked into the article. It makes little sense revert the article to an uninformative version in which the patient is not even identified by his name and there are more section titles than actual lines of informative information. If the current plot summary is too long, feel free to edit it to a shorter summary. Furthermore, the notes on "when the show originally aired" in terms of timeslot are wholly immaterial and subject to rapid deletion. The show itself did not run longer than usual, it simply ran in a 7 minute different time slot. This kind
I don't recall defending a section concerning timeslot or pointless sections concerning "Arc Advancement". However, the article can be better served by using sections wisely than by lumping all the information into an epic summary. Swakeman 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to reduce the expanded summary; the one you keep restoring is flatly uninformative about the content of the episode. Furthermore, if you don't like all the random sections, stop putting them back.
I'm sorry, are you referring to my single prior revision? If you want to remove the sections you find excessive, be my guest. However, I'm continuing to follow the precedent set by every other episode this season. Swakeman 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Could you sign your posts Mooshimanx?
2) The multiple sections of trivia format is not uncommon for articles on shows, etc. It's also worth noting that it is the established format for the series and it is probably worth keeping the same format across all episodes
3) It's plot SYNOPSIS or summary. We don't need to have a 5 paragraph essay to represent the episode.
4) Just because you've never seen the term "referbacks" before does not make it nonsensical or poor terminology - it's when the majority wouldn't get the term that it becomes a problem. Referbacks is a well used term in the context of articles on episodes in a series
5) If you guys are just going to jostle the format back and forth between your individual preferences based upon your knowledge and preferences, may I suggest you actually discuss it and come to a consensus either here or on a different, relevant, talk page first? Equally, if the established format is something you want to change, again, could we discuss it and come to a consensus rather than someone who doesn't like it deciding "it's being changed"
--Forgottenlord 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling Gulf War Syndrome non-existent is POV: The show takes the tack that it is non-existent, except for Chase who functions as a mouthpiece for advocates of GWS' existence, but this should not be the tack that this article takes. It also contradicts the GWS article. ArekExcelsior 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I can see there's a bit of a back and forth about the various sections that this article has, but I do think removing the entire Trivia section is a bit much. There are points of interest that the synopsis won't cover because it's meant to be brief. And yes, I'm a little tweaked that the note I added under trivia about the reversed monitor display in House's dream got thrown under the bus in this little pref war. CyberTrini 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Song?

In the dream, once the vehicle is attacked, what is the sog that plays?

n/m, it's Dimension, by Wolfmother

[edit] Image

His name tag reads "HOUS", must have got shot off but its just like something they would have thrown in deliberately.... SGGH speak! 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical terms

I added the medical terms section to this article. I think because Wikipedia has a lot of information it makes sense that someone might look for the episode in order to know what exactly is going on and if the medicine is correct or just to find out what something means. If someone else doesn't like the section, I'll be glad to discuss it. User:Avesga 06 Jul 2007.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:House-s03e16-top secret.png

Image:House-s03e16-top secret.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)