Talk:All In (House)

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Television: Episode coverage / House Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the House task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Continuity with timeline

So there's the debate over how old the Esther case is. I removed it completely as it is uncertain if the case is 12 years old, dates to when he started at the hospital, or dates to one of the jobs he was fired from. Because there is no certainty and there's no reference, I'm calling it original research and removing it from the article until a definitive number comes up. Otherwise there's a bunch of theorizing about how long it's been around and when it actually occurred. If someone's got a reference or something from the DVD special features, can they put it on the talk page? WLU 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't seen the episode for a bit, but IIRC they did say (in dialogue, that is) that it was a case that he'd been working on 12 (or some number, but if the article said 12 that's probably it) years ago. I figure that bit of trivia didn't really add anything, so I don't care if it gets put back or not, but it did explicitly say that they said it in the episode, which is good enough for me as a citation. --Sopoforic 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Huh. I'll add it back in, with minimal analysis then. WLU 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Come to think of it, given his previous history with multiple jobs I think I'll leave it out. Not really continuity since he has been a doctor for more than 12 years. WLU 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia (42)

House says 42 is his "lucky number" not his "favourite number". I've taken the liberty to edit that.

Esther vs Ester

To Imperial Commander: good spot on the name spelling! I missed that. JoeKearney 10:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the actual name of the patient is Ester (uncommon, but possible spelling), not Esther (as House writes on the whiteboard). I fixed the spelling in the article. For further informatioen please check out IMDB House M.D. "All In" - Goofs or minute 6:34 in the episode. --87.174.188.62 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker

Was anyone else annoyed by the uninformed treatment of poker in this episode? The most glaring mistake occurred when Cuddy is first notified about the new patient. At first she calls a raise, then she moves all in, both during the same turn. Her initial call should have stuck, but here the all in is accepted and the betting moves to House. Is this worth noting in the trivia section? 68.68.87.154 (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interferon

Anyone else notice that one of the medicines that was thought to speed up the deterioration of Ian was Interferon, which is in fact a medicine used to treat Erdheim–Chester disease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.20.244 (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All In (House). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110403015921/http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-2/episode-17.htm to http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-2/episode-17.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]