Talk:Full House

Television Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Plot summary – "drunk driver" detail

I decided to remove that from the plot (diff) as both trivia and undue weight. This is a detail about the car accident that killed Pam which is not revealed until episode 178 in season 8 ("Under the Influence") when DJ needs to tell Kimmy about what happened to her mom and doesn't want to see her best friend be killed as a result of alcohol. Pam's being killed by a drunk driver is mentioned only once in the entire series, and doesn't need to be given spotlight in the series' plot. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree – if it's just mentioned once, it's not an important plot detail, and should be left out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the trivia section for the "Under the Influence" episode in the Wikia for this show, I'm scratching my head as to the relevance of the detail that Pam was "killed in a car accident", another detail that is not revealed until a bit into the series - (well into season 2, quoting the Wikia page - In "Goodbye Mr. Bear", it was told that Pam had succumbed to injuries sustained in a car accident...). I take Wikia with a grain of salt, but (since I have the DVDs for the entire series) I could take a look at every episode up to that season 2 one to see if any mention of "car accident" is made. Regardless, the series doesn't put a lot of emphasis on that point every time Pam is referenced, and it may be better to start the plot with "After the death of his wife Pam, sports anchorman Danny Tanner..." (if I recall right, that was how it was originally worded in old revisions here). Given that Full House is a sitcom, I definitely understand the producers not wanting to focus a whole lot on the circumstances of Pam's death, but "car accident" and "drunk driver" seem to be more trivial details for this series than for, say, Party of Five (which is a drama series), where there was a whole season one episode devoted to the Salinger children confronting the driver who killed their parents. Thoughts? MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, agreed. On this series, the salient fact is her death, not the details of the circumstances of her death. Save that for the wikia – this series isn't Party of Five. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPFitz1968: DJ saying "Mom was killed by a drunk driver" is like "Poochie died on the way back to his home planet" - it comes out of nowhere, means nothing, and is never referred to outside that episode. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's in the trivia section (on Wikia) -- and doesn't really belong on WP. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"British remake" IP editor?

I think they were referring to shows such as The Upper Hand (TV series) which was a remake of Who's the Boss?. It would have been hard to translate Full House into a British setting as the original show is very U.S. and very Californian in its style and substance. I don't think three men raising three young female children would have worked in Britain at that time either, particularly once things like Robert Black start a fearful panic among parents. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits?

Such as this: "Jodie Sweetin was spotted in a guest spot on the show Valerie."

I'll be nice and not point out that that guest spot was BEFORE she was on Full House, yet the way it's worded makes the reader think she got it BECAUSE of her Full House fame. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Broadcasts on ABC

Does anyone happen to remember when the first stereo broadcasts began? Maybe it was Season 4 (1991) or Season 5 (1992) or earlier Moonlightfocus (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Season 4 (1990) and Season 5 (1991) Moonlightfocus (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, both on whether the show Is the primary topic for this capitalisation, and whether DIFFCAPS should result in a move. Sceptre (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full House → Full House (American TV series) – Not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In Asian countries Full House (South Korean TV series) is more popular (or popularity split) according to Google Trends. Hddty (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, current primary topic is justified per pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given the amount of additional articles that also share this name seen at Full house, Full House should direct to the disambiguation page, and this should be adjusted with a disambiguation. See also WP:NCTVUS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with 162 etc. Looking at Full house, there's no other article that touches this one in terms of page views. Other topics existing doesn't inherently mean there isn't a primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a "full house" can mean lots of things such as the card meaning at least that we cover. It would seem better to have no primary topic for the capitalized version per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The page views presented above are convincing: the American TV show remains the primary topic here. Calidum 03:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason that "Full House" is no longer just an American TV series, so specifying it in the article is clear. WatABR (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the American TV show has 4x the page views of the next topic, and all the top 3 TV shows are over a decade old. I'm not sure that's enough for a primary topic, given that the poker/yahtzee term is older (and probably the basis of the show names) for all of them. But I'm also not sure that's not enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Far too many others for this one to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updates

The syndication section needs to be updated. I'm surprised they didn't delete that article you cited. 2600:1700:B270:20F0:1927:66DA:C5BF:41D9 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception: mixed to negative?

"Mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" is pure copium. This messy phrasing is telltale sign that editors are not being properly objective. The reference is clear that reviews were mostly negative.[1] Editors just cannot seem to help themselves and instead of writing from a neutral point of view what the reliable sources actually say they try to soften the blow and misrepresent the facts in this encyclopedia because critics didn't like a show or film they liked. Don't take it personally, critics gonna critic, but equivocating like this is offensively bad writing and failing to accurately paraphrase the sources is misleading and dishonest.

It is odd that this happens as frequently as it does in tv and film articles, but it does keep happening. It has happened at least twice in this article(diff) (diff) in this article.

I mention it because the error went without being fixed for years, and I hope that any editors will be vigilant and if they see ever see this article or other claiming that the reception was either "Mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" at the very least a rewrite is needed or the more difficult task of weighing up sources is needed to strike a fair balance. -- 109.76.128.55 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]