Talk:Full House

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)

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)

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

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)

---

Full House → Full House (American TV series)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)

• Oppose, current primary topic is justified per pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose. The page views presented above are convincing: the American TV show remains the primary topic here. Calidum 03:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support. Far too many others for this one to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. 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)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CookBU (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CookBU (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)