Talk:True Blood

Season Two Cast

Noticed another new regular, Mariana Klaveno, who was in episode five as a guest star: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996189.html?categoryid=28&cs=1

Lafayette

Since the series did follow the first book very closely, and the second season appears to be adapted from the season book, I think it's more than likely Lafayette is dead. It's more likely he is dead than it is he is alive. Now, we COULD wait until June when anyone who disagrees with this will feel like fools, or we could just change it now. 66.168.67.213 (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Drunk Sookie Stackhouse fanboy

Yeah, do you really think that that is going to happen kingdom2 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Better idea. Why don't we remove the categorization from the character list? 66.168.67.213 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Sober Stackhouse fanboy

Don't know what that means, but listen up. Absolutely no edits will be made an remain in the article which specify Lafayette as either dead or alive because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And as for your "sticking to the book" argument, Dexter (TV series) stuck to the book for the first season, but then left the books from the second season onwards. kingdom2 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but here's the question... How is it not speculation to state that he's alive? The scene that we're speculating on is pulled straight from the second book, and it'd be just plain stupid for the people working on the show to have it turn out to be some random black person.

On a similar note, I think the way the character list is currently divided seems a little fan-site-ish. I think if wiki needs to have encyclopedia-like content, it should also have encyclopedia-like structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.67.213 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not speculating that he is still alive. I am stating that there is no verifiable proof from a reliable source that he is dead, and odds are there won't be until the first episode of season two airs. kingdom2 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's feeling like a fool now? Ausir (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this show's budget?

Simply and Solely out of curiosity, I would like to know what the budget for a single episode of this series is. I'm curious to know how they accomplish the creation of this program on a weekly basis. If anybody could tell me, I'd appreciate it.67.189.162.43 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I read an article earlier this year (LA Times?) that said the budget was $3-4 million per episode.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that much (!) Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. 67.189.162.43 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay rights allegory section

I added this section based mostly on an article in the NYPost, but the point has been reiterated elsewhere, mostly on blogs. I was surprised to see it wasn't on the wiki article. I just wanted to get the ball moving on expanding this section, and I definitely didn't do the citation right for using the same source for multiple quotes, so I'll be looking into fixing that. Not sure what the standard for quality blog sources is, so I left them out on purpose. Alex (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the sense that wikipedia will have to evolve to allow citations from quality blogs over time, as the print publication world crashes and burns. But i'm not sure how that evolution is going to occur or if it's already started. Some blogs have editorial staff and fact checking processes and would be as good as a comparable print publication in my opinion for neutrality and quality. But how to denote which are meeting that standard? Perhaps we could discuss here your specific citations and relate to that ad hoc for now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section as it was the opinions of one person, and has been refuted by Ball. Let me put it to you like this find around ten high quality non-fan based refs that talk about it. Take the NYPost as number 1. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Really one legitimate source is enough for Wiki to add to the text, while two legitimate sources are enough for most national reputable newspapers. Asking for "ten high quality non-fan based refs" is overboard in the extream. The section should have stayed pending a second source, with a notation to widen the sourcing. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search turns up additional resources for this section. However, the first reliable source I found was an article from the LA Times which quotes Alan Ball as saying the show isn't an allegory for gay rights ([1]). Here are other pieces mentioning the topic from NPR ([2]), Entertainment Weekly ([3]), and TV Guide ([4]). -Hooliganb (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uncovering those sources Hooliganb! wow! I myself am neutral on the subject of weather or not this show is or is not a gay movement analogy, but it certinly lifts catchphrases from the gay rights movement. And the second part of Ball's full comment was "[Vampires] do work as a metephore for gays ... for anyone that is misunderstood. At the same time its not a metephore at all." It sounds to me like he is trying to have it both ways. As that saying goes. I have not read the books, but I am curious now if the lifting of clearly gay terms such as "Out of the Closet", and anti gay terms such as "God hates Fags" are in the books like they seem to be in the series. If so, it is nothing but a concious choice using the gay civil rights expierence in this work.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe the section should be changed to something that reflects how vampires on the show are an allegory for anyone misunderstood? -Hooliganb (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second. They're obviously making specific allusions to gay rights in many episodes, but wikipedia articles are the place for sweeping conclusions. If sources can be found that equate True Blood's vampires to "any misunderstood" group, then by all means mention it. Otherwise, lets not stray into original research territory. - JeffJonez (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern Jeff, but if you visited the links I posted above, you'd see that there are actually sources equating vampires to "any misunderstood" group. Both the aforementioned LA Times article and the TV Guide article include content on how the allegory is more broad, but gay rights is more noticeable because of current events. What I'm suggesting is that the section be expanded to contain coverage of any resource explaining how vampires on the show are representative of the persecution of any minority. Yes, this is more broad, but it would also allow for a wider range of sources than just those comparing it to the gay rights movement.-Hooliganb (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are there, then perhaps the section should be renamed "Themes" with gay rights being the initial entry? - JeffJonez (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll post here once I have something preliminary put together in my sandbox, unless someone edits the article first. -Hooliganb (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog posts

Continuing the discussion in "Gay rights allegory section", why not create a section after external links for blog links? I know, it seems redundant, however this would separate the links such as "Official Website" from "My rant about True Blood Season 2". It would be easy to do and would permit many of the bloggers out there an opportunity to link their brain-puke to the site. A negative that is worth highlighting is the linked content .. However, that is common anyways with anyone adding links to the site, therefore I think this negative argument is mute. Soldier.pitre —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC). Update Well, I might get labeled here as a jerk, however I'm taking the initiative and creating a section called "Blog Links" and posting a few. Soldier.pitre

You should read WP:RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation of new section

User Darrenhusted pointed out to me that the additional links under "Blog links" did not adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. After review, I must concede and completely agree with his assessment. As we are contributing to a document providing information for a fiction/fantasy television series, I did not believe it was necessary to treat it as an academic document. However, this is an encyclopedia platform (and quite often critiqued by many academics) and therefore strict informational guidelines must be set and followed. Pursuant to that idea, I do believe it necessary to include a discussion about the viewers that give this show, and others like it, life. After all, the cult following generated by science-fiction & horror often create a very lucrative vertical market. Merchandisers, retailers, advertisers and any other type of industry that feeds off of these markets, often help cement the foundation of these shows. Therefore, I believe a discussion about the fan following as well as contributions is necessary. There is even a discussion about the viral marketing which adds more support about the corporate interests following television series like True Blood as well as the idea of including a fan section in the table of contents. Furthermore, does true-blood.net really fall under the guidelines of an unacceptable site to list in external links? Its advertising content is minimal. There is an active discussion forum. Also there is a section about comic-con -> the very type of event where True Blood cultists gather. I would believe that this site should be included in the external links. If TV.COM can be listed, I'm pretty sure a true-blood.net makes the cut just fine... --Soldier.pitre (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can sum up as TL;DR, but you should read WP:EL. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Under which section / sub-section of WP:EL do you believe to be violated upon externally linking the fansite ? --Soldier.pitre (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. At the very top of the page, it fails "meritable". And WP:ELNO numbers 1, 4 and 11. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, I believe the only point that linking the fansite fails on is WP:ELNO number 11. The meritable statement should be, I would argue, striken. It is a dynamic term which, upon translation, simply empowers someone to arbitrarily make a decision. It is a loophole and a bad one at that. The same goes for WP:ELNO number 4 -> you would need to prove intent. I could definitely argue that point.... anyhow.. I'm beating a dead horse as I do firmly believe that the link would fail point number eleven in the WP:ELNO. Now, why does tv.com make the cut? Also, what about adding a section as discussed above? --Soldier.pitre (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, should you really use "meritable" as a foundation of an argument considering that it is not really part of the content and can barely be considered part of a preamble ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier.pitre (talk • contribs) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Because blogs are self-published, and not reliable. The EL is also not just an indiscriminate collection of link, which is what you are proposing adding. If you disagree with the tv.com link (which is moderated) then take it up at the TV project, but the merits (or not) of tv.com do not make your spammy collection of blogs any more legit. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia articles are also not peer-reviewed and published by anonymous community members - doesn't make the data less valid, but can be argued less reliable. Also, I've already agreed with you that the multitude of links I published earlier was an error and does not meet the wikipedia criteria. I've already agreed that posting the fansite link fails on point #11. However, I do firmly believe that forbidding the link of this website is a draconian action as you most likely perceive this discussion as some form of contest. All I'm saying is that there is content on there that warrants a link from this article. I have bigger fish to fry then to write up arguments and supporting evidence in an attempt to get a link in an article. If the people running the fansite want to be linked on here, then let them argue. What I do care about is a section on fans. Considering that this type of series fuels itself by a strong and unique following, I do believe there is merit in discussing such a section. It would also provide a section to answer the previous question about budget for the show, perhaps publish the dollar value spent on advertising as well. There's alot that can go into that section. --Soldier.pitre (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No sections on "fans" can ever give a balanced view. And "forbidding the link of this website is a draconian action" is a bit strong. "this type of series fuels itself by a strong and unique following" cannot be supported, how is a group of people watching a TV program unique or notable? There is no content on that site that is worth adding to this article from that site, it's a blog and blogs are discouraged as EL. The reason is simple, because it costs nothing for any loon to set up a blog and this is not the place for blogs. I'm not sure you have "bigger fish to fry" as your link to Data was also reverted for being SPAM. It has "fansite" at the top therefore it can never be used as a reliable source, therefore there is no merit in the site. The HBO site is a better link, and we already have that linked. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for locking :) Just as I posted the following, yours was already up! Anyhow, I checked up on the television project you mentioned. Interestingly WP:Episode has a section labeled "Examples of good pages". The Dr. Who page was interesting, they divided the external links into two subsections: 1) official 2) reference. The Wire had an entire section on themes -> which would be interesting to have in this article considering the whole collective/individual rights debate (though I admit, I find it weak in Season 2) Only Fools and Horses has a section on cultural impact. Now I admit, I don't think True Blood necessarily has a cultural impact, but there is definitely something to be said about the culture side. So, I agree that the fansite link fails. However, I don't think some of its content, like the interviews. But whatever ... I just don't have the energy to argue about a fansite. I do like the idea of themes though. Would you be open to a section exploring the individual / collective rights argument? --Soldier.pitre (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So long as anything has reliable sources I am fine. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:ELNO what you use to define "reliable"? What other sites should I read to ensure that my references match the criteria? --Soldier.pitre (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If I link to an interview, are you going to scold me because the interview is posted on the fansite? --Soldier.pitre (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources is what defines reliable sources, and anything from a fansite is likely going to be removed. However HBO, Variety and hundreds of other reliable sources are fine. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would never use a text based interview, only video that I trust to be original from a noteworthy source, and never as primary material. It would be written in a context similar to something like this --> "Indeed, the primary and secondary sources support this idea. However, so 'n so during an interview at something-or-other expressed an opinion in opposition to this idea." I will post an outline of my proposed section in a couple of days. Right now ... I'm recovering from a road trip. Thank-you for the WP links - it seems the general idea, when adding material to articles, is to do so in the same fashion as writing an academic document. I tend to write in MLA, so I'm sure it'll take sometime to get used to the formatting. Do you have a WP link for proper referencing / citing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier.pitre (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section? Specific Pursuit of Unauthorized Downloads

Based on personal experience and word of mouth, HBO is specifically pursuing those who are downloading copies of True Blood episodes via P2P networks. Is this something that should be added to the entry? I feel it may be pertinent, as HBO seems to be intent on pursuing every violator in a hurry. I'm wary of creating a brand-new section without some advice/consent... Any opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelBodhi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bon Temps Translation

"Bon Temps" best translates into "Good Time" - singular. The "s" does not necessarily signify plural in French. Additionally, while "Temps" can also mean "Weather" it is extremely unlikely in this case, as are the other multitudes of uses for "Temps". --Waterspyder (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Why do you think "good time" is a more likely name-place than "good weather?" Weather is geographically dependent, partying is not. Bustter (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

waterspyder- i need some help creating a wiki page. can you please help me. email me at tapfs_fan@yahoo.com (Tapfs fan (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I am French and I can definitely assure you that Bon temps means "Good Time" To speak of the weather you say: "Beau temps" not "bon temps". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.242.116 (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But you are not an RS, so it cannot be added on your word. As it stands it's trivia. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the French from Louisiana isn't quite the same as French from France. 129.21.133.71 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we only list current cast members in info box?

Considering how large the cast is, wouldn't it make more sense to only list the current cast members?J52y (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the MOS says that all members who appear on the opening titles go in the infobox. If you remove cast members then you are dating the page to reflect a specific date (such as season 2, episode 11). All the names go in, see The Wire, Chris Bauer (Andy Bellefleur) was only in 12 episodes in season 2, and is in the infobox. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know the rules. And that makes sense, I see why that would be a problem. 75.42.71.167 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence construction

"after he finds himself killing a vampire to defend Sookie, [Bill] is forced to 'turn' a young girl, Jessica, into a vampire as punishment. In the last episode of the season, this new vampire is left with Bill under his care." Not yet having seen the show, I don't know how this can be fixed. Seems it should be, "this new vampire is left in Bill's care," or "this new vampire is left with Bill under her care" -- depending on whether the new vamp is caregiver to Bill, or Bill is caregiver to Jessica. Not at all clear here. Bustter (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed this to "this new vampire is left under Bill's care." Still not certain if this is accurate, but I trust someone will fix if I have it wrong. Bustter (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the "fangs"?

Is it worth noting that the "fangs" in the series are stubbornly placed over the second incisors instead of the fangs, giving their vampires a dental formula of 1(incisor)-1(vamp "fang")-1(true fang)-2?-3?, which is just veeeeery weird?? Wanted to mention it somewhere, but couldn't find a place in the article to plug said tidbit into. Aadieu (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)