Jump to content

Talk:Six Feet Under (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HD

[edit]

I was told that this was one of the first series to be filmed in HD?sailor iain (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a question? Despite your use of a question mark it really didn't come across as one, which leads one to wonder what your point was. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 23:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (in a sarcastic mood.)[reply]

Alan Ball

[edit]

Alan Ball has commented publicly--notably in a Globe and Mail article that I've now lost--that much of his inspiration for the show was Thomas Lynch's book The Undertaking: Life Studies from the Dismal Trade; would people find that helpful when thinking about Six Feet Under in this context?

Fisher & Sons

[edit]

The article refers to the funeral home as Fisher & Diaz, which is correct for much of the show, but it did start out and end as Fisher & Sons?

SPOILER If you have seen the finale, you'll know that Fisher & Diaz returns to Fisher & Sons when Federico is bought out by David & Keith. The ball's in your court. Sfufan2005

Sources

[edit]

Infomration on writers/directors came from:

Major/supporting?

[edit]

What makes characters like Keith and George supporting characters, as opposed to major characters? --DrBat July 3, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

List of Episodes

[edit]
  • I gave the episodes a special article just like the deaths. Hope that's OK with everyone. Sfufan2005 July 6, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Characters

[edit]

I gave characters own article, Characters of Six Feet Under, but added a chart with a brief outline on each character on the main page. Hope everyone likes it and feel free to proofread for grammar. 67.80.211.57 00:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally edited the characters table to remove the finale details since this is not relevant information to the article. All that is needed is a basic character description - details can be found elsewhere. However my changes were reversed. To the person who reversed them you should know that you are doing nothing more than spoiling an excellent show for people that have not yet seen the final episode.
There is a spoiler warning at the top of the article. I think that's sufficient warning for those who haven't seen the finale. Since this is an encyclopedia, it makes sense to include important information about the character, such as the details of their death. There's also the fact that almost all the deaths occur in the epilogue. Knowing that a character dies at some point in the far future likely won't decrease anyone's enjoyment of the show. Carbonite | Talk 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the deaths are revealed at all is a surprise twist to the show. I think the surprise of it is a significant part of its success as an epilogue. Most people thought the show would end when Claire was shown driving away. While I understand the desire to be an encyclopedia, and thus unbiased and thorough, I think there are alternate ways to structure the information so that it does not spoil so carelessly.
It seems likely that someone who has just started to watch the show, such as on DVD, would read the list of characters to become more familiar with the sometimes daunting ensemble cast. In this case, which I think is the most likely case, we should take care not to reveal too much detail. I think an acceptable solution is to make a page or section specifically for the finale. I will do this myself if the idea gets any support.
This happened to me - I'd just got the s5 box set and then read here that they all die at the end and it kinda ruined it for me... wish it hadn't. Romansanders 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'd like to point out these spoilers in the characters table for being poorly written or containing hearsay: "Dies in 2051 at age 82 with her brother Billy talking her ear off", "Speculation that she may have been pregnant in the finale", "She is then murdered in 2003". skilless
The only significant character I noticed that was left off this list was Father Jack. I would add him but I don't know how many episodes he was in; I would guess around 5. --Diamondthieves 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the montage in the series finale doesn't it appear that Anthony, David's son, is with a man and is gay. I can't tell 100%, but it seems like a significant detail.--Diamondthieves 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Keith be included in the family tree as David's spouse with their adopted children Durrell and Anthony? I'm pretty sure that in the last episode there is a clip of Keith and David getting a joined union, but even if there isn't, the fact that they have children together means that Keith should at least be on the chart, if not actually connected to David with a marriage link. I would make this change myself, but the family tree formatting is foreign to me and I don't want to mess up someone's nice work. --Sprky182 12:17, 18 October 2006
I deliberately excluded the events in the last few minutes of the series in the family tree. Yes, David and Keith get married (or something similar) there, but if we would include this, we also would've to include that Claire becomes a mother, Durrell and Anthony both marry and/or have children, David has a new partner and so on. If there could be a disctinction between "being married" and "being together" in the family tree template, I'd be all for including Keith, Durrell and Anthony. --Conti|✉ 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was that obnoxious woman who flirted with David, you know the prim lady that kept showing up at funerals and in church talking a mile a minute? Finally David told her, "You know I'm GAY!" or something. And who was Ruth's sister? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.63.191 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first character you're talking about is Tracy Montrose Blair played by Dina Waters, who just appeared in the first season. Ruth's sister is Sarah O'Connor played by Patricia Clarkson. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

[edit]

The contents of the page mention at least two major plot twists. I tried to figure out a way to separate them such that the spoiler warning could go somewhere besides the top but there's no way unless the flow of the text is ruined - see the quick mention of Lisa for an example. For someone watching the show on DVD that's only seen the first few seasons this would be a MAJOR revelation.

I say change it. The structure of this article is too messy, and too large to seem comprehensive, in the correct manner. It shoudl begin with an introduction of the series, the themes and production. Then info about the plot over the seasons. Then more production info & trivia. What do people think of this?
  • I'm sorry I disagree. This article is updated constantly and changed and this is the purpose for a spoiler tag. When I moved the characters to their own special article it sort of eliminated a lot of plot detail. The characters list on the main page just needs to be simplified. Sfufan2005 18:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Character list needs the deaths removed, they're pretty big spoilers I'd say for some of them and theres no warning and they're not useful as a character description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.183 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use accents with Spanish Surnames: Díaz, Rodríguez, López... If you guys have any doubts, don't hesitate to ask native people :)

Gaudio 10:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel and Isabel (Books)

[edit]

Are Nathaniel and Isabel a real book series or Not ?--Brown Shoes22 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title image

[edit]

Who thinks the main image should be the one with the entire cast (located in the trivia section), and not the image in the opening credits w/the tree? --DrBat 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the title image, and many other articles contain the title image as well The West Wing, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Seinfeld. I don't really see what the big deal is. Sfufan2005 21:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - cast image should go under cast. A show is not the cast. An different show could have an identical cast, while the cast in a single show can change radically. mgekelly 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a little bit to the Trivia section, the original point was contradictory.

--155.143.199.124 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of words

[edit]

There was a peculiar choice of words in the paragraph about Six Feet Under's elements of magical realism. I changed "In the later seasons, a similar device is used..." to "A similar device is occasionally used..." as this device was evident as early as the Pilot episode in which David imagines screaming at someone. Anyone disagree? Mawied 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Season 1 Teasers

[edit]

Six feet under had teasers for season 1 as well but they arent listed, nor could I find any links. Anyone knows if they are available on the net as they conveyed the mood of Six Feet Under quite well and spurred people who didnt really know about the series to watch the pilot.

DVDs

[edit]

I've thoroughly corrected the DVD section with organized and complete information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeptemberX1990 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your help! Just a reminder to please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~)Sfufan2005 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize people don't visit the SFU page so I'll put this in capitals to grab attention...WILL SOMEONE ADD A PICTURE OF THE COMPLETE SERIES ON THE DVD SECTION...and I just finished updating the DVD section fixing the audio and video summaries and fixing info about the complete series.. thank u SeptemberX1990

Emmy and Golden Globe Awards

[edit]

I added an awards list but it only contains the Emmys and Golden Globes. I didn't want to add the nominations because I think having too much would make it look too cluttered and unorganized. SeptemberX1990 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]

I moved the recurring characters and celebrity cameo appearances after the main characters list, moved the "list of DVD releases" link below the promotions and moved sheduling changes above the trivia to make the page look organized. SeptemberX1990 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree

[edit]

Shouldn't the family tree include David's marriage to Keith (and the adoption of their two sons) and the marriage of Claire to her future husband? Keith was very much part of the family throughout the series, and the adoption happened during the series, and whilst the rest are future events, they are destined to happen, so why not include them? -Kez 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why either couldn't be added. If someone knows how to (I don't really know how to work the template), they should be added. --DrBat 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DrBat: I realise I'm very late to this but, Claire's husband still hasn't been added to the list even though he should be. I'm terrible with chart formatting but, if I can figure it out, I'll do it.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without reading your original suggestion, I came to the same conclusion and completed an attempt at updating the family tree. --Bpier 10 January 2007


Why isn't Ruth's sister on the family tree? Randal6546 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the family tree here at all? It has spoilers for people who haven't finished the series and adds nothing of value. 50.1.125.8 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed the external link that spoils the series finale (which it did to me!)

Any objections?

This was the link: {{spoiler}} obituaries of main characters dying in series finale

-Gazongagizmo 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First gay inter-racial Television kiss?

[edit]

It was suggested [here] that Six Feet Under portrayed the first gay inter-racial television kiss. Can anyone confirm, and provide an air-date? (or just fix the article in question) Charles (Kznf) 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David an Keith kissed in the first episode (and in many others, too! :)), which aired, according to List of Six Feet Under episodes, on June 3, 2001. --Conti|✉ 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main List of Characters

[edit]

There seems to be no rationale for inclusion in the main chart about the characters. Clair's school friends, many who only appeared in a handful of episodes, get listed, but Tracy Montrose Blair is not? Bravo uses the clip of her asking "Why do people have to die?" in all their promos for the show. RoyBatty42 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

[edit]

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler

[edit]

This template is unencyclopedic. It is not 'standard' - it has been removed from several thousand articles already and is now used nowhere. See [1]--Docg 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

address/neighborhood

[edit]

The article currently gives not only a neighborhood in which the show was set, but an exact address. I'm really curious where that comes from, whether it's legit, and whether it means the filming location for the home exteriors, the setting within the fictional universe, or both... Please feel free to send me a message if you know the answer to this. Hermitage 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely legit. According to this IMDB source and the Six Feet Under book "Better Living Through Death" both contain the address. It is the actual location of that house as well. Sfufan2005 02:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Merge/Redirects

[edit]

please note the concerns addressed here: Talk:List_of_Six_Feet_Under_characters#Character_Redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

[edit]

Can someone put spoiler tags in? I just ruined a major character arc for myself. Probably should have known better, but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed270791 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no spoiler tags, as Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Realism or Imaginary Internal Dialogues?

[edit]

In the main article and in several of the character bios, the conversations with dead people are repeatedly referred to as being wholly imaginary - "They represent the living character's internal dialogue by exposing it as an external conversation." Is this truly an accurate description? Several times throughout the series these conversations with the dead include information that the living person could not possibly know - for instance, David's conversation with the dead gang member includes information and terminology that David would not know. Is there anything official from the creators that says that these conversations are wholly imaginary or is this description just someone's favored interpretation? I haven't watched the entire series yet but I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that they aren't actually seeing and speaking to the dead. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accurate description, yes. Alan Ball says on numerous DVD commentaries that those conversations are meant to be a visualization of the character's internal dialogues. I suppose what the dead gang member said could as well be incorrect, since it's just what David imagined he would say. --Conti|✉ 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critical interpretation of a work should not consider explanations given by the creator. I also noticed last night that on the last episode of the first season, the dead father character appears during the Christening party for Federico's new baby. No character sees or interacts with him, how can he be a visualization of a character's internal dialogue? I think it's pretty clear that not all representations of dead people in the show are imaginary. 69.154.79.208 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to log in, previous post was mine. Resistance is Character-Forming 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Why should the creator of a show not be considered a reliable source about the show he created? Well, the appearance of dead characters aren't always a visualization of a character's internal dialogue, but of a character's thoughts in general. --Conti|✉ 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious literary criticism does not take into consideration extra-textual explanations of the author for a number of reasons. For one thing, it can really put a damper on interpreting a work if you take as canon one interpretation of the symbolism, no matter where it comes from. Also, authors themselves may subconsciously put meaning into a story that they themselves do not recognize, or deliberately deny meanings that they did intend for various reasons. I'm not coming from nowhere on his, you'll learn this in pretty much any college-level course that emphasizes literary criticism. Then there's this, very important factor: Alan Ball did not write every episode of Six Feet Under. Some of the authors may have their own take on the meaning of the appearance of dead people. He may (or may not) have intended every scene involving a dead person to reflect internal thoughts of a living character, but he is not the sole writer of Six Feet Under episodes. 70.242.192.43 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to sign in again. Above post by 70.242.192.43 is me. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you say makes sense if you would do the literary criticism yourself, but Wikipedia is not the right place to do that. Doing the criticism and interpretation ourselves would be original research, and is not allowed here. All we can and should do is summarize the sources about the show. So, if you have a source that comments on the appearance of dead characers, you can include it in the article. I'm certainly not an expert in literary criticism, but I think unless we have a (reliable) source that contradicts him, Alan Ball's explanation should be seen as canon. As far as I know, other writers have stated the same thing about dead characters in the DVD commentaries, too, but I might be wrong there. --Conti|✉ 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina's role

[edit]

Hi all - am working my way through disambiguation for Caretaker - could someone possibly clarify what Bettina's role is in the show? Is she more of a carer? Thanks, Richsage (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Brother & Sister In Final Episode

[edit]

In the scene where Brenda is talking to her brother and they are both old and she dies, does this indicate they were married after all, brother & sister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.152.185 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Brenda's obituary says she married another man. I'm pretty sure the implication - and joke - is that Billy eventually talked her to death. - 23 Feb 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Fisherhome1.JPG

[edit]

Image:Fisherhome1.JPG 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards list?

[edit]

There used to be an awards list on here, why was it deleted? I think thats an important and interesting thing to include about a television show. - 23 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.80.249 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themes Section?

[edit]

I'd love to try to include a section including some of the major themes of the series, since this seems to be a common section to many featured articles for TV series. Any thoughts? It would also be nice to have a season-by-season synopsis in the main article, don't you think? Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

Mlodemn (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A theme sections are a nice addition, but remember it must be properly referenced with reliable sources. The season by season synopsis should be handled in the episode list. For this article, the over all synopsis is good. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback. I'll begin with this edit and ask opinions again before any more changes or additions. Mlodemn (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major themes section is now in place! I look forward to any edits or suggestions for improvement. Mlodemn (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Awesome Series Ever Ruined By The Graph!

[edit]

Thanks for ruining the entire series for me by showing [a major plot point] at the beginning of a graph! All I wanted to find out was whether he won an Emmy or not! You couldn't post that at the top of the page, only Golden Globes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.39.244 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that happened to you - I will remove said reference. I have also edited your post in order to prevent further spoiling. Again, really sorry - VH1's Best Week Ever spoiled it for me a few years back, but watched the whole series anyway. I highly suggest you do the same. Mlodemn (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Feet Under (TV series) and Six Feet Under (band)

[edit]

The TV series article is not more notable than the band. It was already discussed and solved here (if it is moved to an archive, look for "Redirect question"), but I am saying it again: Six Feet Under is the fourth best-selling death metal act and consists band members from the most influental and important death metal bands ever, 3 of the members were in 3 of 6 best selling death metal bands, Six Feet Under is nuber 4.(link). On Youtube are under Six Feet Under 8 of 20 videos about the band even when the other thing is a TV series with 63 episodes. Google gives for "six feet under HBO" about 318 000 and for "six feet under TV series" about 348 000, for "six feet under metal" 555 000, and for "six feet under metal band" about 1 900 000. According to "naming conventions" on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, we have to keep the band and TV series on the same level. The TV series is not more notable than the band. Stay WP:NEU, tolerant and drop prejudice to heavy metal please.--Lykantrop (Talk) 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is, it is more so than the band. The amount of critical attention the show garnered is enought, nevermind the awareness level within the general, English-speaking population. However, I don't understand what has you so riled. The band gets its entry, so what are you actually complaining about? Better get used to the idea that ANY death metal band is of limited interest to the world at large. It's a niche market of a smaller genre of music. SteveCoppock (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Photographer

[edit]

Here is information needed because I actually came to the article looking for it: the name of the art photographer who did the promo shots for several of their seasons (most notably the one set in the kitchen of all the characters for the second season). Should be listed in the section for promotions, as it is rather notable.SteveCoppock (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame of episode settings section

[edit]

To me, this section seems a little pointless. Shouldn't it be merged with the episode guide (List of Six Feet Under episodes) which I also notice ended up confusingly in a seperate article from the main Six Feet Under entry? I vote for consolidation of the two. Red Gown (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


David James Fisher

[edit]

I demand that he not be referred to as "husband." Doing so only promotes the POV that homosexual marriage is acceptable and exposes Wikipedia's extreme liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.93.155 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it exposes the shows 'extreme liberal bias' (at least according to your opinion). Wikipedia is simply reflecting the reality of the show, in accordance to our policy on WP:NPOV and not taking a view of the show or the acceptance of 'homosexual' marriage (same sex marriage is far more accurate anyway), unlike you Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'm not totally unreasonable. I left the term husband, but I linked it to the homosexual marriage article. If Wikipedia has even a shred of credibility, it will stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.93.155 (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um you put a link to Christian opposition of same-sex marriage. What on earth does that have to do with the show or how does it help the reader understand the term? The answer is absolutely nothing (and you said you're not totally unreasonable?). You've revealed your obvious bias, and I suggest you refrain from editing the article unless you can edit in an WP:NPOV fashion Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

[edit]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black comedy

[edit]

SFU can definitely be considered a black comedy/dark comedy. While SFU has some of the most dramatic television moments ever, there's still quite a dose of dark humor throughout the series, I don't think anyone who's seen the series can say there's not comedy. The show synopsis section in the article mentions it has dark humor. Need sources?

Use your browser keyword search to locate mentions black comedy, dark comedy, dark humor, etc. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the show has some (dark) comedy elements. Star Trek does, too, but that doesn't mean that it's a Sci-Fi comedy show, right? True Blood can be pretty funny at times, too, but it's not a Vampire comedy, either. Basically, there's quite a difference between Black comedy and having a "dose of dark humor" at times. --Conti|✉ 13:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well whatever. I just thought providing a dozen sources of it being referred to as a black comedy would be suffice. The official website even says "Relive five seasons of black humor and dark family drama". Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources above aren't reliable sources and can't be used. The official homepage, on the other hand, would suffice. I can't understand why bloody everything has to be comedy nowadays, though. :) You don't sit down and watch the show to have a laugh. --Conti|✉ 13:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added black comedy, that's fine right? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best finale cites

[edit]

Is it really necessary to have twelve citations for the sentence in the second paragraph about it having the best finale? "[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]" is not easy on the eyes. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried a different formatting that preserves the references but unifies them as a single inline ref, but Drovethrughosts likes having eleven references in a row, and since he's the owner, we can go fuck ourselves. Goddamnit, sometimes I'm so tired of this shit. Trying to improve Wikipedia against *any* resistance from *anyone* is impossible without endless time and energy on your hands. Just great. --87.78.237.165 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, whoa. Steady on there, buddy. I appreciate that it can be frustrating to see a change you've made undone in the short term, but it does take a bit of negotiation sometimes to work on articles. You should have brought the matter up here and gotten some more opinions on the matter. Like mine! As my old comment above from two years ago (before I was actively involved with citation maintenance) shows, I agree with you about the number of references, and I don't think Drovethrughosts did the right thing in returning the situation to how it was. In fact, I specifically think that the way he did it was inappropriate. The bland edit summary "formatting" did not accurately represent the nature of the change, which was to revert another editor's changes. Drovethrughosts: consider this a minor warning. Don't do that. Anon, I'm going to restore the formatting you applied, which was well-thought-out and germane to a better reading experience. If Drovethrughosts has an issue with that, he needs to discuss it here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

Since editors have determined that edit warring is a better practice than discussion on this page, I have protected it. Please work out the issue here first. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed linkrot

[edit]

I have removed one of the references, which is now access-restricted and which is not available via Wayback.

  • Bettridge, Daniel (April 15, 2009). "Best US television shows". Times Online. London. Retrieved March 28, 2010.

--213.168.89.99 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Six Feet Under (TV series). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consultant

[edit]

Tyler Cassity of Hollywood Forever Cemetery was a consultant for the show. 1: The Shroud of Marin 2: Six Feet Under: Death becomes them

There's also been speculation that the Cassity family served as the show's inspiration, but I can't find anything to back up that claim. 144.178.0.204 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Genres in both the infobox and the body of the article need reliable sourcingto be included. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tragedy television programs is relevant to the addition of that as a genre for a TV program. MarnetteD|Talk 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly a discussion about deleting an article based on policy, not a discussion based on the genre in and of itself. And that's now twice you've failed to be even remotely truthful about what a discussion is representing. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that this is a genre for TV or this show. Now, I have no problem with a prose description of elements of the show being noted as tragic in the body of the article. It is just not a genre for this show or the medium of TV. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from five articles discussing it at length. You've yet to provide a shred of evidence that it can't be a TV genre in any sense. 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In the end, this goes back to Marnette's original point. Before even arguing over whether "tragedy" is a television genre (though doubts have been raised, so it might be useful to see sources establishing that it is considered one), sources are needed claiming that this series is such a series. It might be best to raise the question of whether "tragedy" is considered a television genre at WT:TV, where a wider range of editors are likely to see it. DonIago (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added here do not support the genre label "tragedy". Salon says "...her family's dysfunction blended a form of ancient Greek tragedy with the exaggeration of an Aaron Spelling primetime soap", and the unpublished paper by Whitby compares and contrasts the series with the tragedy Antigone but does not say that Six Feet itself is an instance of a tragedy. In fact, he uses "HBO" as the de facto genre label (but of course that is not actually a genre). --bonadea contributions talk 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A form of ancient Greek tragedy. Not a tragedy. Right. Direct comparisons to Greek tragedy. But not a tragedy. Right. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A form of ancient Greek tragedy. Not a tragedy. "a form of ancient Greek tragedy [blended] with the exaggeration of an Aaron Spelling primetime soap" is not a genre label. Direct comparisons to Greek tragedy. But not a tragedy. Indeed not a tragedy. Whitby states that several times, on pages 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Things can be extrapolated from things which aren't bluntly written. And no such thing is written on page 2. But like I said, you're definitely correct, things being compared to tragedies means they aren't tragedies, things being described as tragic aren't tragic. Six Feet Under is definitely, in no way, shape or form, a tragedy. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sarcastic tone of that response doesn't make for particularly constructive discussions; I'll ignore that for now but won't respond to any other posts written in the same tone. I have not mentioned any things that are described as tragic – why would I do that? The tragedy genre is not an umbrella term for drama with tragic components. From page 2 of Whitby (2011): "Here I wish to compare Six Feet Under and the 'HBO' TV genre to Greek tragedy, specifically Sophocles' Antigone, and bring some of the criticism around the play to bear on something quite different." Extrapolating the genre from sources that don't identify the series as belonging to that genre would be synthesis. --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you're definitely correct mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The template that links to the seasons is broken. The links are now supposed to go to a link that looks like "List_of_Six_Feet_Under_episodes#Season_1_(2001)". Anyone know how to fix it? --KJRehberg (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“In case of Rapture”

[edit]

Episode 41, "In case of Rapture", bore an uncannily striking similarity to a news article reported some years earlier in the 'Funny Old World' section of British satirical magazine Private Eye, and which had stuck with me because of its ridiculousness. Did Alan Ball ever acknowledge his inspiration for this storyline? 86.155.206.70 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Feet_Under_(TV_series)&oldid=1249834863"