This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Television Start‑class Mid‑importance 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 Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

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) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the description of Steve Newlin, they make it sound like we saw the murder of his family take place in the beginning of season 1. Can anyone confirm that because I don't recall anyone of that description dying? Otherwise I think we should change the description to fix the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.235.12 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in the beginning of the first season you see steve newlins father make a couple of tv appearances. a little later during that season there's a news report about them having been killed and their son steve commenting on it (steve newlins first appearance on true blood) --212.23.104.97 (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sections don't really make sense (at least the wording). 1) they require constant update on an episode to episode basis, depending on deaths and resurrections and such, 2) the whole concept of former doesn't make sense once the show concludes as then every character would be a former character. I understand the desire to separate them like this, but from an encyclopedic stand-point it doesn't make sense. Either include them all in the major section (main characters, supporting characters) with their descriptions noting they were only in season one, or divide this article up by seasons, with the sub heading of "season one" featuring the season one supporting characters, etc, with the total series characters still listed at the top of the article24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. None of the former characters have come back. If they do come back then they can be moved into the current section. The episode count is added when a character leaves, characters without episode counts are current. There should be nothing in the former section which needs updating, those characters are gone, which is not to say the descriptions can't be improved, just that they don't need "constant update on episode to episode basis". Once the show concludes then the former will be removed, but as Wikipedia is not on paper the current layout is the easiest, as we still have nine episodes of season 2 to go. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have trouble with the "Former" wording, it's temporal and implies that people are tracking the current unfolding of events. Could we instead have them divided by Season? So have the former main characters be listed under "Season One" and marked if they died in that season, then have a section for Season Two that notes which continued on and which were new? Or alternatively, instead of Former how about "Only in Season One" and the rest as "Continuous Main Characters", then at some point there could be a section for "Only in Season One and Two" or similar? Just thinking out loud here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes have the title of the first episodes which identify when they started and an episode count when they leave. The layout is per other layouts for other TV programs, either characters are current and main or current and supporting, or they are former main characters or former supporting characters. None of the former characters are coming back, so I don't see the issue. Dividing by season 1, season 2 or seasons 1 and 2 will mean the current four categories become 12 (S1 main, S1 supporting, S1 former main, S1 former supporting, S2 main, S2 supporting, S2 former main, S2 former supporting, S1+2 main, S1+2 supporting, S1+2 former main, S1+2 former supporting) and there are very few characters which need extra sub-headings. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there is precedent that's something. Which other shows organize things this way? Are there counter examples? I am somewhat thinking in the future. Once the show runs its course and is only spoken of in the past tense - say twenty years from now - how would we organize it then? That is somewhat what I was thinking, albeit thinking out loud. If at that point it doesn't make sense to use "current" and "former", then perhaps that future organization would also make sense now and would require readers not be up-to-date in the shows unfolding. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You pull the former sections out once the show finishes. Then it will be main and supporting. And look at the organisation of The Wire or Lost, there are seven books (I think, without checking) and Ball has previously stated each season will follow a book (loosely) also we are looking at around seven, maybe eight seasons, 15 episodes in this is the easiest structure, at a later date the main and supporting articles will split. As a work in progress this structure is a start and makes it easy for editors to add information, and stops the main article from bloating up beyond control (which was beginning to happen). Wait until 7th September then an overhaul can be done, as it stands some of the Dallas vampires haven't even appeared. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the counter example comparisons. I guess something akin to Lost is what I was thinking, where each character has a season specified. But I'm not strongly invested in this, the "former" language just struck me as less encyclopedic somehow, a gut feeling really. The way the ratings are going for this show, I agree it should have a long enough run to warrant a tabular view or unified view long term. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia tag for "pull stuff out of my ass and put it on a wikipedia entry" -- because this page could probably use it, for example:

Maryann Forrester ... who is also a maenad. ... It is likely that she is the minotaur-like creature that attacked Sookie or at least the controller of the beast since she is a maenad, and they can control bulls.

76.233.70.199 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me?. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'd rather gripe about it -- and don't feel like wasting my time editing articles on fictional characters on a bathroom-wall-opedia. Besides, I was asking if there was such a tag -- or is that what "citation needed" means?  :-) 76.233.70.199 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann is actually Circe (pronounced sersi) or at least a representation. This is reinforced by the presence of the pig (according to Homer's Odyssey she turned Odysseus' crew into pigs with her magic). Depending on which reference, she is either a goddess, witch, sorceress or nymph. I would say she's a nymph judging by the orgies she holds,inducing euphoria, being surrounded by beauty and the reference to Pan. Her ability to force Sam's shapeshifting also supports this theory as Circe was well known for her ability to turn humans to animals with her magic. Whether she is actually the minotaur that attacked Sookie is debatable. However, Circe's sister Pasiphaë, was the mother of the Minotaur. Although Maryann may be responsible for turning another human (Daphne?) into the minotaur or may very well be the minotaur herself.

While the conclusion is logical, the show has not revealed Maryann's true nature and it may be unwise to predefine her identity. I suggest waiting until we know what she is before we draw conclusions. It is not a place to speculate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.175.193 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree, but I think that this page would serve its purpose better if it was more condensed. With the sheer number of characters that have appeared over only one season and part of a second, this page will be massive and hard to keep track of. Also, some of these characters already have individual pages that is really the place for large expansion. I was thinking we could use the same method as the show Gossip Girl (Characters of Gossip Girl), another show that is based off of a series of books. This would also eliminate the former sections and make the page more compact. --Fireheart14, 13:55, 13 July 2009 (EST)

Feel free to work up a version in a sandbox. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Magister (who has so far been in just one episode) gets his own paragraph in supporting characters, shouldn't the AVL spokesperson Nan Flanagan? I tried to add her a while ago but it was deleted. As of now, all we have is a misspelled name on the bottom banner which leads to Characters of True Blood but not to a specific bit, since no such area exists for this character... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.15.165 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think Adele Stackhouse's entry needs to have the wording changed; there was nothing accidental about her death at all. Drew/Rene was in the house waiting for Sookie, but he stabbed Adele (Gran) to death when she unexcpectedly came home first. Her death would still be considered a homicide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendaddy621 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the legal definition at least. But to Rene and other townsfolk I'm sure they portray her death as accidental. However I don't think anybody else except Sookie knows that. Because she read his mind and heard him say "You're not supposed to be here" but I don't think she told anybody that. Maybe I am mistaken but isn't her murder still a mystery as to why? Travis (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A murder isn't an accidental death, which I think was the point. It doesn't matter that she was the wrong person killed, she was still murdered. And no, in the series her death is portrayed not as an accident as a murder, as it was. The coroner noted defensive wounds in her palms that went "to the bone" which automatically eliminates accidental death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.111.143 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Pjbf (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think their one-night stand could be characterized as a "brief affair" as that implies something more than one night. Moreover, it seemed to me that Sam was not exactly a willing participant, but it wasn't exactly rape - or am I seeing it differently from others? It seemed to me that Maryann forced him to have sex with her. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, since Sam never explicitly states that it wasn't consensual, and there's little to suggest it was, including anything on the nature of what went on is speculative. Where exactly did it specify that they were only together one night, by the way? -Hooliganb (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that he ran off afterwards, and when he returned to see her did he not apologise for taking her money? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did run off, but sneaking away in the night doesn't necessarily mean you didn't want to sleep with the person... it just means you didn't want to be there when they woke up. He did apologize. Since being caught in her house and running away happened in two flashbacks, I wasn't sure it was all in one night or not. -Hooliganb (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression it was one night. But it may need to be re-worded to reflect the unclear nature. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently someone created the page Minor characters of True Blood which I personally do not see as necessary (or potentially even notable under Wiki standards). Regardless, I think it should be discussed here if that page should be merged into this one, deleted, expanded, what not. If the decision is to keep, notability still needs to be proven.24.190.34.219 (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many TV programs have a separate page for minor characters, and this page was far too long with people like Barry who appear in two episodes. If you want to check go to The Wire which has a minor characters page for each season. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we figure out Sam's age from the finale? He tells his adoptive mother he's spent nineteen years on the run, so that's nineteen years since he turned into a dog in front of her. Does anyone recall how old he was when he took off? 14 comes to mind, which would make TB Sam 33 years old. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam later said to his real parents when he meets them he was 15 when he transformed (he said His life was fine until he was 15). Making him 34, not 33. Travis (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently 79.97.112.99 added links to several of the entries leading to main articles on some of the main characters. These articles, however, are primarily written about the characters as viewed in the novels. Since there has always been a distinction made between this article (being about the characters as portrayed in True Blood) and articles about the books, should these links be allowed to remain?

While helpful, I don't believe they should, since (with the exception of the Sookie Stackhouse article) none contain substantial information regarding the portrayal of the characters on television. -Hooliganb (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the notion that the main character (novel) pages would be useful for the tv series, since they can contain a lot more background info suitable for a longer article. Each of them has a section for the TV portrayal, denoting the differences in background (such as Eric being created by Godric vs. Ocella in the novels). However, the TV series articles such as this one are suffering the "this week's update" syndrome - people rush to add the new episode events to each character. I don't believe this is how wikipedia is supposed to work, but it's difficult for fans to avoid.

It looks like the links are just in the picture headers ... not a very obvious place to put them, but meh. I'd just as soon use "See novel character Sookie Stackhouse" under each main character header, but ... up to you guys.Tkech (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using "spouse" Infobox field for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I am using "family" for progenies and makers instead of using "children". Fiances, boyfriends, and girlfriends should go under "significant others". Angry bee (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "deceased" should only apply if the character was deceased BEFORE the main timeline of the show. That way we know that "deceased" means the character was mentioned in passing or that the character only appeared in flashbacks. I will make the change. 98.113.222.37 (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Authority get an entry in here? Angry bee (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though they may be seen as minor characters, like Nan Flanagan was/is. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish somebody would explain what is "in-universe" about the character descriptions. All I can think of is the fact that no references to vampires or shapeshifters state that they're fictional, and that would be a really silly complaint! But if that's not it, what IS the problem please?

I'm baffled! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In universe means that mostly all we have is character and plot summary. Ideally, we should have info along the lines of casting, actors' choices for scene depictions, etc. When I had way more time on my hands I started to do this with Lafayette (note the references for Ball's casting concerns and Ellis' comments on getting into character). Right now we have something that would be appropriate for a wikia, not Wikipedia. If you click on the in-universe link in the actual tag on the article, you can read a more thorough explanation. Millahnna (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any entry about Lorena, Bill's maker. --VM (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena would be a supporting character most likely. --Jsderwin (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found here under supernaturals. --Jsderwin (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no Lilith? Deoll (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are many rumors among fans about how Russell escaped, among them that Nan, before confronting Bill and Eric, freed Edgington herself after being fired by the Authority." So this unsourced speculation really needs to be here? I've speculated myself the preacher did it so where should I add that? Or do I need to get more people speculating that to add it? I'm going to remove that24.115.19.178 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we jumped the gun in putting him in the past main characters section. We didn't see him burst so he could be alive. Until the seventh season confirms his death we should keep him in main characters.24.188.197.22 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved him back to the main character status. There's just nothing to go with the assumption that he actually died (we've seen vamps survive getting burned in past seasons already), and it's most likely that Pam swooped in to save him at the last second. It's just a seasonal cliffhanger to leave viewers guessing, but of course he'll make a comeback. The program would have made a much bigger deal about his death, too. SamSandy (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "past main characters" section was obviously created before the end of the series and should be merged with the "main characters" section now that the series is over. Season 7 main character Violet Mazurski is missing from the list. Etc. Anyone else interested? I'll do what I can. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of True Blood characters. 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/20100822155315/http://www.trueblood-news.com/denis-ohare-russells-older-then-godric to http://www.trueblood-news.com/denis-ohare-russells-older-then-godric

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) 18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]