text:
Talk:Modal verb

old talk
The redirection of "Modal Verb" to the Grammatical Mood page is erroneous. It was correct prior to this edit when it was being redirected to the Modal Auxiliary Verb page.

The Modal Auxiliary Verb page needs to be greatly expanded. The comment on this erroneous edit is "to eliminate a double redirection". The Modal Auxiliary Verb page is so small that it was thought to be nothing more than a redirection to the Grammatical Mood page.

 * Modal verb should not redirect to English modal auxiliary verb because other languages have modal verbs. peace – ishwar  (speak)  08:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The page is now about Germanic modal verbs in general, with an emphasis on syntax. I find conflicting information about whether the terminology "modal verb" is applicable to non-Germanic languages.  That question should be settled by someone who can read grammar books in those languages, rather than English text about them.  --Syboor 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "Mood"
Modal auxiliaries don't indicate "mood", but rather function. Examples of "mood" are interrogatory, imperative, subjunctive, emphatic, etc. Mood has a distinctive meaning in grammar. 72.146.54.30 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Modals "modify". That is were the word comes from.

 * It is about mood. It's about the permissive and subjunctive moods.  It's just that these moods aren't technically considered to exist in English, since they are usually indicated by modal auxiliary verbs rather than by separate verb forms.  Benjamindees (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. modals do express mood.  Really there's no discussion there, they simply do. Drew.ward (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

this page is very wrong
I'm going to delete the examples the translations and stuff. Or put a factual accuracy thing on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.12 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I don't understand your point. What was wrong about the list?  Did you read all the stuff about the list not providing translations?  Or the section "Please, check this" on this discussion page?

 * I have reinstated the word list. IMHO, without it, the entire section on Properties of Modal Verbs is pretty unintelligible. I also added the singular forms of German and Dutch verbs to the list.  This is because the vowel alternation between singular and plural in these languages is a distinct feature of modal verb (which is stated in the "Properties"-section, put pretty hard to understand without examples).  And because often the English form is more related to the German/Dutch singular form than to the plural form.  Syboor 15:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The German word "wollen/will" is in English "want", the English word "will" is in German "werden/werde/wirst". In the table it is given in just the wrong combination. This was already discussed by flivelwitz on novembre 7th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.243.242 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, "sollen" means "should" not "shall" and "durfen" means "may" not "tharf". "Mogen" means "like" or "enjoy" not "may". It also doesn't matter what they were in the past. This is an article on Modal verbs. The main part of it should about modern modals. You can add the history of them and what they used to be if you want, but don't just have what it used to be.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.220.35 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the fact that you are one of the only people to notice that these are not translations of one another anymore. It's quite a feat, especially given the note above the chart saying: "Note that the words in this list are not translations of each other". I am sure all the people who have worked on this article did so while wearing their underpants on their heads, two pencils up their nostrils and going "wibble" every so often. The present semantics of these verbs is not the issue. "Modal verb" is a formal morphological category which, among other things, is defined by their being preterite-present verbs. I am sure you will be happy to find that "like" or "enjoy" have a final -s in the 3rd person singular, which makes them non-modals, whatever their meaning. You may also find that neither "may" nor "mögen", by virtue of their being modals to a verb, have such an ending in the same position -- unless of course you personally prefer forms such as "he mays go" or "er magt das nicht", which you are perfectly well entitled to find a matter of personal taste and prefer as an expression of your very own individuality, and good on you too. Trigaranus (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, check this.
In the German page, it states "Das Deutsche kennt sechs Modalverben: wollen, müssen, können, mögen, sollen und dürfen." So, why are here listed others, like brauchen or wagen?

 * The German page is right and this page is wrong. It used to be right.  It seems that somebody decided to turn the German list into a translation of the English list, rather than a list of German words with the same etymological roots. "Werden", "brauchen", and "wagen" are not modal verbs, so don't belong here.  I'll change it back, and see if I can clarify things (even) better, but I think the person who made this change was clearly in error (because the article already stated that the list does not provide translations). Syboor 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Not only are those not modal verbs but the English translations of many of the correct modal verbs are horribly wrong. Sollen is more correctly translated as should, wollen is to want (werden is will), mögen is to like, and dürfen is may or to be allowed to.  Need is most definitely not a modal verb in German, and I don't believe is considered a modal in English by many people any more.

 * Yes, translations are tricky. Is there some page about it that we could link to?  I'm not sure from your comment whether you agree with the current list on this page.  BTW, the page English modal auxiliary verb has a longer discussion about whether or not "need" is a modal. You're right that it never is in German. Syboor 09:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the "translations" are not wrong, because they are not translations :P . Etymologically, words in the same row share common roots. So, because of that is that we have things like sollen = shall. --Pfc432 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, the "will" in English is not the "wollen" in German, for example.
 * "Ich will etwas tun" - I want to do something (or "I intend on doing something")(as compared to "Ich moechte etwas tun" - "I would like to do something")
 * "Ich werde etwas tun" - I will do something (or "I am going to do something").
 * The German newspapers often use "wollen" to mean intention - somebody intends to do something,etc.
 * This really should be changed.Flivelwitz 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mention of some alternative verb forms - but it has been done some now
A. This article mentioned the use of the verb "do" in English quite a bit, but did not mention the use of this verb to make emphatic statements. (Something that is missing entirely in some languages such as German,wher they use adverbs instead.) I have now at least mentioned this usage of the verb. B. This article did not mention the use of the verb "may" as a subjective verb. At least I have mentioned that now. In German, subjunctive verbs are used all the time, and there are two forms Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II - which labels I can't keep straight. One of these has decreased very much in use in English, but it appears in such sentences as, "If I were the King of North America." The other one has vanished to a mere vestage in English, practically down to the verbs "may", "might", and "let". An example of the first verb is "That may be an actual spaceship from another planet..." Here "may" is clearly not an "asking permission" verb, but rather, it is a subjunctive. As for the subjunctive form of the last verb, examples would be "If he be lying, let his tongue be pulled out," and "If I am lying, let my tongue burst into flames." Anyway, the point is that "may" has the use as a subjunctive verb, as well as a modal auxiliary, and "do" has the use to make statements emphatic. It also makes questions emphatic: "Did you really go to college at the University of Southern California?"72.146.54.30 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that 'do' is not a modal, it's an aspectual auxiliary. Also, 'really' is a modal adverb, but is not a modal (modal verb). I believe really is discussed in the article on the hortative moods.

A full inventory of English modals can be found here:

This article only discusses one class of modal and should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Modal verbs in other languages
This is a call for help to anybody who speaks a non-Germanic language or even non-Indo-European language: Of course, many languages out there are stronger on grammatical mood than on actual modal verbs, but I am sure there is more than one way of translating sentences like the following into your respective mother tongues:
 * He can't write / She can swim.
 * We don't have to go. / You have to leave.
 * You shouldn't smoke. / You should listen to me.
 * You musn't say anything. / May I ask you a question?

Even if there is not a strict class of modal verbs in your mother tongue, the corresponding control verbs or auxiliary verbs (i.e. direct translations for "can / must / shall / will / may") are more likely to exist than not, aren't they? I think this page would greatly profit from a section that exemplifies the way other, unrelated, languages handle the same concept. Trigaranus (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's already mentioned in the article that similar sounding modals in Germanic languages often appear to be false friends. This point can hardly be overstated. Etymologically related verbs like "can" perform very disparate functions inside the Germanic languages. I don't know of any extra-IE languages that have similar things to the modal verb. Bantaar (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialects
I've taken the liberty of moving the following addition to the discussion page:

Dialects
There are some other modal verbs that exist only in some dialects of english.

I wanna go to the cinema. (= I want to go to the cinema.) We're gonna win this game. (= We are going to win this game.) You gotta go. (= You got to go.)
 * wanna = want to
 * gonna = going to
 * gotta = got to

Modal verbs as a category are not formed with a "to" infinitive. Expressions such as "I want to" or "I am going to" are not modal verbs, nor are they dialectal, even in a contracted form, which simply makes them more informal. The "gotta" construction is just a shortening of "have got to" and not a modal verb, either. Sorry for that. Trigaranus (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Other Germanic languages
It would be good if someone who knew something about the North Germanic (Scandinavian, Faroese and Icelandic) languages could put some information in about modal verbs in those languages, and what cognates exist. Old Norse had "skulu" and "munu" (see Old Norse for beginners), and maybe Modern Icelandic has them too. I think the first is cognate to "shall", and the latter to "maun" in literary Scots (or in rural areas if it survives there). Count Truthstein (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... Scandinavian modals work somewhat differently than either English or German ones (already very different between them). Not in the most basic, structural, sense, but their meanings are... how can I put it? Askew... to the other languages. Modal verbs, even inside Germanic, are a nest of fleas, to put it bluntly. English "must" has some resemblance (and common etymology for the matter) to German "muss", and even to Danish "må". The way these cognates work in the different languages is, however, quite disparate.

 * This was a rather weird answer to the very reasonable question. At least in Swedish, the modal verbs work in similar ways as in the West Germanic languages.  The semantics has drifted a bit apart for English and Swedish; but, as the article notes, this is also true for e.g. English and German.  Moreover, modern Swedish, Norwedian and Danish do not have different form for different persons and numbers; but, since the uniform forms are the old third person singular ones, the differences between "ordinary present forms" and "preterito-present forms" are highly visible. I'll add Swedish to the lists - tomorrow. JoergenB (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I did this, and also found some books I could use for Danish, Faroese, and Gothic forms. The books are a bit old, and improvements from someone with more recent literature should be appreciated.
 * Moreover, I added the verb corresponding to the nowadays rare "to wit". For the English, I employed the OED; and the German forms I checked with wissen.  However, I do not know what Dutch, North Frisian, and Afrikaans forms to look for, and therefore just left question marks in these items.  (I put a hyphen for one Gothic form; but as usual that means "not known in the entire corpus", which is quite another thing.)  Please, help filling these slots! JoergenB (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Shall vs. Will
I'm really not fond of the way this article treats the two modals. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says that effectively there is no difference in modern English between the two, aside from a few set phrases. Citations would be very nice.

I have just removed this entire section on shall/will:

"As regards the modal auxiliary verbs shall/will, it is misleading to suggest either that these verbs are "future tense auxiliary verbs" that are used to form a future tense in English where shall is used for the first person and will for second and third persons (a "rule" of "traditional" grammar), thereby forming a compound "simple future" or "pure future" tense, or that shall and will are interchangeable in modern English. This latter belief no doubt arises from the fact that the contracted forms of shall and will are identical ( 'll), as are the contracted forms of the past/subjunctive of shall and will, namely should and would ( 'd), which contractions having led to the usage of will/would for all persons in demotic English and most particularly in American English.

Shall and will have distinct meanings, but some of them sometimes overlap, as with I/we statements combining promise (a statement of obligation) and intention (a statement of willingness). With I/we questions used as suggestions or as requests for advice, only shall/should is possible: "Shall/Should I do something?" fundamentally asks if I am obliged to another party to do something. (cf. sollen in German: Was soll ich tun? [What shall I do?]) In most other cases, "will" is usable. Will in 2nd and 3rd persons can indicate a sure prediction if the statement/question is marked for future time (When will he arrive? - He will arrive tomorrow) or future time is understood in context (Do you think he will come? – Sure he will come), the certainty of prediction being marked by the speaker's belief that he knows the volition of the subject of the modal verb; if no futurity is marked or understood in context, then will, but not shall, carries meanings of (a) general deduction, (b) highest probability, (c) habit, or (d) habit-power, e.g.: (a) If George is British, he will be quite conservative in his opinions; (b) ''Did the caller have a British accent? – Then that will have been George (would have been George is still highly probable but there is a slight doubt implied by the past form of will that, in this context, is subjunctive in function; must have been George is also a high probability statement but it is a logical conclusion: the speaker is logically obliged to believe that the caller was George); (c) He will always call me when I'm having lunch; (d) This bottle will hold at least two pints''."

Not only is it very incorrect, but it's English-specific and there is already a page on English modals.

The document in that link explains many of the problems this section had with which form is used in regard to the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

dare/darf/durf
The article states that these modal verbs share common roots. It is not the case for the last example. English dare comes from a Germanic root *dars, *dursan- "to dare" (PIE *dhers-), whilst German darf and Dutch durf come from *þurfan- "to need" (PIE *terp-). No relation between the two groups. Please correct. Leasnam (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Done, but "no relation between the two groups" is kind of an exaggeration. CapnPrep (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak opening sentence
I am by no means a hard core grammarian, but the opening sentence defines a modal verb as one that indicates modality. well, duh.... Silicon retina (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in immediately directing us to Linguistic modality that this supposedly 'weak' opening sentence fully demonstrates its heart-wrenching awesomeness. Or do you know a way of defining "modality" in less than one line? ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Silicon. I have always been taught that the definition of a word, should not contain the word being defined, or a form thereof. To somebody looking for the most simple definition possible, this sentence means nothing. Language is a means to communicate, I feel that the opening sentence and Trigaranus both fail in this realm. Were both written by the same author? I wonder... Hr.Vanker TalkContrib 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed text
Removed from the "Function" section:

 * must = absolute (often moral) obligation, order, requirement, necessity; can/could = physical or mental ability; may/might = permission, option, choice; will = intention in 1st person, volition in 2nd and 3rd persons; and shall/should = in 1st person objective though not moral obligation, no choice, as in: One day I shall die: we all shall die one day; in 2nd and third persons shall implies an incumbent obligation, destiny (It shall come to pass) or a command, decree, necessity imposed by the speaker, as in: A meeting shall take place on the last Friday of every month or a promise, namely that the speaker is stating his obligation to another party that an action or event take place, as in: You shall go to the ball, Cinderella. However, if a speaker states: I will let you go to the ball, Cinderella, in stating his intention, he is, in this instance, also making a promise.

This seems more to be an attempt at an English usage guide than discussion about the general concept of modal verbs (as other languages that have them divide the various meanings quite differently). –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Function
This sentence does not mean "You may not do that". It means "You do not have to do that". Pamour (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Modal Verb or Auxiliary?
This article has a bit of an identity crisis.

We need to decide whether it's an article about modal verbs or about modal auxiliaries.

Modal verbs are any verb used to express mood. Take the verb "make" in English -- it can be used to express causative moods "I made Tom eat pickles." In this sentence, the auxiliary (hidden) is 'do' as is verified by the interrogative form "Did you make Tom eat pickles".

Modal auxiliaries are any verb or verbal unit (could be a phrase), which acts as a single functional unit, occupies a non-vector (not the idea verb) verbal position, and subordinates the verb to its right (usually the vector -- 'ideal verb' 'main verb' 'content verb'). The most easily recognized of these are will/shall/should/can/may, etc. These also include such things as BE+ABLE, BE+GOING, and HAD+BETTER.

It's important to make this differentiation as without it, some things that are different can appear to be the same. As mentioned above, "make" can be used as a modal verb expressing a causative mood (I caused or forced X) as seen in the example "I made Tom eat pickles." Consider though the following example "Tom was made to eat pickles." In this second example, it is at first glance a passive voice construction using that same 'make' modal verb. However, there is one component present in this one that is mission in the first -- "to".

"To" in English, can be either a preposition, part of an infinitive, or most regularly, a verb form known as the 'infinitive form' (meaning that it looks like a 'to-infinitive' yet is not actually an infinitive). The most common occurrence of the infinitive form in English is as the subordinate for several modal auxiliaries. That is the root of 'to' within the second example ("Tom is made to eat pickles."). In this example, BE+MADE is (as a unit) a modal auxiliary consisting of the verb BE+ADJ with the adjective in this case being "made" (meaning "caused") and is no different that BE+ABLE, BE+WILLING, or BE+ABOUT. This also makes the second example active voice and not passive. And finally, means that although visually very similar, that the "made" of "I made Tom eat pickles" (DID+MAKE) and the "made" of "Tom was made to eat pickles" (BE+MADE) are very different things altogether (although in this case expressing very similar causative moods, even though the former expresses active causation (the subject causes) while the latter expresses passive causation (an action of or effect on the subject is caused by someone/something else).

So you see, a modal verb and a modal auxiliary are two very different things, so we need to figure out which of these the article is going to be about, and once done, we need to reword this introductory section:

"A modal verb (also modal, modal auxiliary verb, modal auxiliary) is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality -- that is, likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation. The use of auxiliary verbs to express modality is particularly characteristic of Germanic languages." Drew.ward (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * According to Palmer, Mood and Modality, p. 33, (1) the modal verbs in English are may, can, must, ought, will, shall, need, dare, might, could, would, should; (2) they have no -s form in the third person singular; and (3) they have no infinitive form. That is, "modal verb" means the same thing as "modal auxiliary". And you can't get any more authoritative than that source. Also, some of the other references in this article use "modal verb" in the same way, but none of them use it in the sense of any verb that expresses modality (make etc.). Duoduoduo (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I would like to see sources for some of this before it goes in the article. The example about "made" is interesting; it seems to me that in "I made Tom eat pickles", "eat pickles" is a kind of predicative complement, which would explain a lack of a passive variation. "I made Tom angry" and "I made Tom a knight of the realm" show other examples of the same use. (?"Tom was made angry" is grammatical for me though.) It seems to be like "see", as in "I saw Tom eat pickles", but not *"Tom was seen by me eat pickles". (Although replacing "eat" by "eating", both are acceptable. I don't have an explanation for this.)Count Truthstein (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Count. You're close but the divisions you're using are messing up your analysis.  in "I made Tom eat pickles" it's not "eat pickles" that you need to separate out, but rather "Tom eat pickles" because Tom's eating of pickles is caused (which is what made means in this usage) by "I"  Your second two examples with made are somewhat different constructions.  They still have the cause meaning of make, but I'm not sure it's being used as a modal because there is no assertion for it to qualify.  If it said "I made Tom get angry" or "I made Tom become a knight of the Realm (say if he were considering not accepting the title)" then 'made' would be acting as a modal.  But because there is no assertion in the object for 'made' in this two, I think it's only being used as a regular non-modal verb meaning cause.  This is also why "Tom was made a knight of the realm" and "Tom was made angry" work just fine in the passive voice without any changing things around.Drew.ward (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Anyway, does not including BE+ABLE and similar verbs as modal auxiliaries lead to quite a lot of them? "She is likely to win" and so on. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Absolutely! There are tons of them!  I've already isolated 16 separate morphosyntactic primary classes of them in English alone (with several sub-classes within those).Drew.ward (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I've had another thought. You can say "She is willing and able to help" - this looks like some kind of conjunction of modal auxiliary verbs (according to your definition). But you cannot say *"She is willing and going to help" for "She is willing to help, and she is going to help." "Is going" seems to be different to structures BE+Adjective. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Good observation. This is likely because BE+WILLING and BE+ABLE are of the same class (BE+ADJ) of modal auxiliary, whereas BE+GOING is of a different class (Durational aspect -- BE+VERBing) altogether.Drew.ward (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Like I just said, these are not modal verbs, which is the subject of this article. So they are irrelevant to this article. Maybe they could go in the English grammar article, or someplace like that. But putting these in this Modal verb article would fly in the face of the rule that we have to go by the sources -- and the sources, including the most authoritative of them, say that these are not modal verbs. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC). Or better yet, with sufficient sourcing it could be put in as an extension to English verbs and/or Linguistic modality. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * OK first of all these are modal verbs because by definition, a verb that expresses mood IS a modal verb. If you are to say that you have to follow a "rule" that forces you to abide by certain sources (even though someone has added these sources and could easily add any other sources as well), then how do you choose which sources to use and which to not? "the sources, including the most authoritative of them, say that these are not modal verbs."  You're basing the idea of excluding all but the few single form modal auxiliaries in English from the category of modal verb based on what you've pulled from Palmer.  Palmer is certainly one of the top people in the world on mood/modality.  I've read several of his books myself.  However in the work that is cited here, he focusses on mood and modality (and in particular the various methods of attempting to classify the various moods which even he points out is far far from being even close to complete).  He puts very little emphasis on the various ways in which languages express mood as that's simply not the focus of his book.  His listing that you have cited on p. 33 is by no means meant to be interpreted as exhaustive or as limiting.  If you were to follow this logic, then you would leave English with the inability to express all but a few moods and even those only in certain specific instances.

 * A modal is anything that expresses mood. This can be a word, an inflection, vocal stress or tone, an adverb, etc.  A modal verb is any verb that expresses mood.  Languages like German and English often express mood via auxiliaries (just as they express tense, aspect, perfection, and agreement through auxiliaries).  This particular type of auxiliary is a modal auxiliary.  Anything with at least one verbal component, that can occupy a verbal position other than that of the 'main verb', do not express the primary idea of the utterance, and can agree with the subject for person and number, and further qualify the assertion of the verb with one or more moods, is an auxiliary modal, regardless of whether it be a single verb with one form, a group of them, a declined verb, whatever.  If it can, as a unit, act as an auxiliary while expressing mood, then it is a modal auxiliary.Drew.ward (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You would like the standard terminology to be "a verb that expresses mood IS a modal verb", and I too think that that would be a good way to use terminology. But that's not the way the terminology is. Wikipedia does indeed have a rule that you have to go by the sources. You say "There are tons of them [English modal verbs]! I've already isolated 16 separate morphosyntactic primary classes of them in English alone (with several sub-classes within those)": that's original research, and as you know that's not allowed on Wikipedia.

I have several references for my assertion:

 * Palmer, whose Mood and Modality I mentioned above, treats "modal", "modal verb", and "modal auxiliary" as synonymous. When he says "the modal verbs are..." and lists them, he does not say "The modal verbs include...."

Here are some more references:

Several appear in Aarts, Bas; and Meyer, Charles (eds.) The Verb in Contemporary English, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995:
 * Aarts, Bas, and Meyer, Charles. "Introduction: Theoretical and descriptive approaches to the study of the verb in English". On p. 9, line 4ff. "modal verb" is used synonymously with "modal" and "modal auxiliary"
 * Coates, Jennifer. (Chapter 8) "Root and Epistemic Possibility in English". It uses "modal" and "modal auxiliary" interchangeably throughout.
 * Aarts, Jan; and Aarts, Flor. (Chapter 9) "'Find' and 'Want': A corpus-based study in verb complementation." On p. 163 it uses "modal" and "modal auxiliary" interchangeably.
 * Svartvik, Jan, and Ekehahl, Olof. (Chapter 15) "Verbs in public and private speaking." On pp. 278 and 280 it uses "modal" and "modal verb" interchangeably.

Also:

 * Warner, Anthony R. English Auxiliaries. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993. It uses "modal" and "modal auxiliary" interchangeably.
 * Ogawa, Hiroshi. Old English Modal Verbs: A Syntactical Study. Rosenkilde and Bagger (publ.), 1989. It uses "Modal Verbs" right there in the title, and starting on p. 1 and for the rest of the book it uses "modal auxiliaries" interchangeably with "modal verbs".

Those are some references that support my position that, like it or not, "modal verb" and "modal" are used only in the narrow sense of "modal auxiliaries". What references can you offer to support your position? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The classification system I'd mentioned is original research (published and well cited but original) and while I think it would be quite useful on wikipedia, I would leave it to someone else to reference it rather than doing so myself (this has happened with other things I've published).

 * I am familiar with your sources, and they are fine sources. But, they are not necessarily any more or less correct than anything else found on the net or in any other book.   A lot of these are 20+ years old which in linguistics is pretty ancient because we are always learning something new and changing our understanding of how languages work (and often disproving what we once thought to be set in stone.

 * It doesn't matter how these sources use the terms modal, modal verb, modal auxiliary, or auxiliary. The purpose of wikipedia is not to create a word for word article from these sources.  If that were the case we would just call these guys up and ask them to write the article.  Again though, if Palmer or any of these others were to write such an article on here it would be original research same as anything else.  The problem with a young science (and modern linguistics is really only about a hundred years old) is that there is not any universal agreement on terminology, and often not on definitions, and even when agreement exists on such things, that agreement may be based on huge misunderstandings of the concepts at hand.

 * Wikipedia provides the opportunity to rectify such ambiguous misleading situations by developing simple articles that while backed up by sources, do not adhere solely to what those sources say. This is editing by consensus and sometimes that makes for incorrect articles and sometimes not.  Wikipedia has the potential to be better than any single source and that's why this sort of discussion component works well.

 * Plus, think about it logically, if you were to use your thinking here you'd be limited to CAN/COULD for ability and MUST obligation/necessity. "I can read" (present good) "I could read when I was young" (past good) "I will can read when I'm old and grey" (future bad).  "I must leave" (present good) "I musted* leave" (past bad) "I shall must leave" (future bad).  If you use these lists that you keep citing, and go with the definition of modal=modal verb=modal auxiliary, then something's really wrong here.  How would you fix these examples?Drew.ward (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The article already mentions the fact that the modal auxiliaries have a defective conjugation. If you want to add more details about how to be able to, be capable of, know how to, etc. can be used to replace the missing forms of can, I'm sure everyone would be fine with that, as long as (1) it's sourced, and (2) it's kept clear that there is a special subclass of modal verbs (defined by morphosyntactic criteria) that includes can but not be able to, know how to, etc.

 * I have to disagree with your more general ideas about Wikipedia. The articles do not strive to be simple, but complete (much to the annoyance of people who come here looking for quick answers to grammar questions). But they do have to adhere solely to the cited sources. You have misunderstood the policy against WP:OR: If your ideas about modal auxiliaries have been published, then they do not constitute original research on Wikipedia. (If you are the author of these publications, then you need to keep in mind WP:COS.) Go ahead and make the changes you're obviously itching to make. But the scope of the article and the amount of space to be devoted to competing/non-traditional viewpoints will ultimately be determined by consensus among editors. CapnPrep (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Drew.Ward, if you have published the alternative definitions, have your publications been refereed? If not, then as you said and contrary to what CapnPrep said, they are original research, and your own unrefereed articles or web postings cannot be used as appropriate sources. I would guess that when you say you've published them, you mean you've posted them on your website. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually duo yes they have been published, cited, referenced (including on wp), and have been used by authors, editors, and publishers to improve the accuracy of grammar, teaching, and ESL books. Perhaps rather than attacking me, since you feel confident that you are correct and I'm not, you could redirect these efforts toward answering the question I proposed for you above. If your version is correct, what are the answers?Drew.ward (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the part where I attacked you! I asked if your pubs that you refer to were refereed, and implicitly asked if my assumption is correct that when you say you've published them, you mean you've posted them on your website. No attack there, just a question that you still haven't answered, and a question that is relevant to the issue of suitability as Wikipedia cites.

You say I should answer the question you proposed above. Here is your question, verbatim:

 * if you were to use your thinking here you'd be limited to CAN/COULD for ability and MUST obligation/necessity. "I can read" (present good) "I could read when I was young" (past good) "I will can read when I'm old and grey" (future bad).  "I must leave" (present good) "I musted* leave" (past bad) "I shall must leave" (future bad).  If you use these lists that you keep citing, and go with the definition of modal=modal verb=modal auxiliary, then something's really wrong here.  How would you fix these examples?

The reason I didn't answer this is that I have no idea what you are trying to ask. What's to fix? The verbs that are universally and exclusively (except by you) called the modal verbs are defective, as the article says and as CapnPrep reiterated above. Often they can't cover the past or future, as in your example "I musted* leave" or "I will can read". So English conveys these ideas using verbs that the literature does not call modal verbs ("I had to leave", "I will be able to read").

It looks to me like this thread has reached the end of its usefulness. The issue at the beginning of the thread was whether the article is about modal verbs or about modal auxiliaries. It's about both, since the literature defines them synonymously. I've demonstrated this with my citations, all of which are valid as Wikipedia sources, and I've not been contradicted by any other sources that are valid as Wikipedia sources. Like I said, I think it would be nice if your desired distinction between "modal verb" and "modal auxiliary" were the accepted distinction -- but it's not. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You've answered the question as to whether modal auxiliaries only include that one list of verbs. You've instinctually chosen HAD and BE+ABLE and used them as auxiliaries in order to express those moods in those situations. Thus showing that even in your own lexicon HAVE and BE+ABLE are in fact modal auxiliaries even though they're not in any of the prescribed lists you're saying should be the standard for this article. Drew.ward (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source to say that a "modal verb" is defined as a verb or multiple word construction which expresses modality, with no further restrictions. If your writings meet this criteria, please provide details. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:English_grammar which is related. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

±== Mandarin Chinese ==

What is meant by Mandarin Chinese? Do you mean "classical written Chinese" or the now modern and official "Putonghua" that is now the official language of The PRC? For example, the statement in the article "They cannot be modified by intensifiers such as "very"" is not true when applied to Putonghua. 86.162.139.31 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An example is “我(I)太(very)愿意(be willing to)去(go)了”. What is more, since word formation in Chinese is different from that in English, one can never make a "complete list of modal verbs in Chinese".三猎 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd disagreement
Hello,

The opening paragraph is a bit contrary to the definition of modality. The page is this:
 * "..is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality – that is, likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation."

To me, this suggests that modality is simply "likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation". However, the Linguistic modality page states that "modality is what allows speakers to attach expressions of belief, attitude and obligation to statements"

I find the current diction on this page to be a bit confusing and misleading. Perhaps it should be changed?

192.5.110.4 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For me the two definitions are saying almost the same thing, in different words. How would you change it (them)? Victor Yus (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OP. The current definition seems limiting to me. Modality can express a lot more than the four things listed. It can express other ideas like: desire, advice, suggestion, warning, belief, etc.

For me the biggest issue is that "likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation." reads as if these were the only four things that modality expresses, as if it was an exhaustive list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

German "do"?
"German, Afrikaans, and West Frisian never use "do" as an auxiliary verb for any function" E.g. [www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Gottsched,+Johann+Christoph/Theoretische+Schriften/Grundlegung+der+deutschen+Sprachkunst/II.+Theil%3A+Die+Wortforschung/Das+VI+Hauptst%C3%BCck/V+Abschnitt] has "ich thue essen" (= "ich esse"; Engl.: "I do eat" = "I eat"). So, doesn't or at least didn't the German "do" - i.e. "t[h]un" - function like an auxiliary or modal verb? -84.161.15.243 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It sometimes does in Swiss German dialects at least, especially in "simple" language (e.g. when talking to a child): "Tue das nöd mache." (do that not make/do). But that would just make it an auxiliary verb a bit like the English do, NOT a modal verb. The question whether a language uses "do" (or its respecitve counterpart) in connection with a modal verb is not really a relevant one for German and its variants, since every verb, including modal verbs, has an infinitive form and (usually) a past participle -- so of course you can use it with an auxiliary verb. Trigaranus (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Had better" is productive
"The verbs/expressions dare, ought to, had better, and need not behave like modal auxiliaries to a large extent, although they are not productive "

I can't speak for non-North American dialects, but the modal verb "had better" (also stated as "better", "had best" and "best") is definitely more productive than "shall" in North American English.

"You had better leave" = "You better leave" = "You best leave" = "You had best leave". — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

English modals and past tense
English modals don't really have a past tense conjugation in the usual sense, but it's noticeable that many of them come in pairs, where one member of the pair ends in a [d] or [t] sound and has a more hypothetical or "subjunctive" meaning than the other member of the pair which doesn't end in [d] or [t]: will/would, shall/should, may/might, can/could (also dare/durst back when "dare" was a full modal, and "I durstn't" meant "I wouldn't dare"). So the bit in the article about "may" not having a past tense "mayed" is rather unfortunate, since at least some people would say that "might" fills that inflectional slot... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Lucas Shaw"
At the end of the lead it says: "In English and other Germanic languages, modal verbs are often distinguished as a class based on Lucas Shaw." Am I the only one who has no idea what this is supposed to mean?

Emptybathtub (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

English
modals 175.176.71.29 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

English
Modal and modal verbs difference 2405:201:5C0B:6027:E9AA:665A:DA4D:7667 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian
New section needed under "in other languages". RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modal verb


text:
User talk:BsL~enwiki

I wrote an answer to Category_talk:Landscapes_of_Norway. -- Egil 21:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject?
Time for a WikiProject_Norway? -- Egil 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly. Right now I have a negative amount of spare time, but I'll contribute when I can...  -BsL-

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called BsL. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name BsL~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:BsL~enwiki


text:
Talk:Alexander von Middendorff

Untitled
Why is the title of this article "Aleksandr Fyodorovich Middendorf" This man was german grown up in Estonia. No reason to make him russian. His correct name is Alexander Theodor Middendorf. Siim 21:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The title is indeed bad, but for different reasons: it's a transliteration from Russian when there is a perfectly acceptable English name: Alexander Middendorf. As for his nationality, he was an ethnic German, who was born, worked, and died in the Russian Empire. That makes him a Russian scientist. If, as you propose, every scientist is listed by ethnical roots, then there would not be any American or Australian scientists at all. --Gene s 06:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Karl Ernst von Baer, Otto Kotzebue, Ferdinand Wrangel, Adam Johann von Krusenstern, Constantin Grewingk, Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and many others were all germans from Estonia who worked for Russian Empire. How would you like to spell their names? Siim 17:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alexander von Middendorff


text:
User:Es24002

HI!!

MY NAME IS ELI STRAUSS, I AM IN TENTH GRADE, AND I GO TO DA VINCI HIGH SCHOOL IN DAVIS CALIFORNIA. MY FAVORITE PAST TIMES ARE READING, WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING SOCCER, LISTENING TO MUSIC, SNOWBOARDING, AND AND TALKING WITH MY FRIENDS. MY FAVORITE MOVIE IS THE BIG LABOWSKI. ENJOY WIKIPEDIA!!!!!

title: User:Es24002


text:
User talk:216.166.206.17

Proposed deletion of TheWolfWeb

The article TheWolfWeb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Does not meet the GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:216.166.206.17


text:
Category:Schools in Nottinghamshire

Schools located in the county of Nottinghamshire.

title: Category:Schools in Nottinghamshire


text:
User:Tian chao

Hello, I am from Beijing, the capital of China, but right now I live in Vancouver, Canada. I am 14 years old and I am Hanzu, which means Han ethnic group.

I call myself tian1 chao2 天朝 because it means "heaven dynasty" and it is what China calls herself in the past. I love my coutnry, and I think China is a peace loving country and can live happily with other countries in the world, but other countries like Japan, America and India want to tear China apart or make parts of China like Taiwan and Tibet and Xinjiang independent, because they are scared of China getting stronger and they want to make China weak and control her. Japan tries to take the Diaoyutai islands away from China and don't admit the Nanjing massacre which proves it even more. China will never attack anyone but if other people invade China or try to separate China, then China will fight back for sure, just like what China did when Japan invaded China in 1931 to 1945. China is not afraid to go to war against enemies especially those that want to separate Taiwan.

I found Wikipedia when I look for information about kite flying for school. I think Wikipedia is a good idea and I want to contribute too. But there is a big Western bias here and I think that is not very fair. A lot of articles here are written by people who hate China and want to make China separate. I want to contribute so that people outside China can also know about the truth about what happens in China, or else they will believe all of the lies that other people tell them about Taiwan and Tibet.

My English is OK but it is not perfect, so I am sorry if I make any mistakes in grammar.

title: User:Tian chao


text:
Humphrey Chetham

Humphrey Chetham (10 July 1580 – 1653) was an English textile merchant, financier and philanthropist, responsible for the creation of Chetham's Hospital and Chetham's Library, the oldest public library in the English-speaking world.

Life
Chetham was born in Crumpsall, Lancashire, England, the son of Henry Chetham, a successful Manchester merchant who lived in Crumpsall Hall and his wife, Jane (c.1542–1616), the daughter of Robert Wroe of Heaton. He was educated at Manchester Grammar School, and in 1597 was apprenticed to Samuel Tipping, a Manchester linen draper. In 1605, he moved to London with his brother George and set up a partnership with him trading in various textiles. The business was successful, since the fabric was bought in London and sold for a higher price in Manchester. He acquired Clayton Hall in Manchester as his home, and in 1628 was also able to buy Turton Tower from William Orrell.

In 1631, he was asked to be knighted after his huge wealth became known to the Crown, but he declined the honour, and so was fined. In 1635, he became the High Sheriff of Lancashire, a job he was unable to refuse, and in 1643 he was forced into the position of General Treasurer of Lancashire, which he found very difficult for his age.

He also began to obtain debts, and he feared that on his death parliament would take his money. He therefore donated money to form a blue coat school for forty poor boys, which later became Chetham's Hospital and then Chetham's School of Music. He also left money to establish Chetham's Library, including funds to pay for books. More libraries were constructed later on from this money.

Legacy
After Chetham's death, in 1653, at Clayton Hall the school and library opened. Chetham's contribution is commemorated by a statue and a window in Manchester Cathedral and by a statue and mural in Manchester Town Hall. By prior arrangement, Clayton Hall was left to the surviving nephew, George.

Chetham is also remembered in the name of the Chetham Society, a text publication society concerned with the history of North West England, founded at a meeting at Chetham's Library in 1843.

title: Humphrey Chetham


text:
Category:Schools in Oxfordshire

Schools located in the county of Oxfordshire, England.

title: Category:Schools in Oxfordshire


text: User talk:199.33.140.2

title: User talk:199.33.140.2


text:
GURPS Witch World

GURPS Witch World is a supplement published by Steve Jackson Games in 1989 for use with the GURPS {Generic Universal Role-Playing System) game rules that describes how to set a role-playing campaign in Andre Norton's Witch World.

Contents
GURPS Witch World is a GURPS supplement and campaign setting describing play in Andre Norton's fantastic Witch World. The book includes a history of the world, a guide and maps to its various lands, character creation rules, Witch World magic and psionics, magic items, and creatures. It covers both the western and eastern continents where the book stories had taken place.

The book is divided into eight chapters and an appendix, covering the history, geography, the creation of GURPS characters, and the system of color-based magic used in those lands. It also gives a description of various magic items; psionic abilities; the use and properties of herbs, and a bestiary of Witch World creatures, most of which were mentioned in Andre Norton's books. The appendix gives details of the main characters from the books, and a bibliography of the Witch World novels.

The Witch World setting includes several different non-human races which were detailed in the novels. These are fully detailed in the book, as well as several NPC races that are not suitable for player characters. The various human cultures and peoples are also detailed, along with their general characteristics and skills. An example of the non-human races is the Old Race, a telepathically gifted people with strong wills who did not grow old until they reached 400 years of age.

The magic system of Witch World divides the spells into colors, rather than using the system of colleges as in the standard GURPS Magic system. The cultural bias of this world setting only allows females to receive magic instructions. Males can also possess magical aptitude, but they find it difficult to receive instruction in the arts. Characters can be trained in spells from multiple different colors of magic.

The colors correspond to the GURPS Magic spells as follows:

 * Red — Healing, restoring strength, war, and fire.
 * Orange — Move, break, and repair objects; teleport, time travel, and gate between worlds.
 * Yellow — Illusion, telepathy, and thought control.
 * Green — Earth and nature.
 * Blue — Emotions and foretelling.
 * Indigo — Air and water.
 * Purple — Control and enslave the minds of others.
 * Violet — Summon spirits, demons, and other beings; detect, control, and resist spells.
 * Brown — Beasts and animals.

The force of evil in this setting is known as the Shadow, and various unsavory creatures are allied with this aspect. These are detailed in the bestiary, along with unique animals and plants found on the Witch World.

The only other book required to use this supplement is the GURPS Basic Set (3 rd edition), although GURPS Magic is recommended.

Publication history
GURPS Witch World: Roleplaying in Andre Norton's Witch World was written by Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, and was published by Steve Jackson Games in 1989 as a 128-page book. The book features a color-illustrated stiff paper jacket and black-and-white interior illustrations.

In his 2011 book Designers & Dragons, games historian Shannon Appelcline noted that GURPS Witch World was one of the earliest licensed properties produced by Steve Jackson Games.

Reception
In the June 1989 edition of Games International (Issue 6), James Wallis thought that the book had done a good job of interpreting the Witch World series, commenting, "authority and knowledgebility are apparent throughout." He concluded by giving this book an above-average rating of 4 out of 5, saying, "Fans of Witch World should certainly buy this book. Avid devourers of fantasy fiction would probably also find it appealing."

title: GURPS Witch World


text:
Talk:Six Feet Under (TV series)

HD
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)
 * 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.)

Alan Ball
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
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

Major/supporting?
What makes characters like Keith and George supporting characters, as opposed to major characters? --DrBat July 3, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * Keith is definitely a major character, as reflected in Characters of Six Feet Under. George, while appearing in many episodes and having a slight story arc of his own, remains a supporting role. Sixhoursago 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * George (along with both Billy and Vanessa) was a major character for one season.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Episodes

 * 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
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Spoiler warning
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)

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)

Nathaniel and Isabel (Books)
Are Nathaniel and Isabel a real book series or Not ?--Brown Shoes22 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they were fictional books which were made for the series. Sfufan2005 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Title image
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)
 * 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)
 * 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. mg e kelly 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Choice of words
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)

Season 1 Teasers
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
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)

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
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)

Organization
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)

Family tree
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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

Any objections?

This was the link:

obituaries of main characters dying in series finale

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

First gay inter-racial Television kiss?
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)

 * 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)

Main List of Characters
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)

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

 * 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)

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

address/neighborhood
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)
 * 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)

Character Merge/Redirects
please note the concerns addressed here: Talk:List_of_Six_Feet_Under_characters. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
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)

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

Magic Realism or Imaginary Internal Dialogues?
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * Forgot to log in, previous post was mine. Resistance is Character-Forming 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Bettina's role
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)

Crazy Brother & Sister In Final Episode
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)

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
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 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)

Awards list?
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)

Themes Section?
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

Most Awesome Series Ever Ruined By The Graph!
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)

 * 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)

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

Promo Photographer
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)

Time frame of episode settings section
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)

David James Fisher
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
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). Ikip (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Black comedy
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * I re-added black comedy, that's fine right? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Best finale cites
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Protected
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)

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120630073612/http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/celebrity_photos/tv_best_and_worst_series_finales_rS4KqojwaL0NxDl0HFHpRM?photo_num=1 to http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/celebrity_photos/tv_best_and_worst_series_finales_rS4KqojwaL0NxDl0HFHpRM?photo_num=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824210458/http://www.ugo.com/tv/series-finales-sixfeet to http://www.ugo.com/tv/series-finales-sixfeet
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025043452/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/june01/june11/3_wed/news2wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/june01/june11/3_wed/news2wednesday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025055021/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/aug01/aug27/3_wed/news1wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/aug01/aug27/3_wed/news1wednesday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516162717/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/mar02/mar11/3_wed/news1wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/mar02/mar11/3_wed/news1wednesday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216161908/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jun02/jun10/3_wed/news3wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jun02/jun10/3_wed/news3wednesday.html
 * Added tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/mar03/mar10/3_wed/news3wednesday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110074538/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/jun03/jun09/3_wed/news4wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/jun03/jun09/3_wed/news4wednesday.html
 * Added tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/jun03/jun02/3_wed/news5wednesday.html
 * Added tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2004/sep04/sep14/3_wed/news2wednesday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180258/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/jun05/june13/3_wed/news4wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/News2005/jun05/june13/3_wed/news4wednesday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Consultant
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

Genre
Genres in both the infobox and the body of the article need reliable sourcingto be included. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this AFD 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Like I said, you're definitely correct mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Template that links to seasons is broken
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)
 * Fixed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

“In case of Rapture”
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)

title: Talk:Six Feet Under (TV series)


text:
Category:Schools in Rutland

Schools located in the county of Rutland.

title: Category:Schools in Rutland


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektaa

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ektaa
Campus organization. Article gives no indication that it is more notable than any other campus organization. Isomorphic 21:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article does not establish notability, possible campus vanity. Megan1967 02:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Xezbeth  06:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektaa


text:
User talk:Cognitivelink

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

See also What Wikipedia is not. Note that Cognitivelink:CSC4410 is on Votes for deletion. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 17:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cognitivelink


text:
Category:Schools in Shropshire

 * ' located in the county of ' — including within the unitary district.

title: Category:Schools in Shropshire


text:
User:Keillan

Keillan is the user name of Kelly G Willis (1970-?), who lives in Lafayette, Indiana. He is married to his wife Diane and also lives with an extremely cute cat. He also does his own laundry.

title: User:Keillan