Talk:The Strain (TV series)

Fan Pages

Please do not use fan pages as references.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Zachary Goodweather

Hi.

Just a note that in the book the son's name is Zachary Goodweather, not Zack. Zack, and Zach, are both valid shortenings. While it is true that on one page on FX it refers to him as Zack, this does not make Zach wrong. A bit of common sense here. Please do not change it back to Zack, as that is incorrect and goes against all of the literature. Thank you. KrampusC (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Book vs TV

To date, the TV series has closely followed the book series, and hence we can assume that it will continue to do so. Thus, anything stated as accurate in the book series we can assume, until proven otherwise, to be accurate in the TV series.

This applies to such things as Zachary Goodweather being Zachary, not Zack, and things like whether Joan Luss' children are going to be in the series in the future.

Naturally, if this proves to be false, and the TV show starts to diverge away from the book series, this can be changed, but to date it is very similar, and they have stated that it will remain very similar until the end. KrampusC (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou KrampusC for creating a talk section about this issue, as I believe this is one of the problems affecting this article. This article is about The Strain the television series, not the novel itself. We should not be including information that has not yet been revealed on the television series, even if it is included in the novel.

It has become apparent that many users that are editing this article have read the book series, and are incorporating information, such as Joan Luss' children, into the article due to future relevance. Just because the Luss children become important characters in the future doesn't mean they should be included in the recurring cast. The Luss children are currently minor characters with no bearing on the plot, and therefore should not be included in the article at the moment.

I also think this applies to the shortening of Zachary Goodweather's name. If the show's website lists the character's name as Zack, then the shortening is obviously Zack. Just because the book includes something contrary to that information does not matter, as this article is about the TV show and not the novel.

Assuming that the show is going to follow the novel closely is irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedic article designed to educate readers on this TV show. If they desire to find out information about future events, then they should read the books. Information about the series should only be included if it is relevant to the show at this current point in time. --MiniRare98 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (GMT+10)

Thanks for your reply. There are multiple references that state that the intention is to make the TV series identical, or close to identical, to the book series, so it is relevant to follow the book series. This obviously wouldn't be the case in, for example Under The Dome, which has diverted significantly from the book. Until The Strain starts to divert from the book series, it is safe to assume that what is said in the books will be what happens in the TV series. Remember that the author and creator of the series is a far greater authority than FX, who merely produces it. Definitely Zachary. KrampusC (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, and I assume that you yourself have read the book series. There is evidence to suggest however, that Del Toro and Cuse will differentiate from the book series in some way. Just look at all of the articles about the show regarding its panel at the latest TCA summer press tour. Both Del Toro and Cuse said that the show will differ from the novels. I have provided a link to one of the articles here: http://www.thewrap.com/guillermo-del-toros-the-strain-will-take-major-detours-from-the-books/ I ask you to reconsider including information that you don't no for certain will be included in the television series. --MiniRare98 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2014 (GMT+10)

• Know. Anyway, per Episode 12, turns out I was right in the points that we made. It is an issue of presumption, anyway. There are at the moment 2 points of contention: 1) Whether Zachary's name is shortened to Zach or Zack and 2) Whether the children of the victim, who were taken away by vampire-killing vampires, play any role in the story at all in the future (not whether they are major, as they are only listed as recurring characters). Both points have proven to be true. If this turns out to be wrong on any issue, then we can change it. Do we presume that stars of 3 episodes suddenly disappear after introducing a character that is perhaps the most significant part of the entire book series, the vampire-killing vampires? Or do we presume that they continue to play an active role, given that the vampire-killing vampires were introduced? Logic dictates that they will continue to be in the TV series. You can presume that the TV series will be different, but until it actually is different, we can presume that they will at least use logic for things like that. After all, why would they introduce vampire-killing vampires and then never mention them again? Seems daft to me. KrampusC (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that error in my previous response. Regarding the shortening of Zachary's name, I believe that if the show's website lists it as being Zack, then we should therefore list it as being Zack. That's all I will say regarding that issue. The issue of the Luss children being included as recurring characters I believe is still open for debate, and I still think we should not assume that the show will follow the book series as closely as some have been predicting. Anyway, the final episode of the season airs next week, and so I have a proposition. If the Luss children do not appear in next week's episode, I believe they should be removed from the recurring cast list, as that is enough evidence to prove that assumption has perhaps played too much part in the construction of this article, and they have also only appeared in two episodes. If they reappear next season, we will add them to recurring cast list at that time. Until then, I believe that it is pointless to debate this issue further, as we appear to just be going around in circles. Thank you very much for your input KrampusC, it has been a fun debate. MiniRare98 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (GMT+10)

It is beyond comprehension what the difficulty is with listing actors Chloe O'Malley and Jayden Greig, both of whom are indisputably performing in 'recurring' roles in this series, under this article's "Recurring" heading. As stated by KrampusC, the question is whether or not the Luss children "play any role in the story at all in the future (not whether they are major, as they are only listed as recurring characters)". And even if they do not continue next season, they should remain under the "Recurring" heading with the tag 'season 1' since that is what that tag is for as it has already been applied multiple times to recurring characters we know have been killed-off. Otherwise, if the standard is that we remove entries under this article's "Recurring" heading for anyone that has "only appeared in two episodes" as previously suggested, we would have to start removing several other entries under the "Recurring" heading including Neeva, Sylvia Kent, and Mr. Quinlan as they have all 'also only appeared in two episodes'. As for the Zach - Zack issue, that is rather unimportant and should remain as either - or. Stehoma (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Stehoma. I think that we have established that, since the full name is established as being Zachary, and since Zachary can be shortened to either Zach or Zack, that therefore all 3 are suitable - in a similar way to how we routinely shorten Ephraim to Eph, or Augustin to Gus. There certainly should be no requirement to have Zack ahead of Zach, and it would be incorrect to list Zack only. As for the recurring characters part, if there is somewhere that it lists what are officially recurring, then we should go with that, but the two children certainly played major plot devices and their part in the series has certainly not ended. I would argue that those that have died (as in, they will not come back as vampires) should be deleted from the recurring list, but those that are still alive, and who in earlier episodes played a major part of the plot, such as the Luss children, most certainly should remain. For example, I think that Luss's husband, Ansel's wife who killed herself, and the father of that little girl should all be removed from the recurring list, but the Luss children should remain. Of note, Mr. Quinlan has had less screen time than the Luss children, but I expect in Season 2 that Mr. Quinlan will be elevated to main cast. Should we delete him due to lack of screen time? Seems silly to even consider it. KrampusC (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope it is okay, but I have gone ahead and trimmed the recurring cast to get rid of everyone who has died but has not had a major role in the TV series, and, while I personally think that the Luss children should count as recurring characters, as I could not find a single reference (not even TV Tropes) that suggested that they were recurring, I have agreed to remove them. If they appear in any future episodes at all, then I think that they should be re-added to the recurring character list. Of note, Neeva, the nanny of the Luss children, is listed in a few places as recurring, so I have left her in that section. Nobody has suggested that she is not a recurring character (yet, oddly, the Luss children, who appear in every episode that she does, are not). KrampusC (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Krampus. However, I don't consider it okay to remove the Luss children from the list of recurring characters. Your instincts were correct in the first place, and you should stick with them. The definition of 'recurring' is a common and widely used TV industry term that simply and clearly means that an actor appears in more than one episode in the same role in a TV series. That would include those in two episodes since that by definition falls within the definition of more than one. Just because some random websites refer only to Neeva as recurring, does not mean that the Luss children are not 'recurring' characters by TV industry standards. Quite the opposite. We seem to be confusing the term "Recurring" with the made up notion of "Major Role". The closest TV industry term to 'Major Role' would be the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) term "Series Regular: The actor is under exclusive contract with the show to appear (or be paid regardless of appearing) every week." AFTRA's contractual definition of the term "Recurring" is as follows, and I quote: "Recurring: The actor returns as the same character over multiple episodes, either on a standing contract or contracted periodically, with payment based on the terms negotiated and the number of appearances." If we want to make up a section for the non-standard notion of "Major Role"; fine, but that should not be confused with the "Recurring" character section. In fact, the section labeled "Main" should actually be corrected to read "Series Regular" I have therefore appropriately undone the edit that removed the Luss children from the "Recurring" section. Stehoma (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference between whether a recurring character is major or not I believe has massive relevance to who is included in the recurring cast list. If we were to manage the recurring cast list using the definition you provided previously Stehoma, then I think you would find the article's recurring cast list to be far larger and messier than it currently is. We would have to include characters such as Lauretta from Vasiliy's office, Vasily's boss, Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Pierson, heck even the police officer who was guarding Gus while he was in prison. All of these characters have appeared in two episodes or more, which perfectly fits the definition of "recurring" you provided above. They have been correctly left out however, because they are characters that have not played large enough roles in the series. The importance of a character's role must be taken into account when we decide to include them in this article. I find it hypocritical that the characters of Anne-Marie Barbour and Gary Arnot have been removed from the recurring cast list due to their lack of relevance to the plot, yet editors are being accused of confusing "recurring" with the notion of "major role". Despite my comments previously, I believe it was correct to remove Barbour and Arnot from the list as they did not play major roles. I will reiterate that the importance of a character to the show's plot must play a substantial role in the decision to include them in the recurring cast. Otherwise we will end up with a shoddy and excessively large recurring cast list. MiniRare98 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2014 (GMT+10)

So Mini, instead of considering industry standard definitions on a Wikipedia article you have decided that your personal opinion and feelings about who should be part of a recurring character list should be paramount? It is not my definition that I provided here. It is an industry standard definition. I see no issue with including a few more people on the list of recurring characters if they actually belong on that list by definition. It is far better than removing people based upon one editor's notion of who is a "major" character. That is what the "Series Regular" section is for. There is no evidence of any hypocrisy related to any missing recurring characters since no one recommended that they not be present, except you I suppose. I am concerned that you find managing a list of perhaps a few dozen actors would be in your words "messier". I would suggest that others such as myself would easily be capable of managing such a list size. After all, I believe that Wikipedia article accuracy should be paramount and providing an accurate list, no matter how long should be the goal. If the characters Lauretta from Vasiliy's office, Vasily's boss, Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Pierson are recurring characters, then they should be included in the recurring character section. What is confusing about that? Recurring means more that once after all, it has nothing to do with being a 'major' character. I believe an appropriate compromise would be to allow the adding of your 'Major' category in the form of a "Major Recurring" section between the "Main" and "Recurring" sections. That way recurring characters that belong there for being recurring can be provided, and any characters you feel are 'major recurring' can be elevated to a new "Major Recurring" section. Regards, Stehoma (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I was fully aware that the definition you provided was not your own, I was merely stating that you brought it to our attention. I don't think that creating a "Major Recurring" section is necessary, as it will just make the article messy and convoluted. I think that you will find that most editors take into account the importance of a character before adding them to a recurring cast list. Look at KrampusC who has contributed to this article, who I quote has "gone ahead and trimmed the recurring cast to get rid of everyone who has died but has not had a major role in the TV series,". Also look at articles for other TV shows such as The Bridge or Hannibal. Both have a large number of characters that have appeared in more than one episode, but only the most relevant characters have been included in the recurring section because they had the most bearing on the plot. Just because a character appears in two episodes does not make them recurring. If we were to follow this rule, we would have to include the minor characters you listed above, several others, and even the guard who was guarding Gus, who I noticed you conveniently left out of your list above. If we are going to throw around definitions of "recurring character", then I will provide you with this one from Wikipedia; "A recurring character is a fictional character, usually in a prime time TV series, who often and frequently appears from time to time during the series' run. Recurring characters often play major roles in more than one episode, sometimes being the main focus." Notice the inclusion of "major role". The size of a recurring character's role must be taken into account when deciding upon their inclusion in the recurring cast list. Also Stehoma, the fact that you allowed the deletion of Anne-Marie Barbour and Gary Arnot from the recurring cast list when they fit the "industry standard" definition you obviously support, is evidence of hypocrisy. MiniRare98 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2014 (GMT+10)

So you remain rigid in your made-up notion of what this one section should be and call me hypocrital for your misguided belief that I need to oppose every change someone makes. I did not 'allow' it. It was done by another editor. I did not state any agreement with it, and quite the opposite expressly opposed any changes that would limit legitimate entries. I do not control other editors. In any case, you are the hypocrite as evidenced by your own words above as follows, "If the Luss children do not appear in next week's episode, I believe they should be removed from the recurring cast list, as that is enough evidence to prove that assumption has perhaps played too much part in the construction of this article, and they have also only appeared in two episodes. If they reappear next season, we will add them to recurring cast list at that time." So Mini, let us see you spin your standards now for what you stated in your own words before should be the requirement for "Recurring". It was originally that they appear in other episodes beyond two, perhaps three, maybe four. Yet no mention of your made-up term "Major" until now. Now that someone had the temerity to inform you of your poor understanding, you change your argument to the notion of the requirement to also be a "Major" character based upon your 'grand categorization'. Your own definition from your provided Wiki article reads: "Recurring characters often play major roles in more than one episode, sometimes being the main focus." Notice the inclusion of "major role"." To that I say - notice the terms 'often' and 'sometimes' vice 'always'. In other words often means some of the time, but it also means not at other times. As well, as you quoted KrampusC "Look at KrampusC who has contributed to this article, who I quote has "gone ahead and trimmed the recurring cast to get rid of everyone who has died but has not had a major role in the TV series,"." You 'conveniently' left out the part where KrampusC stated that "those that are still alive, and who in earlier episodes played a major part of the plot, such as the Luss children, most certainly should remain". KrampusC believes, as do I that the Luss children do play a 'major role' in the TV series and therefore rise to your narrow definition of Recurring as mandatorily 'major' in nature. All that remains therefore, is your personal feelings regarding their roles as 'major' and that should not win the day in this discussion. The Luss children stay, and I will add additional appropriate recurring characters in the recurring characters heading to placate your nonsense about hypocrisy regarding other editor's changes. If you do not agree to compromise and continue to insist on this, nothing will be achieved. Regards, Stehoma (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have become so aggressive with your response when I was merely stating my opinion. My previous paragraph never made mention of the Luss children, in fact I previously said that I was no longer going to debate that issue, so I don't understand why you have decided to dredge that up Stehoma. That quote you included above from one of my previous paragraphs also does not have any evidence of hypocrisy. I had stated in paragraphs previous to the one that included the quote that the Luss children should not be included on the recurring cast list because of their status as incredibly minor characters, therefore I have remained consistent with my argument. I don't appreciate you taking something I have said out of context. Regarding the deletion of Anne-Marie Barbour and Gary Arnot, if you did indeed "expressly oppose" the change, why did you not revert the edit and explain your reasons for doing so? You have the right to do that as long as you have a strong argument for the change. This debate is no longer about the Luss children, even if you appear to believe otherwise. This debate is about whether the size of a character's role is relevant to their inclusion in the recurring cast list, which I believe it is. Personally I do not wish to argue over this issue any longer, as I agree with you Stehoma that nothing will be achieved. I will however state once more that I think editors should consider the importance of a character before they decide to include them in the recurring cast list. MiniRare98 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2014 (GMT+10)

Hi dudes. I left this alone before as it was getting a bit ugly but, you know, this is just a TV show. I don't really care particularly who is listed as a recurring character or not, and I don't know why anyone else would care. I think a lot of people are getting a bit too upset over this. Ideally, of course, there would be a referenceable list somewhere saying "This is recurring and this is not". Each episode they say who is a guest star and who is recurring, but what counts as recurring for the purposes of this page seems to be something up for debate. Maybe there are rules somewhere around Wikipedia to help us with this kind of thing. That'd make it easier than having to worry about who can yell the loudest. KrampusC (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Krampus. Thank you for your comment. I also found it distasteful, but necessary. From what I can surmise, there are no Wiki 'rules' regarding what goes into this kind of article with regards to headings. I suppose that is what make Wiki what it is. However, if this article is going to have a recurring character section, which I believe it should, then it should include ALL recurring characters. I think most would agree with that; don't you? If someone feels that an actor/character needs further distinction as a more 'major' recurring character which does not fall within the definition of 'Recurring', then a way of highlighting that role importance could be made available, such as the one I suggested of having a separate section for that or some other method like adding a Major tag. In the absence of any Wiki guidance, I feel one can really only best rely for guidance on TV show definitions from the TV Industry itself. You brought up the industry term Guest Star, and I will extend it to include another term Co-Star. Guest Stars get credit at the beginning of the episode in addition to the closing credits, while Co-Stars only get closing credit. Have a look at The Strain's opening credits and you'll see this. This elevates them to a more prominent position above Co-Stars. Payment to actors also follows this structure by typically paying Guest Stars for the entire episode shoot even if they only worked one day. Whereas Co-Stars get paid only for the days they work. Recurring only means more than one episode, not the size of their role. The idea of a major role belongs more in the realm of Guest Star vs. Co-Star. Recurring can be a Guest Star or a Co-Star. You are right in that it shouldn't be about who can yell the loudest. It should be about providing references and industry subject matter standards to support your position. Regards,Stehoma (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, you guys should visit the german section of wikipedia, you could have a good laugh. Your whole diskussion would be useless there because the rules only allow already clear information for exactly the subject the article is about, and the subject of course have to exist already. So no guessing, no "could be like it is in the books once it is aired". The article is about the TV serie, so only information out of the parts already aired in TV would be allowed. May I suggest - for the sake of peace and quiet - to do so also and bring in only directly confirmable information of the very subject of the TV show? Anyway, it was refreshing to read your diskussion. --2A02:810D:1100:2750:1589:361:8E7E:89F7 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't doubt that the German language section of Wikipedia would be more rigid that the 'English' version. It would be in keeping with the German 'ethnic' character that certainly has it's own merits. While I don't have a philosophical opposition to referencing the books, I would agree that we should really only consider what has aired from the series. However, I will say that the whole discussion would not be 'useless' as you stated, since it only partially referenced the book trilogy.Regards,Stehoma (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Recurring characters

I am making a new sub-section here specifically to discuss and decide on what rules we should use for recurring characters. Perhaps a straw poll is warranted? Or at least some discussion.

Here are some possibilities:

• Do we list as recurring characters every single person that was listed by name in any episode, like IMDB do?
• Do we instead list only characters who had a major importance to the plot for at least 1 episode?
• Do we only list characters who had a major importance to the plot for at least 2 episodes?
• Is there some other rule to use?

Also, how do we define major importance?

• Is it major if the bulk of one episode is about them?
• Or is it only major if they are important to the series as a whole?
• Or is it major just if a lengthy scene is about them?

If Wikipedia already has some rules or guidelines about this, that'd be helpful, but otherwise some discussion would be helpful. Thanks. KrampusC (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a discussion about this Krampus C. I don't know if Wikipedia has any strict guidelines on how to organize recurring characters, but personally, I feel a recurring character is a character that has appeared in at least three episodes. Also, regarding the definition of major importance, I think if a character has relevance to the overall plot or has a lengthy subplot dedicated to them, that counts as recurring. In the case of a character such as Neeva, who has only appeared in two episodes, I would keep her on the recurring cast list as she was the lead in her own major subplot. It has become increasingly difficult to organize this section of the article due to the large number of characters in this show, as well as the fact that the show doesn't exactly provide solid conclusions for its characters (what the hell happened to Regina King's character?). I think it is important we are discussing this because it will allow editors to differentiate between recurring characters and the guest cast, which will prevent this section from becoming too bloated. Thanks again. MiniRare98 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2014 (GMT+10)

I am surprised that Wikipedia has been around for as long as it has and this topic has never come up. While it is nice for us all to have our own personal beliefs about it, I am sure that someone, if they dug deeply enough, could reference an existing Wikipedia policy, or at least some kind of guideline that is useful. My personal belief of the definition of "recurring character" is someone who has provided a major part of the plot (however briefly) and has not ended their role in the series. Being "dead" therefore means killed by non-supernatural means and does not come back as a vampire; however, characters defined as "major characters" remain as major characters regardless of if their role has ended. The nanny and the children, for example, were major parts of the plot for at least 2-3 episodes, and did not die - therefore I think that they should count as recurring characters. The husband of the lawyer, though, did die and was not in the plot for a long period of time, and therefore I do not think that he should count. But this is up to interpretation. KrampusC (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Need plot outline

Reading this article, you have no idea what this show is actually about. There should be a plot section that gives an outline. It doesn't have to be super-detailed, but should give a general sense of the world this takes place in and the primary plot points. You shouldn't have to dig into the individual episode lists to find this out. Andyross (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Strain is not a virus... It's clearly parasitic, the worms that infest the hosts are evidence of that.

I recommend replacing any language relating to viruses outside of the cdc's initial guess with language relating to parasites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:506:3300:7948:FA5A:3F96:CB76 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)