Talk:Supernatural (American TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Roadhouse's location

I posted my issue with this on www.supernaturalwiki.com as well, so I'll just copy word for word what I wrote there: The article says that the probable location for the Roadhouse is Nebraska, but I think it's actually in Duluth, Minnesota. In episode 2x14 Born Under A Bad Sign, when Sam is possessed, Dean uses GPS to track his cell phone to Duluth, and the rest of the episode takes place with Sam at the Roadhouse, and Dean showing up later, having tracked him down. The evidence for Nebraska is compelling, but ultimately circumstantial. The family easily could have been wearing Nebraska shirts while actually being anywhere, especially if they were going on a long family road trip, which it looked like they were. The Minnesota evidence seems much more direct. I'll leave this up here for a while before changing the article itself in case anyone wants to respond. Anyway, I could be missing something, but I don't think I am. Czoller (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are. Yes, Dean tracked Sam. Yes, Sam was possessed. The demon possessing Sam, at the time, was torturing Jo. Jo, however, was not at the Roadhouse. She had left to start hunting on her own in 2x6. She was tending bar but not at the Roadhouse. Since the bar she was tending was in Duluth that means it does not preclude the Roadhouse being in Nebraska. -- Greyed (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Music Listing Necessary?

The songs listed have no real bearing here in the encyclopedia. They would possibly be more suited to a fansite of this now (possibly canned) show.

I am removing the section and I hope if someone leaps into the fray to add it back that they can at least provide adequate reasoning as to how informative it actually is and why it should actually be there. 65.145.212.61 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• This has something sort of to do with music... This doesn't have to go on the page but I've noticed that the first episode of each season either starts or ends with a AC/DC song. WeLsHy 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible reference to The Simpsons

In the first season of Supernatural (TV Series) in the episode "Something Wicked," the character Dean gives a list of towns that have been terrorized by a Shtriga. I am not devoted to the Simpsons enough to know for sure, but I believe the list was a reference to the list of towns who have built monorails in the Marge vs. the Monorail episode of The Simpsons. One of the towns mentioned is "West Haverbrook." Can anyone confirm or deny this? Andrewdoane 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Simpsons, it was North Haverbrook that had a monorail built in it.dbalsdon 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The towns sam mentions "Ogdenville, North Haverbrook" are both from the simpsons episode, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_Monorail —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.208.14 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Possible reference to Ghostbusters

If I recall correctly, in the first season episode "Hell House," the two ghost investigators are named Winston and Zeddemore, a reference to Winston Zeddemore from Ghostbusters. Later on, as a diversion, Dean yells "Who you gonna call?" which is, again, a Ghostbusters reference.

Yes, these were clearly references to Ghostbusters.--Lyon-Ard the Lorekeeper 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Running Time

Under running time, it clearly says 60 minutes (per episode plus commercials). Shouldn't it be including commercials? Doesn't plus infer that the commercials haven't been added yet? This is a semantic bit that I've never fully grasped.

I think it means in comparison to the "without commercials" description, though I have edited it slightly to read with commercials as yeah, that could confuse people. Bronzey 07:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I removed the following items:

The name "Mary-Ann Liu" appears at least twice on props in the show, once on Sam's cell phone listing in "Scarecrow" and once on a birth certificate Sam is examining in "Salvation." This may be a shout-out to Vancouver artist and production designer Mary-Ann Liu, though it is at this point unconfirmed whether she has worked on the show.

The surname "Winchester" could be a reference to the firearms manufacturer, as well as the Winchester mansion.

These are not verified. If you'd like to include them, please provide a reference and we can put them back.--CPitt76 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole trivia section needs a serious clean-up. It's now the bulk of the article, which is clearly out of whack with Wiki guidelines on avoiding trivia in articles. We should be working to work trivia into the fabric of the article, migrate the information to other articles, or remove it altogether as fancruft. Anything non-obvious and unsourced would be prime candidates to delete. - Debuskjt 13:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked all the trivia into the article and added uncites where necessary. Some of it went into the merged section on Dean's car. Some of it was applicable to production notes. Some was added to the backstory. But most of it was episodic trivia, so I just migrated it all to the episode summaries in the episode list (where the stuff really belonged to start with, IMO). All of the trivia was moved, none of it was deleted. - Debuskjt 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian season 1 release

I'm not sure if other people have noticed or not but the release date for season 1 in Australia seems to be the 6th of September not the 13th. I have seen places advertising both dates does anyone have an explanation for this. I haven't changed the date in the article thinking that maybe the 13th is the official release or something. 203.28.231.34 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I bought the season 1 box set yesterday but I'm not sure when it was release. When I get some time I'll fill out the list of region 4 dvd special features, although I havn't investigated I suspect it to be the same as the US dvd's. Hang on I've just read that all extras were removed, I'll have to check it.Spec ops commando 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Recurring characters

Apparently there exists the beginnings of an edit war over whether or not Nicki Aycox (Meg) and Adrianne Palicki (Jessica) qualify as recurring characters. According to the definition given on the wikilinked page, I'd say Nicki Meg, yes, Jessica (two episodes), no. Thoughts? -Shannernanner 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC) These characters are dead, so they won't be recurring characters -- Woogyman 21:06, 12 February 2008 (GMT)

• I've added in Ash, who will definitely be a recurring character this season along with Jo and Ellen, all of whom will be showing up in multiple (3+) episodes this season. But I agree that Jessica doesn't count as recurring. —simpatico ^hi 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is for Missouri. One episode. Major role, though not very important. Some parts are intergratable into the John Winchester article, and the rest in "Home". Agent Hendricken may count as a recurring. Though It still is only two... 211.30.223.128 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Ava have her own page?

The Demon

From the symbol John drew in 'In My Time of Dying' people have worked out the identiy of THE demon, although this hasn't been confimed yet from Kripke and probably won't be for a while it is quite a sure thing. Should information about this be added and where given its high spoiler nature? --203.28.231.34 12:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can quote a reputable source you shouldn't add it anyway, per WP:CITE. Fan speculation isn't encyclopediac. - Debuskjt 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Winchester Brothers - Demons

Eric Kripke wikilink

I fail to see the point, and citing policy as a blanket defense is condescending. From Wikipedia:Red link:

• "Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about an important, verifiable subject."

It's been a red Wikilink within this article for many, many months, and it's unlikely someone creating a Kripke article wouldn't come here to link it. Unless someone has immediate plans to do so? - Debuskjt 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to be defensive. For a biographical article on a notable person, it's general policy not to delink the name. Shannernanner 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is that stated? Notability itself isn't even a Wiki policy. - Debuskjt 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I created a stub article for Eric Kripke.

International Section

This section is becoming far too big and has almost no relevance to the show, something needs to be done about it, either condensing it or removing it altogether. Thoughts? Naomi 203.28.231.34 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's pertinent information. International distribution is part of pretty much every television article on Wiki. If you want to see a section that is long, look at the international section of Veronica Mars. - Debuskjt 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is so important to have the International section and it is too long, give it it's own page with a link to it. What harm can come of that? Meraculas 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, if the list gets substantial enough and has enough additional information to warrant a separate article, but a list of less than twenty individual channels? In just sheer vertical length, the international section is the second shortest in the article (not counting episodes, since it directs to a rather lengthy article). Doing that now would be premature, and probably just result in an AfD that led to the content being merged back into this article. - Debuskjt 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Super-wiki: Link to an extremely comprehensive Supernatural resource site

I was going to add this link to the EL list, but after reading the no more links note, I guess I'll put it here for your consideration: Super-wiki

This is a jaw-droppingly comprehensive research and analysis site that I think would be a good resource for people looking for extremely detailed information about this show. While technically a (very well-organized) fan-run site, I think it would be a worthwhile link to include in the list as a "for more information" kind of thing. If consensus disagrees, I'll just leave the link here in the discussion, but I do think it would be a worthy addition. —simpatico ^hi 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Shannernanner 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues. One good fan site isn't against Wiki policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debuskjt (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm going to go ahead and add it. Shannernanner 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Official site

The official site according to the CW official site is the Warner Brothers official site. Please don't change the link in the infobox, as it is correct. Thanks. Shannernanner 08:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

TWoP link?

After seeing the link addition advisory, I chose to be safe rather than sorry. How about adding the recaps link from Television Without Pity? — ArkansasTraveler 16:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Recaps are available in the TV.com links of each of the individual episode articles. - Debuskjt 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While this may be true, TWoP recaps are generally more detailed or longer. Not saying they're better, but a different perspective. — ArkansasTraveler 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would be all for adding a link to the TWOP recaps. It is a very popular site, respected by on the internet and within the television industry itself (it has been referenced on several television shows and many cast and crew have been known to post in its forums) and its very detailed recaps are written by professional, paid writers. If TV.com is considered legitimate, TWOP should definitely deserve a link. —simpatico ^talk 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

clothing

Is it really neccessary to go into detail on what Sam and Dean wear?

*I don't think so. There is way too much of Dean's article that goes into every little bit of What Dean weras, and use to wear. A bit much. Syri 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Syri

• Supernatural Style

When citations are necessary

I've just removed several citations that were either unneeded or weren't clear in what they were referencing. If it was shown on the show itself (such as the license plate number or the fact that the car has been "featured prominently") there is no need to cite that information. If this is information you would not get from watching the show or the DVDs, then it should be cited. See Wikipedia: When to cite sources for more on this. —simpatico ^talk 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 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) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 3

Thursdays 9.00pm on the CW. (USA)

Sundays 9.15pm on ITV2. (UK)

-- Woogyman 21:04, 12 February 2008 (GMT)

Article name biased?

It seems to me the name of this article [ Supernatural (TV Series) ] is a little bit biased towards American audiences. After all the other Supernatural (UK TV series) TV series clearly indicates in its title that it was a series from the UK, even though it was made 30 years before this Supernatural and by age should be called the Supernatural TV series. I don't have anything against this show and I appreciate it is very popular in some countries, but I think calling it Supernatural (US TV series) would be keeping Wikipedia's NPOV. Bernalj90 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The US Supernatural is the more well known out of the two TV series, so therefore should take precendence.--NeilEvans 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Title Card

Since season 3 has a new blue one, should the title card here be changed, i can get the image, but im not too good at fair use, so if we decide to use a new one, jsut contact me and i can e-mail one to someone who knows how to do a good fair use. Rau J16 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural Wiki

this is a great site where you can get alot of information on the show... you can even add your own knowledge and make a profile for yourself, its really cool... here is the link: http://supernaturalfanwiki.wetpaint.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.18.255 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New series regulars

I would like to call attention to the vandalism of the article that has been occurring. Everyone knows there has been a great deal of controversy among fans regarding the addition of two new series regulars to the cast. But Wikipedia is a site for factual information, not opinion, and the fact is that Lauren Cohen and Katie Cassidy are officially series regulars, contracted as such (which separates them from recurring performers such as Jim Beaver and Nicky Aycox). Someone persists in deleting Cohen and Cassidy completely from the article. Before it becomes an administration issue and people start getting blocked, I hope that reason will prevail. The article should list who is a series regular, not who should or shouldn't be. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Whoever it is, please stop removing them. Even if you don't agree with the change, they are credited on-screen as stars and thus must be in that section. Ophois (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are not. According to the cw page on the show under "Stars", they are not considered main charachters. Only sam and Dean are. They are just considered recurring ones, therefore they should be calssified as 'supporting"

On-screen, they are credited as stars along with Jared and Jensen. The "Guest Starring" section follows after they have been named. Watch any of the episodes with the actresses. Ophois (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But just because they star in a few episodes, that does not make them main charachters of the show. They are not classified as main charachters according to the cw, therefore should not be here either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.176.144 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether a tv station believes they are main characters is irrelevant. The two are credited in their episodes and stars, meaning that the writers/producers feel that they are important enough to do so. They are credited on-screen as stars, and thus must be classified as stars. BTW, if you look at the CW site (such as the plot info), it hasn't been updated since at the latest season 2. Ophois (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure if you were at the same site, but it was redily apparent from the main page from the show that it was updated. If it wasnt, Ruby and Bella wouldnt be in the cast photo. And id say the cw's opinion does count as to if thery are main charachters, seeing as it is their show. they are the ones that decide overal weather they are main charachters or not. Staring in a few episodes does not mean they are main charachters. Considering that they are not listed as such on the site, they should not be here, and I will continue to edit the page to reflect this.

Lol. A tv station does not determine who is or is not a main character. The writers/producers do, and they have shown their opinion by crediting them as stars. Ophois (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It does if the tv station is the one running the the show. (Hell, Bella was the station's president's idea in the first place) The catagory is main charachters, not show stars, so as long as the cw doesnt consider them main charachters, they should not be lissted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.176.144 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the section to "Stars". Problem solved. Ophois (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Isnt it a bit misleasding however. Main charachters might be a bit clearer for providing factual information. They might assume that just because they get the same billing, they are at the same cast status. Main charachters make more sence. admit it, you are just doing this because you like the new charachters.

On another note, John should be listed as a main chatachter in the template (not the page) becuase he is the main charachter in the comic.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.176.144 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 

It's not misleading. It gives that they're only in season 3. Personally I could care less whether they're credited as guest star or star, but whether we like it or not, the producers credited them as such. Because of this, they cannot be put in the Supporting Cast, so changing the section to Stars is the only compromise that satisfies the criteria. Ophois (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why having he catagorioes "main charachters" and "supporting" chjarachters makes more sence. It gives the reader information about the hierarcy of the cast while telling the viewer that they were on the show as supporting charachters

But they're not supporting characters. As the producers have made them stars, they are arguably main characters. It's easier and more accurate to have a Stars section.Ophois (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But with my way, its easier for the uninformed reader to determine who is a main charachter, and who is just starring in a few epeisodes. And since they are not listed as main charachters according to the cw, they dont belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.176.144 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea to resolve this. How about Jared and Jensen are Main Characters, Lauren and Katie are Supporting Characters, and the current Supporting Characters be moved to Recurring Characters (with current recurring list being shortened to actual recurring characters and not just people making two appearances like Ava Wilson)? Ophois (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is a good compromise for now. But after this season when the girls are fired (which there is a good chance of) they should go back into secondary charachters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.176.144 (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• This article has an interview with Kripke, I draw your attention to Kripke's third answer, to the question What specific misconceptions about the upcoming season would you like to clear up?, in it he states the girls, Ruby and Bela are recurring regulars and because of this their contract at tops, puts them in 12 out of 22 episodes. That's tops. this suggests to me that the article should be changed to reflect this, they should go in with the recurring characters and at least should be removed from the info box. In the article Kripke also talks about Jo, while he doesn't say clearly that the character is not returning it makes it pretty clear to me that she is not, combine that with the fact that Alona Tal is a full cast member of Cane on another Network it is unlikely she will return in the near future, it is easier to close her dates as they can always be changed, at present both Mary and Jessica's characters have closed dates yet they have both appeared since they have died, this is Supernatural they can always pop up, my point is the dates can be changed but should reflect the current status. Thoughts?. Firelement85 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why Ruby and Bela are listed under Supporting characters.Ophois (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if they're "recuring regulars", they're are still regulars and billed as stars. Ophois (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At this juncture, I would like to respectfully point out that cries of 'vandalism' by people editing this page to reflect what they believe to be the correct formulation and terms for the actors involved in this show, are not only somewhat condescending, but false. ANYONE is allowed to edit a wiki page in good faith. Just because they don't agree with the two or three people who seem to believe the have the only 'correct' opinion about the classification of the actors, does not make them 'wrong' nor does it make them 'vandals'. The creator of this show has very clearly and very specifically referred to the actor categories as recurring and guest. There are no supporting characters in this show, no matter how you twist or turn it. Continually adding that category, is just as wrong as those who insist on the correct designation as recurring characters.(217.228.235.136 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Ruby and Bela aren't mere recurring characters, so they either go in Supporting Characters or in the Main Characters category. Ophois (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

-Perhaps you missede the part ion Kripke's interview when he called them "RECURRING" characters. Thats really all they are. Just starred in a few episodes, and will most likley be gone by next year. No different from any of the other guests the show has had. They are not, nor will they ever be on the same cast status as Dean and Sam. They only reason they are billed in the opening credits is becuase of a cluase in thier contract

In relation to Ruby, she is shown in the character list, and there is a link to the page on the actress that plays her, but there is no link to the page on Ruby, despite the fact that there is at the bottom. It seems a little odd to me that she is an active character with a page, yet she is the only one without a link to her page. Can someone add it in please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.237.3 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Lilith, the new villian, she should not be listed as a supporting charachter with Ruby and Bella. The actress is not contracted, therefore is not a supporting character with those two. It is doubtful that she will appear more than Azezal did, so she should be put into the same catagory as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.0 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Katie and Lauren should not be on the cast list in the main info box. for one, Lauren is gone. for another, that box should be reserved for main charachters only (and we estbalished months ago that they are not main charachters on the same level of Jenson and Jared), so they do not belong there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They are still stars for season 3, and thus belong in the infobox. Ophois (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We had this talk months ago. And it was established that while they are contracted, they are not stars. Definatly not main charachters on the same level of Sam and Dean. Plus, season 3 is over. They do not belong in the infobox. Also, since Bella is gone, she should be taken off the supporting charachters classification and moved to recurring. Id also like to reccomend that Azezal be meved up from recurring guest to recurring charachter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... we never established that. Anyways, even though season 3 is over, they were still stars at one point, so belong in the infobox. As well, Bela still belongs in supporting character, as she is a supporting character in season 3. Ophois (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes we did. In fact, the reason that you created the supporting charachter area was becuase you agreed that they were not main charachters. If they are not main charachters, they do not belong in the info box, and i will continue to update the page to reflect that.Especially Lauren, cause she is gone forever. Look at any other inforbox for a current tv show and any former castmember will not be on thier. Also, Lauren is no longer a supporting charachter, so like John was, she should be demoted to recurring.

No, we changed them to supporting because, although they are not main characters, they are still stars. This is similar to the Charmed page. BTW, if other TV shows don't supply all cast members in the infobox, can you please supply me with some examples? Stargate Atlantis, Lost (tv series), and Heroes (tv series) give every cast member. I can't think of any show that I've seen that only does current members. Ophois (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The only show out of all of those that I watch is Lost, and i can tell you that they list every MAIN CHARACTER, but not every star. You dont see the actor that plays Jack's Dad or Daniel Farraday in that box even though they are pretty much in most episodes. Becuase they are not main charachters.

Jack's dad is in 12 episodes out of the entire series... As for Daniel Faraday, he is played by Jeremy Davies, who is included in the infobox. Ophois (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And Ruby and Bella are in 6. Listen man, i get what you are saying. but they are not main charachters. They dont deserve to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They may not be main characters, but as said countless times, they are credited onscreen as stars. Hence, they go under the "Starring" category. It's as simple as that. Ophois (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But the CW website doesnt have them listed as stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The CW is a TV station... The show itself, what this article is based on, credits them onscreen as stars. Your opinion on their level of importance doesn't matter. As for your argument about them only being in six episodes, the article page for Lost (a featured article) lists the actors for Nikki and Paulo under the Starring category, despite them only starring in six episodes. Ophois (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter. They are not listed as stars on the cw stite, they are not main charachters, so they dont belong in the infobox. And every time you change the box, im gonna just change it right back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Cohen and Katie Cassidy are not listed as starring in episodes that they do not appear (unlike Jared and Jensen which are credited in every episode). They are not listed as stars by the CW. They are not main charachters. Therefore, they do not belong in the infobox. (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Jared and Jensen are credited in every episode because they're in every episode... the entire basis of your argument is that the CW doesn't have them listed on the site. However, as I pointed out on your talk page, the CW doesn't update their cast sections. Smallville's cast section still lists the people for Season 6, despite just finishing airing Season 7. Having the section like the Lost (a featured article) and Heroes pages makes the most sense, as it shows that they were stars but aren't anymore. Ophois (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This section was listed as requesting a third opinion on the dispute. It seems to me the dispute was settled satisfactory even before the third opinion was asked for, so I'm unsure of what the dispute is, but the current solutuion seem very reasonable to me. --Regebro (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it seem settled? As shown above, the argument is still ongoing. You may have been confused by the extra bit at the end, which is unrelated to this argument. I'm moving it around to be clearer. Ophois (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia:Third opinion is intended to invite a "tiebreaker" opinion into a dispute between two editors, not as a general request for participation; that's what Wikipedia:Request for comment is for. Because I see more than two people in the discussion (above and below), I'm removing the Third Opinion plea. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The question was what consists a star. An organisation into minor and major characters instead of discussing who is starring and not, is a resolution of that dispute. Also, this does not seem to be a discussion between two editors of different opinions, but a question of a minority view that doesn't get it's will though. --Regebro (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The main character/minor character was solved a while ago. This dispute involves whether Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan belong in the infobox. As for the rest of what you said, I agree, but this is what the admins told us to do... Ophois (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan's names will stay in the infobox forever now? I know Jared and Jensen's names are bolded to show that they're the stars, which is good...but why do the girls' names have to stay there too? Lost may do it that way, but Supernatural doesn't have to. Supernatural is much different from Lost when it comes to regular characters. Right now we know for sure that Lauren Cohan is not returning, so I think at the very least her name should be taken off. Not everyone is going to understand what the bolding means or even notice it. Anyone who doesn't know anything about this show is going to come here and think this show stars 4 people, when in reality 2 of those 4 people have only been in 6 episodes each out of 3 seasons. If you insist on keeping their names there (which to me is more misleading than not keeping their names there) then I think a distinction has to be made, more than just bolding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why the characters have years listed next to their name in the Characters section. Ophois (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair, but I still don't think Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan's names should forever be in the infobox under starring just because they were credited as regulars in the third season. If they aren't regulars anymore (or completely off the show in Cohan's case) then I don't see the need for their names to be listed there. Other shows' pages may do it that way, but Supernatural doesn't have to. Let's do it our own way. What's the big deal about just having Jared and Jensen listed there as starring? Why do the girls' names have to always be there too just because for one season they were credited as so? It makes more sense just to have Jared and Jensen's names there and no one else if no one else is credited as starring. Right now Lauren Cohan is out and that's official. Her name doesn't need to be there. If Katie Cassidy is knocked down to recurring next season, her name doesn't need to be there either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan starred in season three. The way that the characters section is now, those two have been mixed in with minor characters instead of being listed as supporting. So if they are removed from the Starring section, then a non-viewer who visits the page won't know that they were ever stars on the show. Ophois (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, could we maybe have a section for them separately that's like, "Season three supporting characters"? Then their names could be taken out of the infobox, but new viewers would still know that they played a bigger part in season three. I just don't see the need for their names to always be listed as starring in the infobox when they weren't starring for very long at all. Just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about the "Main characters" section be changed to "Starring characters", with subheadings of Main and Supporting? Ophois (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose leaving the character list the way it is and just putting in parenthesis 'credited as starring in season three' or 'played a supporting role in season three' next to their names wouldn't work? Or putting a * next to their names and putting the 'credited as starring in season three' or 'played a supporting role in season three' message at the bottom of the character list? Basically, if the girls are going to be listed as starring anywhere on the page, I just think it should be made clear they were only credited as so for one season.

Do my recent changes seem fine? Ophois (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But I was kind of hoping we could do it that way in turn for taking Katie and Lauren out of the infobox completely. I think since now its made clear in the character section that they were credited as stars it should be okay to take them out of the infobox, which is what I was trying to find a compromise on in the first place. Also, I think that if season 4 rolls around and Katie is knocked down to recurring, the * should be changed to just her name and Lauren's name and the message at the bottom could read "Credited on screen as star in season three." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll edit it the way I'd like it to be. If you feel that it's wrong that way, we can try to compromise again. I think our main issue here is that fact that the girls were credited as stars, therefore the page should reflect that. But a distiction has to be made from them and Jared and Jensen because on paper they may be credited as stars, but they're nowhere near the level of Jared and Jensen when it comes to the series. So as long as new viewers know that things were a bit different with characters in the third season and that Katie and Lauren were credited on screen as stars for one season (and possibly another season in Katie's case, but we don't know that yet), the girls don't need to be in the infobox. Is it okay to take them out of it as long as it says on the page that they starred in season three? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up infobox

Would it be possible to clean up the character listings in the infobox in general? Classifying them by their status based on number of appearances seems to be getting messy, both in the box itself and in determining who fits what description. Maybe Antagonists and Allies/Hunters, or some similar? Smakian (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it to Main Characters and Secondary Characters. I think that is an obvious solution. Rau's Speak Page 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Im gonna further divide the seconday charachter section into subcatagories (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

References

This is a huge article now yet it still has only 6 references, to me that's a shockingly small amount. People really need to reference where they are getting the info from. I also urge some people who are currently very actively editing the article to try and search for references that back up material already in the article. Firelement85 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception

The reception is entirely unsourced. What is the source used to gather that information? Rau J16 20:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to submit [1] to be added. It's a great site and the top fansite on the web for the show. It's a great resource for those people looking for screencaps, episode information, spoilers, and a ton of other stuff.

Supernatural External Site

I'd like to submit [2] to be added. It's a great site and the top fansite on the web for the show. It's a great resource for those people looking for screencaps,news on the series, episode information, spoilers, and a ton of other stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdowngurl (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fansites generally arent allowed. Use WP:FANSITE to determine worth. And what source do you have to support "the top fansite on the web for the show"? Rau's talk 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the highest rated fansite on Google, plus the networks do tons of giveaways through the site including dvd sets, autographed scripts, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.40.231 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt google is a source, and the network doing giveaways through a popular site is not uncommon. Rau's talk 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible tie-ins addition

In the episode Blood Lust, when the two brothers go to that sheriff's office to investigate, the sheriff asks them what newspaper they're from. After Dean stutters with "World Weekly News" Sam corrects him with "Weekly World News". Just wondering if that should be added or not. Byaku_Kitsune —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its trivial. Rau's talk 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Infoboxes

Currently there is a loose color scheme appearing on the various cheracter and item pages. All the boxes have Black as the background, and the following text colors:

White Text: The Winchester brothers and their close allies... Ash, Bobby, Dean, John, Sam

Yellow Text: Those who are not "constant allies or enemies... Ava, Bela, Gordon, Ruby

Red Text: Those who are definitive enemies... Azazel, Lilith, Meg

Violet Text: Those who are important cheracters, but does not fit in the other categories... Ellen, Jo, Mary

Green Text: Items important to the series... The Colt, Impala on main page, Rubby's Dagger, Singer Salvage Yard, The Roadhouse

Does anyone know of a better classification? Or if all text color should be standardized to just one color? Metatron (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding the infoboxes- it seems to make more sense to me to change "Cause/Reason" to, "Cause of Death", and maybe possibly also have it come directly after the character's date of death in the lower character infobox. Any objections? Smakian (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see arguments going either way. If those changes are going to take place, I suggest a specific Infobox set be created for the Supernatural series. This way it does not create problems with other non-supernatural related series using the character infobox. But to the motion to change the wording of the "Cause/Reason" section, I personally have no objection to "Cause of Death", as a "Cause of Absence" choice couuld be added if needed later.Metatron (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Metallicar

Would "Metallicar" really be considered a neologism? (I see that the reference to it was removed as such.) It is a name, not a word, and its use is nearly universal among fans. It would be one thing to refer to the Impala directly as "Metallicar" in the article, but I think simply noting that this is how the car is referred to in the Supernatural community would not be out of bounds. —simpatico ^talk 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A noun is still a word; in this instance it's a word invented by a fandom. The problem is that the use of a neologism like Metallicar skirt the bounds of notability. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you're going to have a hard time finding reliable sources supporting the usage of Metallicar beyond Supernatural fandom (and particularly one that doesn't count as WP:OR) until someone like Eric Kripke defines it. Remember that the information in the Supernatural articles are generally verifiable through primary sources: interviews or the show itself. Metallicar is just some made up word on the Internet with nothing backing it up for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I understand that fans fill pretty strongly about things like that, but things like "Metallicar" are really the domain of fan sites like Super-wiki, which is linked from the Supernatural article. - Debuskjt 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) —simpatico ^talk 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In one of the commentaries, they actually talk about how the internet calls it "Metallicar". I can't remember the episode right now, but I'll try to find it again. Chokolattejedi (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers under Plot

Perhaps there should be a warning for spoilers concerning the 'Plot' section on this wikipage. Obiously, everybody knows there will be spoilers, but it doesn't hurt to have a blatant sign advertising it. I know I surprised myself when I saw that a succinct 2 paragraph spoiler was at the end, wrapping up the last two episodes.

This isn't a problem, however! I have nothing against spoilers! It's just that with the season finale 3 weeks away, and seeing as how I live in Australia and am a sentimental fool, I thought I'd save myself the big wow and surprise for the initial Australian screening :/

I wouldn't have mentioned it if I knew how to do it myself, but seeing as how I don't, I was hoping somebody would kindly assist me with it? Or if people oppose it, some response would be nice too :]

Thanks!

i think its funny how sam is taller thatn dean when he is the oldest

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.88.229 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Funding

Where do Dean and Sam and the other paranormal hunters get their money from. They travel alot, stay at motels, eat out, and need to resupply for gas, ammo, weapons, and ingredients. So, any idea where the money comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum17x (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think at the start of season 1 they mention that they have fake credit cards for their money needs. I'm not %100 on this but it seems correct. Halo legend 00 11:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They fabricate credit cards. And they cheat at pool. -- 74.75.106.134 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont you mean Dean cheats at pool lol? He also cheats at poker. Zombified22 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Credit card fraud is mentioned often by the boys and John, and they also engage in insurance fraud. Plus, Dean hustles pool and poker and Jo hustles poker and shooting video games. Chokolattejedi (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I condensed the plot section down to one paragraph. The plot section was the majority of the article, which is not allowed. It is also in an out-of-universe style. Make your complaints known. Rau's Speak Page 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If more details are needed, there are episode descriptions at the list of episodes. Two or three paragraphs would probably be okay here, but this looks like an improvement to me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured. But it is also a "villain-of-the-week" style show which means that there are not many important details that were left out. Rau's Speak Page 03:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be something more than a few sentences. Possibly a paragraph for each season? (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Could the wording possibly be changed to the current plot description? Right now this sentence reads, "In season three, the plot of the show focuses on trying to save Dean from his deal with the help of the demon Ruby." Is the "with the help of demon Ruby" part necessary? That's not what the show focused on. It focused on trying get Dean out of the deal, yes, but not with Ruby's help. The wording makes it seem like season three was all about Ruby helping the boys get Dean out of the deal...which it wasn't and Ruby didn't exactly help them get him out of the deal at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot of the season wasn't all about getting Dean out of the deal, either. And, as shown in the finale, Ruby was helping them by getting them ready to face Lilith (in addition to saving them on multiple occasions and giving them protection from Lilith). Ophois (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lilith wasn't even in the season until the end. The majority of plot movement in the season was about saving Dean. Not saying it was all about that, they had the war too. But the focus of the season was Dean. Rau's Speak Page 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Season three had a few plots they focused on. Sam possibly coming back wrong, Dean's Deal, the demon war, etc. It's hard to put all that information in a few sentences though. What happened to the season descriptions? I think that worked better to give an overview of the major plot points each season focused on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.198.230 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections should be kept at 400-700 words total. That violated that entirely. I condensed it. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying that an expansion is wrong. I'm saying this is better than what was there, and focus' on the main points of the seasons. Each season had its subplots, and they could, and probably should, be included. Rau's Speak Page 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule saying that plot sections should be kept to 400-700 words. The guidelines at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) don't mention any specific word or paragraph count range, and many featured book, film and television articles include extensive multi-paragraph and multi-subheading plot sections. As for Wikipedia:Plot summaries, it recommends 300-500 words, but it's an essay, not a policy or guideline. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New Season 4 Spoilers

Found two articles, I dont really think they can be used yet until we know more about the episodes this season but it still contains a few spoilers. First one: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/supernatural/supernatural-sam-and-dean-may-21679.aspx

Second one (about episode four): http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/08/scoop-the-super.html Zombified22 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Artifacts (or Recurring Elements) page?

Now that the page for the Colt has been deleted (following a 3rd AfD), what do you all think about forking an artifacts page and moving the Impala, Ruby's knife, and the Colt there? That makes at least three major ones (one that even has an info box with a photo on the main page), plus half a dozen minor ones that would just look like clutter on this page. I am proposing this because:

• a) it's going to be a lot of work to merge even the non-trivial, story-external contents of the Colt article (i.e., those that are not just plot summary details) into this article
• b) I would prefer to have a logical place to put discussion of the "myth arc" aspects of the artifacts than in the character pages for their owners
• c) material that would be appropriate on a page for all artifacts, and make it more encyclopedic, might be more apt to dismissal as "trivial" on the main page, which is getting a little bulky as it is, and I don't wish to argue each fine point of whether a sourced quotation is trivial
• d) a lot of this material ought to be trans-wikied to the fandom wiki (Super-Wiki), as I mentioned in the AfD.
• e) everything from the mojo bag that Gordon trades to Bela, to the cursed rabbit's foot, to the many weapons seen in various episodes and arcs, could go on an artifacts page as a bulleted item under "minor artifacts"; some of these are related to real superstitions, popular mythology, and urban legends, not to mention ritual objects from European paganism, Louisiana Voodoo, etc.

If you agree that a fork is appropriate, do you think it should be an "Artifacts" page or a "Recurring Elements" one? I could see the Singer Salvage Yard (a setting or locale rather than an artifact) being moved as well if the page is titled "Recurring elements in Supernatural (television series)".

-Banazir (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "Recurring elements in Supernatural". We can still have a section on minor artifacts, since the concept of mystical artifiacts is recurring in the series. Ophois (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think a better name would be "Mythology of Supernatural". Ophois (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO either "recurring elements" or "mythology" would be appropriate. The demon overview could be moved from minor characters from Supernatural, and overviews of other recurring monster / creature types such as ghosts, vampires and shapeshifters could be added. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Yard was split, and then proposed for deletion via prod. Rather than delete it, I suggest moving some of the contents back in here--it in my opinion hasn't a chance of standing as a separate article. If you want to try a recurring elements article, get some refs first--these articles are much harder to defend at AfD than character articles. DGG (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the merge proposal. It doesn't really belong in "Mythology of Supernatural", although all of the artifacts and other recurrent elements mentioned above do. Banazir (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a "Mythology of Supernatural" page. There should be a real world focus os any information from the creaters talking about the changes they made to lore and why would be very welcome. Rekija (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing/deleting minor characters

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss, but I propose that the character pages for minor characters such as Ava, Jessica, Meg, etc. be deleted. They really aren't significant enough to get their own pages, IMO. Or maybe a better way would be to combine all of their pages into pages such as "Hunter Characters from Supernatural" or "Demonic Characters from Supernatural". In my opinion, the cast section is really cluttered with minor characters and should just list the main and recurring characters, with a link to the aforementioned group character pages for the rest. Ophois (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You can make a case for deleting the Ava and Jessica Pages, in fact if Andy isnt listed as charachter then neither should Ava. But Meg is a central charachter to the first season and isnt even dead yet. She should have her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree with both 71.234.162.94 and Ophois above. Lesser, yet important, characters should have their own pages maintained. However, pages like Ava's should be collected on a single page and not simply be deleted. If someone wants to do that I have no objections. -Metatron (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the lesser characters (anyone being in four episodes or less) from the list and included them on their own page. Ophois (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that excessive? I mean, nice job for such a young article but is it necessary? I think a listing of names is enough. Rau's Speak Page 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that all of them are minor characters who have all died (except Lilith), meaning they will no longer be on the show. If all of you want to have their names listed under the minor characters section, that's completely fine with me, but IMO they shouldn't have their own individual pages. Ophois (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In no way am I endorsing those pages. By all means, I want them gone as much as the rest of you. I'm saying that a simple mentioning of their names should be enough. But I also was not going to simply redirect the article without discussing it. Rau's Speak Page 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Gordon, Jo, Crossroads Demon, and Lilith should have their own pages. Pretty much anyone with over a page of text is pretty much important enough to have earned it. (ShadowX81 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

What everyone seems to be missing is that Wikipedia bases inclusion on Notability, not importance. The fact that they are minor characters means they are not notable characters. Lilith might change in season four, but the others are dead. (Jo's death is speculation on my part) And because they are dead, their notability will not change, and they will remain minor characters. Rau's Speak Page 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meg, Azazel, and John still have thier own pages and they are al dead. Meg and Azeazel actually appeared in less episodes than Gordon or Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowX81 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo is not dead, she is out being a hunter, though will not return in the future. Anyways, the Meg demon was in five episodes, Azazel was in six episodes, and John was in 10 episodes. The Meg demon is still alive, and John will probably make guest appearances throughout the rest of the series. Gordon and Jo, however, only appear in 4, with Gordon definitely not coming back and Jo not being liked enough by the producers to come back. Ophois (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I Know What... Ratings

The ratings for the episode say 2.96 mil, but I thought it achieved 3.96 million? I know it was affected by a game in New York but I didnt see a refrence for the 2.96 mil one, or is it just under the normal neison ratings page? If not I dont really think we can properly put the ratings for the episode. 216.12.108.129 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok never mind, someone has posted for the latest three episodes actual ratings and that they were affected so thanks. 216.12.106.170 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On this topic - the final ratings for 4.09 were 2.94 (3.91 was the early number without New York taken out) so that makes it the lowest rated episode of the season. I changed the ratings box to reflect that. Also, on the topic of ratings, someone seems to think Supernatural got 7.69 million viewers for the pilot, when it actually got 5.69. So I changed that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.55.185 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats good, I wasnt to sure about the ratings because of the games. 216.12.106.155 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a category of supernatural species?

For example, a category for humans, demons, angels, etc. With basic traits, motives, etc. And those can be subdivided, to different kinds.

I was looking to add something for Angels, but there isn't a page/thread dedicated to them.

FYI: I wanted to add typical angelic slurs towards humanity and demons. Ex. Humans = "mud monkeys", Demons = "stains". Just little trivia.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Angel is a Douche Bag

I found two refrences saying thats the title for te Jan. 22 episode, but I cant add it to the guide (not sure how). Im also not completelly sure their reliable but I'd say.

1. 1 http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/11/casting-scoops.html (Obviousally read under the Supernatural part of the article)

1. 2 http://www.buddytv.com/articles/supernatural/supernatural-grading-the-first-24823.aspx (Read under the section about "Are You There God, It's Me Dead Winchester?") 216.12.106.155 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article of the list of episodes. Ophois (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible recurring joke (Wincest Sam/Dean)?

In the episode "Plaything," the brothers are mistaken for gay lovers. I seem to recall this happening in one or two previous episodes. If this is a recurring joke, perhaps it could be worked into the article. Briham 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In the episode "Something Wicked," the hotel managers son offers them a king size bed. However, I'm not sure if two times is reacurring; it's really more of a shoutout to the fans, (there are several in Playthings)wether said fans are Wincest shippers or just like the running gag. I'd think, if they pull that card 3 times on the show, it could be a notable occurance, but not twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.37.228.132 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

• The 'gay' insinuation has been brought up three times now, "Bugs" where the developer stated that they 'accept home owners of any race, colour, religion or sexual orientation'. Minutes later a realtor says the same thing which Dean plays along to slaping Sam on the ass and calling him 'honey'. In "Something Wicked" the kid looks at Dean then at Sam and offers 'a king or two queens?', Dean says two queens, the kid replies sure but it's obvious what he thinks their sleeping arrangements are. And in "Playthings" the hotel manager and butler guy believe them to be lovers. Dean wonders why that keeps happening, Sam tells him that he is kinda butch and that he might be over compensating. It is definitely a recurring theme, and I'm sure Eric Kripke knows that there is a strong following for Wincest (Winchester incest) but I don't think that there is much that could really be included in the article other than say 'the brothers are often mistaken for lovers' but it's not really realvent to the overall story. Unless Eric says something in an interview specifically about it, it's not worth including it. Firelement85 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the episode Ghostfacers which is presented as a television trailer for a parallel series by the producers who fictionally, run the website that is actually run by Eric Kripke. There is a strong and overt homosexual theme in that episode, which has the tag "gay love can pierce through the veil of death, and save the day". I think that it is recurring and important theme, and reflected in the prevelance of "wincest" Sam/Dean slash. There are more than 800 hits for wincest on Youtube alone.--Timtak (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about"Bugs"...yes, it's been used 3 times, but like it was said above, I don't know if it's mention-worthy. It's mostly relevant in the Wincest Fanfiction world.

• I think it is a recurring joke, but hardly worth mentioning in this article. —simpatico ^talk 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a great re-accuring gag. Has to be mentioned. Note to fan boys. we're not making fun of this show, it's great, but it is a gag that keeps occuring.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.70 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural task force

A proposal has been made to form a Supernatural task force as part of WikiProject Television. You can add your support to the creation of this task force by going here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Supernatural task force. Thanks. hornoir (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratings - what is the point?

What is the point in the ratings section? It's just so boring. I can't see any other encyclopedia listing pointless statistics like that. SaintedLegion (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

protection?

you we should really get this page protected from vandalism, so users don't have to deal with the constant problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just a suggestion: I think that this article could be much improved if detailed plots of every episdode was added. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.72.143 (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is already covered in the article List of Supernatural episodes. Ophois (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but I am thinking of something a little more detailed. For example, the pages on "All Hell Breaks Loose". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.72.143 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pages for individual episodes can be created, but they must include information other than plot summary. They should be in the format of Doctor Who episode pages such as "Turn Left", or else they will be deleted because they aren't notable. Ophois (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comedy genre?

An edit cold war seems to be brewing over the inclusion of comedy in the genre list. While the show has plenty of humor, I wouldn't call it a comedy. What's the best argument for adding "comedy"? - JeffJonez (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "edit cold war" is, but I am sure that this show is not a comedy. It is a melodrama/thriller. Having comic relief does not make it a comedy. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

What is up with that section? It makes almost no sense whatsoever. It looks as if bits of it have been deleted )i.e. it seems to skip). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.200.195 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Classic Rock section

I have removed the follwing from this section

"Dean hits back by reminding Sam that he bought the first album by Spin Doctors when he was 11 - something which Dean does not approve of. Sam asks for the radio instead so that they'll get to listen to 'something from this century"

This argument doesn't happen in the pilot episode, or in any other episode. (Here are some transcripts if you wish to check the dialogue [3], [4]).

It's possible that this could have been in a deleted scene, but on the DVD I own there isn't one, although I suppose it may be on the American DVD release (if this line of dialogue has in fact been shot). As far as I know, the part about Spin Doctors is from an early version of the script (can be read here), that was since edited. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of names

Whats with the constant re-ordering of the two names here (Sam vs Dean, Jared vs Jensen)? Jwoodger (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

66 Seals

Just a minor point, the Angels laid siege to hell in an attempt to break Dean out after the Demons started torturing him but before Dean started torturing others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.138.102 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the show will have a long term cultural influence on western television not unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel which is funny considering the series itself is a formula made up of assorted cultural influences!Twobells (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a source. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[[5]]A Source Twobells (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That article is about how the series has been influenced by western culture, not the other way around. However, it has some interesting tidbits, so some can be incorporated throughout the article. Ophois (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

OK, I'm trying to find refs, and I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Season_ratings for help. It has some useful info, but it doesn't match our table. I just changed the viewers in millions (I hope its right, and not just 18-49 or something), and the other columns may need to be changed if we want to use the suggested refs. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should adapt our table to fit the info.Ophois (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We also need to find references for all the explained ratings information below the ratings box. Ophois (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shit. I didn't even notice that. This thing is going to need like a hundred refs. I'll keep looking for some, but if you want to do the same, what I recommend is look at the Smallville article. It was done by the user at WPTV, and if you look at the refs, it gives you an idea of where to find that kind of info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm working on the DVD section, but will try and get to it when I can. However, if we can't find references for the info, it doesn't matter that much. A lot can be trimmed. The Lost article (a featured article) only has a paragraph explaining the ratings for all five seasons. Ophois (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's probably where we're going with it. It's too much work, for info that doesn't matter that much. We could cut and paste it onto the season pages in case anyone ever wants to use it. I'm gonna focus on the table, which is problematic enough. Different sites are calculating the rank in different ways, for instance. I'll figure something out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the series' rank provided on the ratings list? Ophois (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The rank is in that last ref, but I think they're calculating it differently. Like american idol gets more than one spot. I'd like to figure it out before I add it. Otherwise it will look weird as they go from around 130 to around 180.

Here are some refs I need to look at later. Don't have time now.[6][7][8][9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This one may be useful, too. [10] Ophois (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackpot [11] Ophois (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This works a bit better for me.[12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you have it or not: Season 2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For individual season 4 episodes (such as season highs and lows), this might work. [13] Ophois (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole. I was having a devil of a time finding it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Season 1, but it's missing the season premiere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's still better, since it's comparing apples to apples. Now the rank won't be jumping all over the place. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

We may want some of this later, if we can find refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the last link that I found in the section above has this stuff in it, but not positive. Ophois (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Season One

When it first aired on September 13, 2005, Supernatural rated higher than 2003's One Tree Hill premiere in adults 18–34, adults 18–49 and total viewers (5.69 million). Supernatural attained the time period's highest adult 18–49 (2.5) rating for the WB in two years. The episode was #2 in its time period among persons 12–34 (2.5), men 18–34 (2.2) and men 12–34 (2.1), achieving gains over the time period season premiere of One Tree Hill in 2004. Supernatural improved over the WB's hit series among adults 18–34 (2.6, +4%), men 18–34 (2.2, +120%), adults 18–49 (2.5, +19%) and men 18–49 (2.1, +110%) as well as men 12–34 (2.1, +91%) and total viewers (5.69 million, +15%). On October 11, 2005, Supernatural scored its best ratings yet in persons 12–34 (2.6/7), women 18–34 (3.1/8), women 18–49 (2.9/7) and women 12–34 (3.4/9). The series also scored its best ratings yet in teens (3.0/9) and female teens (4.4/14). Supernatural also attracted its second largest audience to date (5.5 million), adults 18–34 (2.5/7), adults 18–49 (2.4/6) and men 18–49 (1.9/5). On January 31, 2006, the drama series achieved all-time ratings highs for the series in adults 18–34 (2.6/7), women 18–34 (3.3/8) adults 18–49 (2.6/6) as well as women 18–49 (3.1/7) and men 18–49 (2.1/5), households (3.8/6) and total viewers (5.82 million). On March 30, the show was moved from Tuesday to Thursday and suffered a ratings decline which many thought was due to the lead-in (from Gilmore Girls to Smallville) and competition (the series aired against CSI: Crime Scene Investigation). On May 4, 2006, the first season finale achieved its best rating after the timeslot move and scored 3.99 million viewers and an estimated 3.0/5 households ratings.

Season Two

The CW schedule was officially released on Thursday, May 18, 2006, confirming Supernatural's place in the program line-up, where it still airs on Thursdays, in the same timeslot, with the same lead-in, Smallville, and aired against Grey's Anatomy and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Supernatural was the only new series from The WB's 2005–06 season that was renewed for a second season by The CW. The second season premiere aired on September 28, 2006 and earned an estimated 2.7/4 rating, out-performing 2005's premiere of Everwood Thursday at 9PM on The WB by 46% in adults 18–34 (1.9/5), 111% in men 18–34 (1.9/6), 19% in women 18–34 (1.9/4), 31% in adults 18–49 (1.7/4), 60% in men 18–49 (1.6/4) and 11% in viewers (3.9 million). On October 26, 2006, the show matched its season best in adults 18–49 (1.7/4) and women 18–49 (1.8/5), and held 90% of "Smallville's" women 18–34 (1.8/5 v. 2.0/6) audience and 100% of its women 18–49 (1.8/4 v. 1.8/5) audience and in total viewers (3.65 million and 2.8/4 households). On March 15, 2007, with guest-star Tricia Helfer (Battlestar Galactica), the show averaged its third largest audience of the season, earning 2.3/4 and 3.5 million in total viewers. The second season finale on May 11, 2007, averaged the worst ratings ever in adults 18–49 (1.2/3) and in total viewers (2.72 million).

Season Three

The third season premiere aired on October 4, 2007, average only 2.97 million viewers and 2.0/3 households, 1.2/3 in adults 18–49 and 1.2/3 in persons 18–34. The special episode aired on November 1, 2007, ranked the best ratings for the third season in total vievers (3.24 million and 2.0/3 households), adults 18–49 (1.3/3) and persons 18–34 (1.4/4). That week, Supernatural was the third most-watched show on the CW and tie with a fresh episode of America's Next Top Model. On December 13, 2007, the CW aired the second special episode of the season and average a 2.0/3 rating in total viewers and 1.3/3 in persons 18–34. It was the fourth most-watched show on the CW that week. On January 31, 2008, after a one-month hiatus and with its first episode aired against Lost, it scored 2.94 million viewers and 1.8/3 household, 1.3/3 in adults 18–49 and 1.2/3 in adults 18–34. That week it was the third most watched show on the CW. On February 7, 2008, it ranked the lowest ratings in 3 years, and averaged only 2.68 million viewers, 1.1/3 in adults 18–49 and adults 18–34. Despite this, it was the fourth most-watched show of the week on the CW. On February 21, 2008, a 2-hour full night event of the series, averaged 2.90 million viewers from 8–10 pm. The fresh episode aired at 9pm, scored 3.23 million viewers; Supernatural rose to its second largest audience of the season, and best among adults 18–34 (1.4/4 rating), women 18–34 (1.4/4) and men 18–34 (1.5/4). It was the third most watched show overall, and the most-watched scripted drama show on the CW that week. On April 24, 2008, after a long post-strike hiatus, Supernatural had its lowest ratings in three years with only 2.217.000 viewers and 0.9/2 in adults 18–34 and it was the eighth most-watched show on the CW after all drama shows and reality shows such as America's Next Top Model, Girlicious and WWE Friday Night SmackDown. The season finale on May 15, 2008 pulled 3 million viewers and it was the 2nd most popular script drama show of the network.

Season Four

The fourth season premiere aired on September 18, 2008, averaging its highest rating ever since its debut on The CW Network with 3.96 million viewers, a 33% surge over the season three premiere and a 1.7/5 in adults 18–49, up 42% from one year earlier. On October 16, 2008, the show was watched by 3.06 million viewers, making the lowest rating for the season. On October 30, 2008, the show climbed to its best performance in adults 18–34 (1.4/4), adults 18–49 (1.5/4) and total viewers (3.6mil) since its season premiere on September 18, 2008.

Season Five

The fifth season premiere aired on September 10th, 2009 at it's regular time slot of 9:00pm EST just behind The Vampire Diaries.

• Satan's Minions: Gamble, Edlund and Ackles
• Supernatural- About