Talk:Supernatural (American TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Secondary literature

New book for the Secondary Literature section: Come on in, the Water's Bloody: Interviews with the cast and crew of the TV series Supernatural by Cynthia Boris ASIN: B00KNQ73OC [1] Published May 29, 2014 Cynthialil (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian

It's a Canadian-American show..... pretty much everything except the actors (and even then some of them too) is Canadian. Just because the storyline takes place in the states doesn't make it American. If ANYTHING it's Canadian-American show. If you wanna stick to ONE country then say it's Canadian, because really, that's what it is. 50.93.122.20 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexism

A lot of fans take issue with perceived sexism in the show. Professional critics as well. Misha Collins himself called the show "gratuitously misogynistic". Perhaps something should be mentioned, say, under the "fans" section? A flipside to the rabid OTP fans. 142.136.138.10 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide third-party, reliable sources for it, then feel free to add it to the article. Ωphois 16:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Or you can provide the sources here, and someone will probably be able to add it to the article. Ωphois 16:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stars

Since we're trying to fix the article up to meet good/featured status, how should we handle the starring section in the infobox? Should Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan be included, despite their relatively small role? I had previously wanted to include them, but another user kept removing it, and I eventually gave up on it. Ophois (talk)

To be perfectly honest, I think that only Jared and Jensen should be listed in the infobox. They are really the only 2 main characters. All the other characters just seem to pop up here and there for a while and then die or vanish. As far as Misha, I know he's going to be credited on screen in some episodes this season, but he won't be in every episode like Jared and Jensen. And even the episodes he is in, he will still most likely only be in a supporting role. Take the season premier as an example. He just sort of popped in towards the end of the episode for a couple minutes and then vanished again. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that crossing the line of original research / personal opinon though? If they were credited as stars, even only once, then they should be included. It's not, I believe, about who has the most screentime or who are the main characters, it's about who is, has been or will be credited as starring on the show. (See for example, the inclusion of Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro as stars on the Lost (TV Series) article. They only appeared in 6 episodes and most casual fans of the show probably don't even remember them, but that's not the point. Anybody else feels this way? --LeoChris (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't want this article's infobox to look like Lost's, FA or not, that things "starring" section is a mess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are 2 ways to determine who should be listed as stars of the series without getting into the original research problem. The first, which is my preference, is to include only the characters that have been credited as stars on screen for the entire series, which would mean just Jared and Jensen. The second way is to include every character that has been credited on screen as a star in any single episode. Since I don't have all the season DVDs to look at, I'm not exactly sure how many stars that would make. 5 maybe? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just do the two. That's easy enough, with no OR. OR or not, Lost is a bit different with its "stars". I remember "Rodrigo Santoro" and the other, and I think they were actually stars of their episodes, or close to it. Lost will make someone the star of an episode, then they'll kill them. With Supernatural, no actors have had a larger role in any episodes than Jensen and Padalecki (sp?). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think only Jared and Jensen should be listed, regardless if Misha, Katie and Lauara were listed as stars. I think we should just note that Misha, Katie and Lauara were stars on the season pages. I think thats enough. Xena325 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have another suggestion - to list all the actors credited as a cast regulars, but those apart from Jared and Jensen to be listed with the seasons in which they play - for example Katie Cassidy (Season 3) ... I think it's the best solution. Bai brother (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think that the "stars" section needs to include Misha Collins, and I note that many of the comments saying not to add him are from 2009 & earlier, before Misha Collins became a main character. Violet Fae (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as of season 7 he is no longer a regular character. Sorry, I love Misha's character as much as anyone, but the show stars Sam and Dean. They are the only 2 characters that have been in every episode. No other character even comes close. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's really unfortunate. I heard that Castiel did something like eat most of the angels and then became god, so I thought he would become even more of a main character than he already was, but I'm in Australia and I've only seen up to the end of season six, so I'll have to go with what you say since you're the one to have seen season seven. :) ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 09:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Since he's been on posters with the two brothers http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fd1mxyp5ceukbya.cloudfront.net%2Fimages%2Fsupernatural-poster-grave.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zap2it.com%2Fblogs%2Fsupernatural_new_promotional_photos_highlight_good_vs_evil-2010-11&h=768&w=555&tbnid=qJiStdtR4msCFM%3A&zoom=1&docid=He1ZwvDJr_0aGM&ei=faSnU_jfKYazyAS4xoKQAg&tbm=isch&ved=0CCEQMygFMAU&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=977&page=1&start=0&ndsp=36 and the three of them won a "Best Bromance" award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Supernatural#cite_note-29 , he should be included (sorry if I did the citing wrong) Superwholock10 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting the Stars section

Noticed that an anonymous user added Mark Sheppard to the list of stars; I didn't remove him and thought it worth mentioning here that both he and Misha Collins have been promoted to cast regulars in the upcoming Season 10. Not citing any references here in the talk section, but a Google search for Mark Sheppard series regular will speak for itself. To date, cast "regulars" have only been the two brothers and, occasionally, Misha Collins. When you watch the show, the beginning credits list "Starring" actors first, followed by "Guest Starring" actors; in Season 10, Misha and Mark will now be listed as "Starring" rather than "Guest Starring." I'm of the opinion that they should both be included in the Stars section, but I'll defer to others? (Also, just confirming...I was NOT the anonymous user who made the change adding Mark Sheppard; I never edit anything on Wikipedia without being logged in. I HAVE gone in after and edited the Cast and Characters section to include a couple of references to Mark Sheppard's being announced as a series regular for Season 10.) skatoulaki (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The actors for Bela and Ruby were also listed as stars in the credits. I'm fine either way, but if Mark Sheppard is added, then Cassidy and Cohan should be too for consistency. Ωphois 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree; however, if they are added, I think they (as well as Sheppard and Collins) should have the years they were series regulars included after their names: Cohan (2007-2008); Cassidy (2007-2008); Collins (2009-2011; 2013-present); Sheppard (2014). skatoulaki (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think adding the years (or seasons) is an excellent idea for the actors who haven't been "stars" for the entire series. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. In that case, it would be Season 4 for Cassidy and Cohan, Seasons 5,6,9 & 10 for Collins, Season 10 for Sheppard. I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure how this all works, haha! Do we just change it or await more feedback? skatoulaki (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus during the previous discussion to just have the Winchesters, and eventually Castiel was added. I'd wait a few days for further feedback from others before changing it. Ωphois 16:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody else commented on this, I changed it. I have no qualms if someone changes it back, but I think if Collins is included, the others have to be as well, and adding the seasons they were "regulars" is a good way to do it. skatoulaki (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Are all the references reliable?

You did a great job on the other SN articles, so I imagine you're refs are reliable once again. But, when I look at some of the ref URLs, they seem sketchy. How is the research going? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Which ones seem sketchy to you? Ophois (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I thought some of the blogs and the twitter one looked funky, but as I look closer, I think they're OK. Do you use the refTools gadget? It will help you format those refs whenever you get around to it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What's refTools? Ophois (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The companion books finally arrived, and have a ton of great info. In my opinion, the "Concept and creation" section is now complete, if you wanna look it over. Ophois (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw the edit notice in the external links section. I wanted to propose Supernatural on TVGuide.com as a helpful link. See here: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/supernatural/192272 It contains recaps, cast info, episode descriptions and data, and more. Tubesurfer (talk)

The link in the first paragraph supposed to go to Robert Singer producer connects to Robert Singer New Jersey politician. If someone fixes this and puts here how they fixed it I'll register an account and fix the next situation I find that is like that. Thnx.174.71.95.31 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include Supernatural Wiki. It has a lot of reliable sources! - Mediadimension (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement "However, there was a Sam Harrison living in Kansas, so the name had to be changed for legal reasons" seems odd at the least - almost absurd. There must be Sam Harrisons nearly everywhere - it does not seem to be that uncommon a name. A citation is certainly needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.253.62 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reason for this is that the show started out set in Kansas (the Winchesters were from Lawrence, Kansas). The same thing happened with John Winchester, whom Kripke wanted to name Jack Winchester. There was a Jack Winchester in Kansas, so they changed his name to John. I don't think it's a matter of there not being any Sam Harrisons or Jack Winchesters in the world...just in Kansas where the characters were from. - skatoulaki (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

User:JKSarang has recently changed the image in the infobox from a title card to a promotional poster. The poster in question is sourced to blogspot.com. There has been private discussion at User talk:JKSarang#Hero about the image, which suggests some limited agreement about the image. WP:MOSTV doesn't help the issue: "The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e. A screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself."

My concerns about the issue are:

1. Is the image sufficiently sourced to use it as a promotional poster? Can we verify it as official, as opposed to fan art?
2. Does the "Thursdays 9/8c" text taint the image as too promotional for the infobox?
3. Is there support for the change, since multiple editors have changed back to the old title card?

As I noted above, this issue was discussed at a user's talk page, but I think a wider discussion is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue was also discussed at File talk:Season Five Title Card.jpg. —C.Fred (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay how comes no one ever directed me to this page WP:MOSTV. I've been asking and asking and asking but Bignole kept hounding me. Thank you for the instructions C.Fred. --JKSarang 06:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This Image:Supernatural (TV Series) Promo.jpg was decided by Ophois and I. --JKSarang 08:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the promotional poster I've asked the questions about above. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can the time be cropped out of it? I'm fine with having the image as the infobox, but it's more that I'm neutral about it than supporting or opposing. Other editors prefer the title card, so I'm fine with sticking with the current picture. Ophois (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not a fan of using the promotional poster. Most series articles I've seen use the title card as the infobox image. I guess using the poster is acceptable if that's what everyone else wants, but I vote for keeping the current image. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox list of episodes

The infobox list of episodes link does not work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.48.52 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Move? (November 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Actually, this is a revert of a controversial move. Please discuss before moving, not after. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Supernatural (U.S. TV series) → Supernatural (TV series) —

• Request to me from a user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved to the current title in the first place. The other pages are pretty much stubs, and a visitor check shows that this page is clearly the primary topic.Ωphois 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (December 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Supernatural (TV series) → Supernatural (2005 TV series) —

There are multiple TV series by the name "Supernatural", therefore Supernatural (TV series) should be a dab page, or point to a greater dab page (ie. Supernatural (disambiguation)), and this article should be renamed, per WP:NC-TV

76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Voice your opinion in favor of or in opposition to the proposal here, with a rationale to support your arugment

Oppose: The other two series are highly unnotable, short-lived shows. I don't even know if those can be considered TV shows. One is a documentary series, and the other looks more like a mini-series. Anyways, a look at the visitor history clearly shows that this page is the primary topic. The "other uses" list at the top of this article suffices. Ωphois 10:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A documentary series is not "unnotable" just because you've never heard of it, or "short-lived" just because it only had six or eight episodes — that's a perfectly normal and reasonable length for a television documentary. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When I brought up that it was documentary, I meant because it's not really a TV show. So it should be named "Supernatural (documentary)" or something more relevant. Ωphois 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A documentary that airs on television in six or eight separate episodes most certainly is a TV series. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As for its notability, a Google search shows that it's not very notable. Especially not compared to the primary topic, which a look at visitor history will show is this article. Ωphois 23:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't care what you call the other ones, but this article should be Supernatural (TV series). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is already disambiguated, I don't see what the problem is with being accurate. It is not sitting at the primary name ("Supernatural") in any case. Or what the problem with using WP:NC-TV is. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Bearcat that a documentary may not be episodic TV, so Supernatural (documentary) may be a better title for the 1999 program(me). The more significant issue is that, based on any measure you pick (page views, Ghits, links in), a reference to "Supernatural (TV series)" is going to refer to this article over the other two by an order of magnitude. Accordingly, this is the primary meaning for "Supernatural (TV series)." —C.Fred (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Voice other opinions related to the request here

Per the edit history comment saying that there should be a formal move discussion, one is now open. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mytharc?

I don't see any citation for this term, and suspect its some form of fancruft. I'm going to watchlist this page for a week or so. If some reliable citation doesn't show up for its usage (ie, from the press or story creators), I'm going to remove it.

Just as an additional heads-up, the created article discussing episodes that are part of this "mytharc" is facing extinction, unless similar citation appears in that article. As before, I'll wait about a week. Good hunting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Syndication

Article gives no info regarding it's channel distribution, besides America. But Wikipedia shouldn't be so ethnocentric. --78.144.57.249 (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if yo uare living in another country and supernatural is airing there, can you find a source for it and include it on the page? Every bit helps =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The first and second season leads include some international syndication info. Ωphois 00:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Convention

There is only one first convention dedicated to Supernatural, and the first convention dedicated to Supernatural was Winchestercon in Nashville, Oct 13-15, 2006 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel. I was there. For some reason, when I add correct information to the wiki (with citation) someone keeps reverting it to incorrectly say that the first convention took place in London. That is untrue and I'm not certain why someone is persistently trying to post false information to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.55.41 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is one of the reliability of sources. The BuddyTV article (sourced to AOL) claims that the first Supernatural convention was in London. The only source for WinCon is the Supernatural Wiki, which is not reliable. I'm not necessarily saying that the London con was the first one and not the Nashville con; I'm just saying that all that can be verified is that the London convention is reported as the first. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural-Wiki is a source that solely exists to catalog the history of Supernatural and its fandom. In regards to Supernatural and the details surrounding all aspects of Supernatural, it is more reliable than BuddyTV and certainly more reliable than Wikipedia. Aside from the Supernatural fandom carefully documeting its own history, what more reliable source are you seeking? If wikis are not to be used as internet-policed sources of information of public record, then what is the point of Wikipedia itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.55.41 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more specific and add when it comes to citing sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." In this case the material does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and the article is not based primarily on such sources. There is absolutely nothing to rule out the fandom's documentation of its own activities in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.55.41 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because for all we know you yourself added it to supernaturalwiki.com and use it as a source to put it up here, which is unreliable. If that was indeed the first convention, there has to be some proof of it besides self published sourced, like wiki's which everyone can edit. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entire documented history of the con's planning and execution from 2006 post by post on Livejournal: http://community.livejournal.com/winchestercon/2006/ I hope that will satisfy your requirement for "no reasonable doubt." 75.139.55.41 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A forum/blog does not count as a reliable source. Ωphois 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went over, and in some detail, exactly how, by wikipedia's guidelines, it absolutely satisfies the requirements for a source of information about itself, both in terms of this link and the Supernatural wiki link. There are no terms under which I have not provided information equal to Wikipedia's requirements. 75.139.55.41 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A community forum does not prove that the event took place, and using that as a source does not meet the requirements because it contradicts a reliable source. Ωphois 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, although there's a story at moviesonline.ca that corroborates the con, it reads like a blog post and not a hard news story. I don't doubt that there was a gathering of fans in Nashville in 2006. I also don't think there's enough to get it over the hurdle and call it a convention. It would be easier to do so were there news coverage of the convention or a significant guest in attendance (which, of course, would have led to news coverage). And because it was a closed-invitation event (no walk-up registrations), there weren't likely to be newspaper ads for the event, so that's another bit of evidence that isn't there.

Tangent: I was involved in a Star Trek convention in the mid 1980s. Admittedly, news stories from then aren't archived as thoroughly as recent stories, but I'm really stretching to find any evidence of that con on the web. That doesn't mean the convention didn't happen; that just means I lack credible, independent documentation to back up the claim, were I going to list it on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And there you've corroborated it with yet another source. Once again, there is no room for reasonable doubt that 1) this was a convention and 2) it took place on the date specified. I will happily cite both SPNwiki and your source, but between the two and with the fact that the planning of execution of the convention is well documented post by post, day by day on a blog that is publicly accessible repeatedly denying it's not the first verifiable Supernatural Convention amounts to belligerence. 75.139.55.41 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have further verified the existence of the convention with an article from the peer-reviewed journal, Transformative Works and Cultures: http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/viewArticle/208/151. I will correct the main article tomorrow as Wikipedia is resistant to the main article being edited further in such a short period of time. 75.139.55.41 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And the duck drops down from the ceiling. :) Even though it's an interview, it appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and based on that, we have a reliable source. I've added it to the article, changing the text as follows: "The first fan conventions dedicated to Supernatural took place in Nashville, Tennessee, in October 2006^[204] and in London in May 2007…" —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aww, thank you for that. <33 It was a great con! 75.139.55.41 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural the Animation

I'm currently watching the Supernatural anime and will be writing the synopsis soon. Should i create a separate "List of Supernatural the Animation episodes" article?--FonFon Alseif (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin Basis

Is the Ghostfacers actor the same Austin Basis who played Math on Life Unexpected?68.48.221.49 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Crowley

main character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.187.83 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Crowley only appeared about six or seven times as a guest star this season. Ωphois 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because Crowley does play a pivotel role in the last couple of seasons, especially season 6.

Music

Shouldn't the music section not include Kansas - as it is usually to Kansas that most of the recaps are set to. REO Speedwagon could probably do with a mention too, as should Jefferson Starship considering Dean names one of the monsters after the band... however, these latter two bands are probably not as prominent as Kansas when discussing the soundtrack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.28.231 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Station

Is it appropriate to put the Canadian station that airs Supernatural? It is done on other TV pages, like Doctor Who for example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwillson07 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No description?

Came here to see what Supernatural was all about and found no description. The articles quickly goes on to talk about filming locations and the director, but not what the show is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.100.58 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural_(TV_series)#Synopses. BOVINEBOY2008 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mythology section

Should there? Earlyriser10 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Canute (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend a short section describing some of the more repetitive twists Supernatural puts on folk mythology. For example, ghosts cannot pass through iron or salt, and they can be destroyed by salting and burning the remains of their corpses. Demons are corrupt ghosts and have similar limitations, but can also be trapped, cast into Hell using a Latin exorcism, or summoned at a Crossroads to make supernatural contracts. Vampires are infected humans and can only be killed by decapitation. Silver kills a wide array of monsters. Witches are gross. The Krampus isn't real, but ancient pagan gods might live in your neighborhood. Angels cannot be trusted. Dead monsters go to Purgatory. Etc... Canute (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as you include the production decisions that went into the mythology, using third-party sources. Otherwise it would be considered fansite-ish. Ωphois 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Supernatural season 7 title card.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Supernatural season 7 title card.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves (June 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: articles not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Supernatural (TV series) → Supernatural (U.S. TV series)
• Supernatural (1977 TV series) → Supernatural (UK TV series)

– WP:TV-NAME states that two shows of the same name in different name should be named by country. I tried the move earlier, only to have it reverted. What do you say? Bob Mono (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Bob Mono (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The US series is the most recognized and most notable version, while the UK version is a short-lived series that only lasted for 8 episodes and is from the 70's. 99.99% of people who search for Supernatural would be looking for the US show. Besides, your request has already been discussed and opposed in the past as unnecessary (further up on this talk page). Ωphois 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "Supernatural (1977 TV series) → Supernatural (UK TV series)" -- there are multiple UK TV series by this name. Support "Supernatural (TV series) → Supernatural (U.S. TV series)" -- if this isn't the primary topic of "Supernatural", then the disambiguatory term should not be ambiguous. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move. This article is the main TV series titled "Supernatural". The other one would rarely be the Supernatural TV series that people are searching for. And if they are, the hatnote at the top is more than sufficient, so a dedicated disambiguation page is not needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Supernatural season 7 title card.png

The file File:Supernatural season 7 title card.png, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Supernatural season 7 title card.png. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

66 Seals?

I see links referring to this page for discussion of the 66 Seals, but there is no content discussing those seals at all..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(TV_series)#66_seals

Referred from these pages -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(TV_series)#Season_four -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel_(Supernatural)#Biography

174.127.9.2 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. While the previous move shouldn't have happened without an RM, the current title is supported by the naming conventions and there's no consensus in this discussion for a change. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Supernatural (U.S. TV series) → Supernatural (TV series) – Visibility Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC) The proposal is to restore an undiscussed move

• Oppose - Such a move clearly goes against the television disambiguation guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). The disambiguation term (TV series) is used to disambiguate articles from the primary topic, but when this does not provide sufficient disambiguation (U.S. TV series) is the next preferred term which WP:TV-NAME#Additional disambiguation instructs us to use when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Since Supernatural (TV series) could also refer to Supernatural (1977 TV series) and Supernatural: The Unseen Powers of Animals it does not provide adequate disambiguation, so further disambiguation should be provided in accordance with television naming conventions. Visibility is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, so it does not apply to disambiguated titles, since if we were to accept it as an argument then the correct action would be to move the article to Supernatural rather than Supernatural (TV series). Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The primary topic argument does apply to disambiguation. We don't need further disambiguation if there's no confusion. This TV series is the primary topic of "Supernatural (TV series)" but it is not the primary topic of "Supernatural". McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural (TV series) is not the primary topic of anything, because it is not the WP:COMMONNAME of anything. Can you name just one reliable source that identifies the television series as Supernatural (TV series)? It's entirely a Wikipedia invention that is designed to disambiguate Supernatural (the COMMONNAME for the TV show) from other articles that share Supernatural as the COMMONNAME. We only use COMMONAME titles as titles for our articles, and if articles compete for a title we determine the primary topic and disambiguate the others. If Supernatural (TV series) was a COMMONAME for the TV show, therefore establishing a claim on the title then you should be able to find reliable sources to back that up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does it mention WP:COMMONNAME. A disambiguated name can be the primary topic; I've seen plenty of similar cases. If there is a TV series, song, book, etc. whose title is ordinary word or phrase, then clearly it is not the main topic of that name, but it could be the main TV series, song, book, etc. with that title, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated against another obscure thing with the same title. For instance, "Twilight (novel)" – it's obvious which novel that article is about but it is not the only novel on Wikipedia with the title Twilight. These rules or conventions you are talking about don't exist. If you think everything should be disambiguated equally, then you should propose that at WT:Disambiguation. However, there are currently many pages with the consensus against what you are saying. There was a similar requested move for this page back in 2009, which failed. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—saying this and that article do it this way is not a sound argument; by the same token I can point to Avatar (film) which points to a disambiguation page, since as an article name it does not sufficiently disambiguate the four possible article it could refer to. We can always find other example to back up our rationales, but our job here is to correctly determine the title that is most consistent with our naming guidelines. Article titles are determined by WP:COMMONNAME, given their prominence in reliable sources. COMMONNAME dictates that the title of this article is Supernatural. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC simply determines whether an article should be disambiguated or not and plays no role beyond that in naming the article, and in this case it decrees that the this article should be disambiguated. Under this restriction WP:PRECISE stipulates we should choose a title that unambiguously defines the scope of the topic. Supernatural (TV series) is not a COMMONAME under the criteria laid out since it does not appear in reliable sources, and it does not sufficiently disambiguate the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant here. Disambiguation is not included in any consideration of a thing's common name. We all know that the common name of this TV series is Supernatural. That's irrelevant because we're not discussing the name of the show; we're just discussing the disambiguation. The only relevant point here is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that an exceedingly more popular article with the same name (not including disambiguation) as another does not need to be disambiguated. The argument here is whether that extends to how much an article is disambiguated. I, and others, think it does. There are other examples on Wikipedia of that being the consensus, and, like you said, there are examples of that not being the case. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or any other relevant guideline, needs to clarify this point. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close - Support - revert to Supernatural (TV series) per June 2012 RM result ...I would actually support Betty Logan's move, but not done as an undiscussed move contrary to a recent RM like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NB I have notified the closing admin above and requested procedural close and revert to Supernatural (TV series) per RM result prior to undiscussed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: The recent RM was invalid since it blatantly ignored the naming conventions. A consensus is not a vote, it is based on the strength of argument based on policy and guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In theory, but you and I both know that policy and guideline pages are often just the result of who owns the guideline page. If the previous move is blatantly against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) then it follows that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) is also blatantly against the views expressed by the editors above.　Likewise if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) is reasonable then it could/should have been presented as a RM rather than a unilateral move. This evidently was not an uncontroversial move and fails WP:MOVE which is more important than Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). And (even though I agree with you) this should be reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change and we are not tied to strict rules anyway. This has attracted attention of people not involved in the previous discussions, so let's see if a new consensus emerges. Diego (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose if this isn't called Supernatural, then it should be properly disambiguated, though I do understand that a no-consensus close would revert to the situation at the end of the previous requested move. WP:PRECISE, if this lacks proper disambiguation, it is not a precise enough title to identify the subject, as this is not the primary topic of "supernatural", it needs proper disambiguation, not ambiguous disambiguation. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If its a US tv series no reason to change the name, lets never assume the default "something" is USA based. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support – This Supernatural TV series is clearly the primary topic. "Supernatural (TV series)" currently redirects here. If the extra disambiguation is kept, the disambiguation between the two TV series should be the same type; it doesn't make sense to use the year for one and nationality for the other. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not moving this to supernatural, that's a different proposal, and if it was the primary topic, it would sit at supernatural -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I never suggested that. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Supernatural (TV series) currently redirects here as part of the move. It shouldn't, it should redirect to Supernatural (disambiguation)#Film and Television, but that can't happen until the links are fixed, and I won't be doing that until this issue is resolved. It makes sense to use the year for the British show because there is more than one, that is the level of disambiguation that is required to clearly separate the topics. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If one uses the year as disambiguation, so should the other for consistency. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Consistency is actually harmful at disambiguation titles with WP:Precision parentheses. For best information scent at the links, it's better to provide the most salient feature for each topic as the precision disambiguation term (Anime, 1977-BBC, 2005-US) and it works better the most different those data are. Diego (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is not a requirement of the guideline, precise disambiguation is. If a move was proposed to Supernatural (2005 TV series) I would neither support it or oppose it. My sole concern is that the article is sufficiently disambiguated. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Once it has been identified that a qualifier is needed, it is typically up to the topic project how they want to select the qualifier. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply if any qualifier is needed; it is used to determine which topic (if any) uses an unqualified title. WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation, in this case, says: "Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series)". So, that project's guidelines specify full qualification. Mclay1 is incorrect about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If this topic were the primary topic, the move target would be to Supernatural. Since it is not the primary topic for "Supernatural", the current title is correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In the realm of TV series, this topic is the primary use of the name "Supernatural", and so the country designation in the disambiguator is unnecessary disambiguation. While PRIMARYTOPIC does not address this situation direction, this is applying the underlying principle. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) See below --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC tries to avoid titles with disambiguation in them. Once the title is disambiguated with precision parenthesis anyway, we don't gain anything by having a more ambiguous term in the title. Diego (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Concision is just as valuable in the disambiguator as in the rest of the title. Avoiding unnecessary precision is a goal in disambiguators too. That's undocumented practice, but it's indisputable. It probably should be clarified in writing accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And when there are two TV series titled "Supernatural", "U.S. TV series" is necessary precision. That's documented practice, and indisputable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's no more necessary than it is necessary to disambiguate the title of a primary topic article from other uses of that name - not necessary at all.

Holy cow, I just checked the page view stats on Supernatural (1977 TV series)... it's consistently getting 2-3k views per month. I assumed traffic there would be negligible. The US TV Series is the one getting negligible traffic. No way is it the (relative) primary topic. Changing my !vote. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current titles for both articles provides much better disambiguation than the proposed move, and I don't care what the rules say in this case. Diego (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've retracted my Support above after discovering that the page view counts of Supernatural (1977 TV series)[2] far exceed the page view counts of Supernatural (US TV series) [3]. No way is the US one the (relative) primary topic as I had presumed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Retracted, again. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support: For those of you voting oppose because of page visits, you are comparing the wrong items. The comparison should be to the page Supernatural (TV series), which is what the article has been for years. The comparison you are making is with the US disambiguation link, which has been a redirect. This article has gotten 532,889 in November alone here, while the 1977 series only got 2,419. Ωphois 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the other articles don't even have any RS that prove their existence (not that I'm claiming that they don't exist). The animal one is also a miniseries, not a TV series, so would that have a different disambiguation qualifier? Ωphois 23:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Overlooked the recent title change. Apparently the US series does get significantly more views than any other TV series named Supernatural, and is the primary use of that name within that genre. I renew my original Support argument accordingly. Additionally, since the article was moved unilaterally to the current title, no consensus among those participating should mean restore in this case, unless the closing admin finds compelling reason in policy/guidelines to not restore that title. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a consensus among those participating in the discussion, our job is to put forward the arguments so a decision can be made. There have been two opposing arguments put forward and obviously only one can be correct. It is down to the closing admin's sole discretion to determine which argument is correct, and act accordingly. If the admin is convinced by the arguments for moving it back over the arguments for keeping it here he'll get no argument from me, but not moving it back because there isn't a "consensus" or moving back simply because there was no consensus to move it here would be a disservice to the debate. We've had a proper dicussion about the name of this article now, all the relevant points have been made, so let's have decision based on the merits of the arguments, and let's stand by the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Season 2 of this series is today's featured article! [4] --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Season 10

A tenth season has been confirmed, should this be noted somewhere? Bensational (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Angel blades

Does someone have reliable sources in order to add Angel Blades (including Archangel Blades) into the recurring elements' section? -79.177.122.137 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

please include a link to a credible webpage that has a list of all the classic songs that are used in the series. Suggested: http://www.tunefind.com/show/supernatural 107.130.239.108 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Where on the article would you like this link added? --JustBerry (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could the music become a recurring element? It is a big part of the series. Editingisthegame (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fandoms/Ships

Although Wincest is mentioned under the Fandom section of the Supernatural (U.S. TV series) page, there is no mention of other ships, more specifically, Destiel, which is the other most prominent ship in the fandom. It has won numerous online polls and contests against both other SPN pairings and painrings from other shows, and should be at least mentioned on the page. Superwholock10 (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Have scholarly articles been written on the other ships? —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the shipping portion of the entry with RS referring to the three major ships (Wincest, Destiel, Sastiel) without elevating one as more "worthy" of scholarly discussion, or establishing popularity of one over the other. All three ships have were referenced within Supernatural in the 200th episode, and Fangasm (Dr. Larsen and Dr. Zubernis, who are both published pop culture scholars and active members of the Supernatural fandom) candidly discusses all three and the source of 'ship war' tension within Supernatural in interviews and articles. Exorcising Emily (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Title?

I'm not a regular wikipedia editor so let me know if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the title(?) chapter be a little more truncated? At the moment there is a separate sentence for every season renewal news since the fifth season, which was years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.199.72 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Supernatural (U.S. TV series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Supernatural (U.S. TV series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "deadline":

• From The Originals (TV series): "Full 2013-2014 TV Season Series Rankings". Deadline. May 22, 2014.
• From Reign (TV series): Nellie Andreeva (May 9, 2013). "UPDATE: CW's 'The Tomorrow People', 'The 100', 'Reign' & 'Oxygen' Ordered To Series". Deadline.com. Retrieved May 10, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

Ocpanther (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit the synopsis of season 2. The end of season 2 ends with Sam getting stabbed in the back and dying. The gates to Hell isn't opened until season 3.

Maybe you didn't see part two of the finale as that is end of part one of the two-part finale, "All Hell Breaks Loose". Sam is stabbed and dies at the end of part one, and the Devil's Gate does open at the end (part two) of the finale. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This para doesn't make sense

For the third season, the writers decided to introduce Ruby, a demonic former witch who claims to the Winchesters to be an ally, to the cast. They also added another character, Bela, who was the new 'love interest' for Sam. However, The CW requested that another female be added, so the character Bela Talbot, a self-centered thief who sells occult objects to wealthy clients and who was already intended to appear in multiple episodes, was upgraded to a series regular

The sentence in italics just confuses the following sentence. I would suggest it's deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

Should't Chuck Shurley be included in the list of recurring characters? He has been in seven episodes (6 from seasons 4 and 5, as well as the 200th) and his name is mentioned on countless occasions. Chuck was the first introduction of Prophets to the storyline, and it is widely believed (by both fans and actors on the show) that Chuck's true identity is actually God. It seems to me that his character plays a major enough impact on the series to merit a paragraph in the 'cast and characters' section. He was certainly more substantial to the storyline than some of the other characters who were named as recurring.

It occurs to me as I write that a similar argument could be made for Abaddon and Metatron, but I bring up Chuck first and foremost because his omission in this section immediately took me by surprise. I don't mean to sound unfairly critical. Honestly, I'm just frustrated because I was hoping to make these additions to the page myself and then realized I couldn't because it is "protected". EachSkylineYet (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

longest-running North American science-fiction series

There's a recent edit claiming Supernatural as the longest running science fiction series. There's a number of things wrong with this as it stands now:

1. Supernatural is not a science fiction series. It's not listed in that genre in the genre list and on a more anecdotal level, I've seen every episode and I can't think of a single thing that would make it fit as science fiction. It's horror fantasy (as indicated by the current genre list). On the article for Science Fiction, it lists a number of common themes for science fiction, the only entries related to Supernatural (time travel and parallel universes) have been introduced as being in the series as being related to magic rather than science. The science fiction article also goes on to themes that characterize fantasy (and are usually excluded in science fiction), most of which are major elements in Supernatural: magic, magical places, supernatural creatures, supernatural transportation, and shapeshifting.
2. The article linked as a reference does not seem to be a reliable source (apologies, I'm not a regular enough wiki user to know the right policy doc to reference). The article that makes that claim does so in a side comment as an introduction to its content but doesn't offer any solid details about the claim. It does not clarify any details about what it's referring to when it says "longest running." or clarify what it considers sci-fi. As well, this entry as it stands now directly conflicts with what is claimed by the referenced page. The reference says Supernatural is the longest running sci-fi show "behind SG-1," (which I take to mean that SG-1 was longer running than Supernatural) what's in this article says Supernatural replaced Smallville as longest running
3. This article conflates "longest running" with "containing the most episodes" and does not distinguish which it's referring to
4. This article contradicts with what is said on the Stargate SG-1 article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.36.58 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that neither Supernatural nor Smallville are science fiction. They are Fantasy. In the Wikipedia article on Science fantasy, the following is noted: "...science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements..." Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

More than likely, the source is just using "sci-fi" as a blanket term for anything that includes science fiction, fantasy, paranormal, supernatural, etc. The statement can be removed though if editors feel it's too confusing and/or conflicting. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This also conflicts with the claim on Red vs. Blue's page that it is the longest running American sci-fi series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byakaze (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Update to stars list - 2016

Does anybody else think we should update the list of stars? Considering Katie (Ruby) and Lauren (Bela) have not made an appearance in Supernatural in six years, I wouldn't consider them stars of the series. I mean both Lauren and Katie were only in six episodes each, which is nowhere near being able to be called stars at the same level as Jared, Jensen, Misha and Mark. At least Misha and Mark are still series regulars and are still involved in the production of Supernatural. We haven't heard from Ruby or Bela since season 5. I mean by this logic shouldn't every character who's made an appearance spanning a season be listed as a star? If Bela and Ruby are stars, why not John, Adam, Bobby or Lucifer for example? They were all featured in the series about the same amount, if not more. Maybe there could be a reoccuring character section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost10006 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Cassidy and Cohan are listed because they were listed as "stars" for season 3, thus they are included. Any actor that is billed as a guest star (regardless of how often they appear) such as Jim Beaver are not listed because they are guest stars and not series regulars. Please see WP:TVCAST. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, that does make sense actually. I checked through the season list and you're right, they are listed as stars. I also checked other television shows, and they do list characters who were listed as stars, regardless of how many episodes they appeared in so it does make sense that Lauren and Katie are included. My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Ghost10006 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

In the info box, under "Starring" there are two incorrect names listed. Both Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan are not (nor were) stars on Supernatural. Dehagood (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion from March here above. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

The series is actually only in the United States and Canada so it is inaccurate to say the brothers fight supernatural phenomenon 'around the world'. It is actually in North America only.

196.47.254.205 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see where the article makes a claim that they fight "around the world". -- ferret (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought that too, then reverted my comment when I recognized my mistake. The IP editor is referring to the lede, where it states, "...the series follows the two brothers as they hunt demons, ghosts, monsters, and other supernatural beings in the world". I think that phrasing is fine though, as "in the world" and "around the world" are different. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, I see that now. Honestly, I would say strike "in the world" out entirely. It reads a bit awkward to me. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Horror

I don't understand why this is classified as horror. Just because it has "monsters"? Horror is supposed to focus on making the audience feel fear. The intent does not seem to be to generate fear in the audience. Rather, this is more action than anything, with the main characters typically being in a heroic position of power, not total weakness, and almost always winning in the end, or at least never being totally defeated. Even the characters are rarely afraid themselves, often confronting powerful supernatural entities as if a bully would confront the playground geek. --24.244.29.57 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the 'horror' genre as depicted in tv, film and books. Supernatural ticks every single box. Also, please clarify your last sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.75.156 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I believe that that Supernatural is considered a 'horror' genre. For example, episodes begin with the backstory of the episode, which generates a horror movie feel, especially in the first few seasons of Supernatural. It is both an action and a horror genre, even though not considered a stereotypical horror movie, book, etc. Chantellerodis (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan were only starring for some small parts of the show. They shouldn't be in the starring section. 2001:1C02:1900:B200:1841:FFA7:7F01:DDD0 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since they were credited as "starring" for season 3, they do belong per WP:TVCAST. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Gay characters

When a TV series includes gay characters (or lesbian, bisexual, transgender), the category identifying the inclusion is added to the article. It does not render the series a "Gay" or LGBT series. It only acknowledges that the TV series includes L, or G, or B, or T characters. In regards to this series, one example:

Supernatural just showed how easy inclusion and character diversity can be
April 27, 2016
Allyson Koerner
SheKnows
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1120085/supernatural-season-11-episode-19-recap
Pyxis Solitary talk 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not disputing the cat, just the character(s) in question, since I've been watching for about 6 seasons, now, & I don't recall 1. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Supernatural (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5rzPteRxo?url=http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Supernatural/5598 to http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Supernatural/5598
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5rzQ8nWg7?url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Supernatural-Complete-First-Season-DVD/dp/B000IOMVS2 to https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000IOMVS2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201132030/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/supernatural-the-complete-2nd-season-6-disc-set/dp/794380 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/supernatural-the-complete-2nd-season-6-disc-set/dp/794380
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414221909/http://www.mania.com/supernatural-number_article_49798.html to http://www.mania.com/supernatural-number_article_49798.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122210651/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/22/supernatural-spin-off-in-development-at-the-cw/193165/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/07/22/supernatural-spin-off-in-development-at-the-cw/193165/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5rzNOEHGW?url=http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=050906_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=050906_04
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/18/supernatural-ratings-2007-2008/1814
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308165151/http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11918311.html to http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11918311.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019203834/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/09/19/thursday-september-18-flashpoint-nightmares-and-supernatural-score/5193/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/09/19/thursday-september-18-flashpoint-nightmares-and-supernatural-score/5193/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

I suggest to add seasons 12 and 13 to the table of DVD and Bluray releases. Mansta68 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I added season 12. Season 13 is still airing so there is no Blu-ray/DVD information available yet. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

I would like to use edit on super natural for a school project 142.119.8.74 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Interview with Kripke and others

I can't believe this interview isn't already cited in the article. I haven't read the whole interview yet, but it's long, in-depth, and includes comments from several people involved in the series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Supernatural has a gif for everything"

Should "supernatural has a gif for everything" meme/tag be added to the "Fandom and popular culture section"? The movement seems to start on and spread from Tumblr, where on any discussion topic someone would find precisely relevant quote with a set of screenshorts from Supernatural. Some descriptions of it is here and more in depth here. But I'm not sure how to properly reference things like that though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.211.202.40 (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

I want to add a section for Season 15, the season premier was shown on October 10th 2019 and i want it to be explained that on March 23rd 2019 after the show was renewed for a season 15(on January 31st), they announced this season will be the final season of Supernatural. Hamideh.m.soleymani (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 09:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Season 16 article needed?

Since it is clear now the final 7 is pushed to the next season, do we consider S15 'done' and create a Supernatural (season 16) article, or do we keep it tied to this. Of course, we probably will have no idea until we get episode number codes, so we shouldn't until we have them, just bringing up the possibility that we need to know when it comes up. I'm cross-posting this to the S15 article so all eyes are aware. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre

Please don't change genres without a source, that's a violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate adding more sources to the genre lead, but removing cited ones doesn't make sense to me. We should have some discussion before adding / removing stuff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Zap2It is a TV listings. There is no source suggesting anyone who added the genres watched the material or any commentary within. Also, we need third party sources, so we shouldn't use Warner Bros. press material as genre is subjective (see WP:SUBJECTIVE). also, the links go to literary genres, not television genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020

In the fandom section, it lists the subgenre of fanfiction - slash - being created because of Supernatural, this is incredibly INCORRECT. The citation for the sentence refers to the second half of the sentence which references A/B/O and/or omegaverse fanfic, which (most likely) DID originate in the Supernatural fandom. A rudimentary search on fanlore.org will tell you that slash came from Star Trek the original series, when people wrote fanfic about Kirk/Spock <--the actual slash is where the name comes from.

Lafriend82 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The website "fanlore" is not a reliable source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Can someone please change back from was an American television series to is an American television series. It's literally so annoying. I don't know why people do that all the time. The show still exists. It's not like a person dies or something. 47.151.31.94 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been reverted back to the correct wording. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

There is a little element of comedy, wouldn't be wrong if "comedy" can be added to the genre. 142.113.170.199 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)