Talk:Supernatural (American TV series)

Template:WikiProject American television

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)

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)

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?

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

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)