User talk:FTWinchester

Nightmares start here
Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User blog:RiderJones/Aliens in Supernatural page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Thesilentpoethosea (Talk) 16:00, October 14, 2012

Can you meet me on chat? -- ImperiexSeed, 6:06 PM, October 23rd 2012

Re: Hey!
Yes, I'm back. :D For a while now, I hope, since I'm officially out of school.

I'll check your  proposal on the tense/grammar guide out ASAP!

-Sybil (Blessed Be, Sybil 05:03, June 21, 2013 (UTC))

Back me up
Hello FTWinchester. I need some backing up. Maybe you've noticed, maybe you haven't, but there has a debate going on between me and different users about the word "master" on Metatron's page. I say that it needs to be "Master", since it is in reference to God. However other users are adamant that it be "master", which incorrect. I made section in the talk page for Metatron, which is where I need your backing. I appreciate your help.

SilverRain (talk) 01:29, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proper nouns you speak of, like "He", "Him", or "Master", can be capitalized even in-between a sentence, as it's referencing God. But I wouldn't say it's strictly grammatically incorrect if you don't, I mean, I myself mostly just use lowercase lettering even when talking about God, although I do capitalize "God", "Lord", "Jesus". -- ImperiexSeed, 8:38 PM, November 29th 2012


 * On a personal note, I prefer using capitalized pronouns and such, because 1) I am a Catholic, and 2) the show features the Judeo-Christian God as the Supreme Being, anyway. However, as we are a community with different beliefs, I would not want to impose such things on others. I raised this concern a few weeks ago, but I garnered no response at all. Why don't we just put the matter to vote. Majority wins. FTWinchester (talk) 05:19, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that is not how community decisions are made on wikis, FTWinchester. According to Calebchiam, there must be a general consensus among users, regardless of a majority vote. 108.247.158.158 06:21, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but could you define what makes a 'general consensus' different from a majority vote? As far as I know, a consensus is reached by a mutual agreement among the population--although a majority vote is not necessary, it more or less shows the prevailing opinion on all the members of the wiki. Of course some discussion has to follow, but when you have most of the wiki agreeing on one thing, isn't that basically a consensus? FTWinchester (talk) 13:47, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, general consesus means everyone involved in the discussion must be in full agreement. According to Calebchiam, wikis do not operate on majority votes and when there is a lack of consesnus in a discussion than the status quo is kept. You can read what he said about making community decisions with general consensus over a majority vote on the Talk:Wincest page in the Deletion? discussion. 107.201.16.199 20:30, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus could differ from a majority vote, I guess. Realistically, the wiki completely isn't going to agree on something no matter the topic - there's always going to unreasonably disagreeable users, so to me, a majority vote makes more sense and is achievable. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:27 PM, November 30th 2012


 * That may be so, ImperiexSeed, but as I said wikis do not operate by such methods  of community decision-making and we must abide by that policy as is our obligation as users . We both know Calebchiam well enough that strives to uphold the Wikia policies, so it's unlikely he will overlook users settling a debate not by the book as he will undoubtfully view the Metatron and his Master discussion as a lack of consensus and decree that the page remain as is in order to keeper the status quo, regardless how many users are opposed. 107.201.16.199 00:48, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I kindly disagree. Ah, well this policy regulation is like the following analogy. It could resemble asking a group of people of varying religions to agree on a God -- philosophically, it's an expectation doomed to fail. There's no way 100% of the contributors here are going to agree on something. My perception remains the same, it'd make more sense if it were a majority vote. I'm in no way obstructing or defiling this wiki's policies, I'm just giving an alternative that makes more more sense. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:57 PM, November 30th 2012


 * ImperiexSeed, I understand what you are saying and do I agree that a majority vote is more practical, but we can not  go with such an alternative simply because we disagree with a general Wikia policy. As an admin, you do not even have the authority to call for a vote to settle a debate. Please do not say you do as I learned that from Caleb himself who is far more versed in Wikia's policies than either us. 107.201.16.199 01:25, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, some consensus operate on having a super majority vote (65%, 80%, etc.), but anyway. In a consensus, while not all may agree, those with disagreement may give consent to the majority if it is overwhelming. But I digress. As of now we are locked in this issue, with only maybe 5 users actively participating. That is hardly a consensus, meaning status quo should remain. But what is our status quo? FTWinchester (talk) 03:58, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked into the Metatron page's edit history and 'master" in sentence was initially with a lowercase lettering when a unregistered user had changed it to such from "father", than SilverRain himself capitalized it afterwards. So I would assume the word uncapitalized would be the status quo as that is how it was originally typed on the page. In addition, regarding how the consensus operates on wikis, from what I can gather is it must be overall agreement as Calebchiam stated even if there were 4 users who believed a page should be deleted and 3 who disagreed, than the page would not be deleted as there is no consensus. Although I believe you may be correct in regards to those who disagree giving consent to the majority (or even minority).107.201.16.199 04:27, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yo! I'd like to talk to you on chat. It'll take only a minute. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:30 PM, December 1st 2012

Regarding the policy on consensus, to clarify, it is not a majority vote, meaning that we do not move forward with a certain action because 60% of users agree, and 40% disagree. That being said, it does not mean that 100% of users have to agree either. The idea of consensus is that we seek to address as many concerns as possible. If valid and undeniable points are brought up by the 40%, we do not ignore them, but seek compromises so that we can move forward. The policy on consensus can be found here.

As stated on that page:

"Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue."

So, when we say 'general consensus', we are talking about this overall consent. Overall consent is not reached if there are significant points brought up by either group that aren't addressed sufficiently. In addition, it does not require the participation of all users in the Wiki, merely those involved in the discussion, however, this should still be a substantial group of participants. Larger policy changes require a greater amount of participation in the discussion from the community. Hope this clears things up, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 08:39, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Cheers. FTWinchester (talk) 13:34, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

I would've, yes. But, the photo linings seem to have been deleted. Go to the links, and you'll see. So, how are you liking Season 8 so far.... Definitely not as good as Season 5, but sill one of the best. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:58 PM, February 7th 2013

Re:Narrative articles
Hey, sorry for the late reply, I was busy for the past few dates. Anyway, regarding your question, both systems do work, but they have their pros and cons. A season-based narrative might make more sense to readers since events are revealed according to the sequence of the episode releases. For example, a chronological narrative would have mentioned the YED feeding Sam demon blood early on in the article (which would make little sense to the uninitiated) while the season-based narrative would set the stage for this important reveal. The season-based narrative is also easier to create, maintain and organise since the information has a clear sorting. That being said, a chronological narrative is much more professional, and allows the segments of the narrative to be sorted into major arcs/storylines rather than episode numbers. It's largely the preference of the Wiki that decides which system to use, although I do lean towards the latter. If you're willing to embark on the task of making the articles on this Wiki consistent with the latter format, be my guest. :) Calebchiam Talk 13:43, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. FTWinchester, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up. You, at every turn, pounce on every presentable chance to prove me wrong, and I'm getting sick of it. So, stop! You're a self-proclaimed knowitall, nothing more. I like being you friend, but when you're trying to prove me wrong, I get irresistibly irritable. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:09 PM, February 28th 2013


 * Did you read my message fully--well, did you? It would seem that you didn't, seeing as you accused me of at least two things I didn't do.

1) I never told you to stop editing, in my post- I said, "stop" antagonistically pinning and attacking my posts. Whatever - have a different opinion - I don't care. But it's when you say the exact opposite of what I'm saying that gets me. 2) I needn't look it (the meaning of the phrase, "Self-proclaimed Know-it-all") up - I know very well what it means. It means, you THINK, from your lens, that you you're a better and smarter editor than everybody else.

You're a fine editor, and have much potential here, editing the Supernatural wiki. Keep up the good work. :)

-- ImperiexSeed, 9:27 PM, March 1st 2013

Hi. I thought we got passed this, but, on the blog, you started your instigation again. The term 'Archangel' was first used first used in "Houses of Holy", yes, and an Archangel physically appeared in "Tall Tales", but, in "Free To Be You And Me", is the first time it's called an Archangel and appeared. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:24 PM, March 22nd 2013


 * Ok? You're right, in "Tall Tales", an Archangel appeared 'physically', in a vessel. And, yes, Archangels are first mentioned in "Houses of Holy." But, "Free To Be You And Me" is the first episode where an Archangel physically appears and is confirmed. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:14 PM, March 22nd 2013

Yes, you're welcome. Your templates - man, did they come out splendidly! The utilization of those on the compatible pages enthralls me. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:25 PM, March 23rd 2013

Hey, would you, at a time that's convenient, mind doing a total revamp on the Seraph page? It needs a ton of work done, regarding grammar, punctuation, word usage, etc. Because, honestly, it looks awful right now. Thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:15 PM, March 30th 2013

re:template proposal
Hey FTWinchester. Haha yeah, these templates are pretty sick, nice work. I think you can go ahead and edit the templates as necessary.

On a side note though, we have to be careful about where we use the second template. Just with reference to the examples you mentioned, since the content you mentioned is probably explicitly stated as conjecture/speculation or inductive logic in general, use of that template would not be applicable since it's meant for canonical information that has been seemingly contradicted in later episodes.

Perhaps another idea for a template might be to have one stating that the following article/section of the article contains conjecture or speculation? Just a thought.

Cheers! :) Calebchiam Talk 15:31, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, FTWinchester, I just wanted to let you know I am definitely liking the templates you have created so far. If I may,  I suggest updating the spoiler template as it's format differs from the one your using. Keep up the good work! 108.247.151.147 04:14, March 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support, Wiki Contributor. I'll try to take a look into your suggestion, and if Calebchiam and the community will allow me to do so. FTWinchester (talk) 05:30, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I think this is where you reply to your template proposal, I would to say they all look great, and I really think you should create them, and I hope you are able to. I just have two disagreements: the first is your "Retcon/Conflict in Canon" template, I don't think thats ones necessary, as as far as I know there has been no true example of reconing, for examples, firstly at no point did anyone say there was only four archangels, that was simply the number that appeared in season five. Secondly its entirely possible he could have a step-father who, considering his orginal one abbandoned him, he took as his real father. My point is there has been no complete recon's yet, so including it would mearly cause disputes over wether it was a recon or not.

Second is your bias template, I can see that being abused, as I personally have been involved in a number of whats bias whats fact debates, with other users, many of which only got resolved because one side gave up, so I would recomend agaist creating that template, as I can only see it being abused. Those are my only two disagreements, and that is simply my advice. Appart from that I'm behind you 100%. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:55, March 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, General's right - in the show, it's never said that there's only 4 Archangels, it's just the number of them that appeared. ImperiexSeed, 6:02 PM, March 23rd 2013
 * General, what about the offscreen retcon of Chuck being God? Shortly after "Swan Song" there were  confirmations from both Rob Benedict and Eric Kripke that it was true, but than after Sera Gamble became showrunner, it had reportedly been stated as otherwise. So I would say there is indeed a pontential use for the "Retcon/Conflict in Canon" template. 107.194.22.242 01:41, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input, guys and/or gals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, the only problematic templates we have are for the 'Retcon/Conflict in Canon' and 'Bias', but everyone who has provided feedback so far agree to the creation of the rest? May I ask your opinion on which template for 'Disambiguation' do you prefer? The Misha or the Balthazar template? I will try to wait for maybe another day before I start creating the other templates, just to give a bit more time for other contributors to weigh in on the subject. FTWinchester (talk) 02:24, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hey FTWinchester. Yep, glad you could get it to work. It's pretty much just creating the template page with an appropriate name, posting the html code, and then using on pages as necessary. There's also the issue of template documentation, which details whether there are parameters that need to be filled and how the template should be used but we can always work on it later on since it's quite secondary. And yes, you understood correctly what I said about the second template.

As for which template to use...I personally find the 'Misha' one more humourous, although technically, disambiguation pages are for different subjects with the same name, and the Misha example in the show is really the same subject but with a different name (or different subjects with different names, depending on how you want to argue it). So it might be less appropriate, but this is nitpicking somewhat. The Balthazar one is still good though. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 10:08, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to be completely neutral, so to have a template for bias would imply that we actually condone it in articles. The retcon template is alright in theory, whether or not there are any examples of retconning in the series is another thing, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have the template. Calebchiam Talk 12:08, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I have watched buffy and watched some of Angel. Personally, I think Buffy is an average show. I dont like it as much as supernatural, vampire diaries, being human UK, or true blood. I think Buffy was very butt kicking show, but I didnt like the storylines, didnt like most of the characters, I didnt like them introducing all these demons and not sticking to vampires and introducing greater vampire threats. The only characters I happened to like on buffy were Spike, Faith, Turok Han Vampire and Caleb. Adam was cool too, with his gun hand. Im sticking to the winchesters for slaying

ThomasAtticusSilas2013+ (talk) 20:29, March 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer this Wiki use the Misha one for our disambiguation, because, well, the appearance of Misha - it invokes Castiel. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:12 PM, March 30th 2013

Sorry about deleting  a section in th Hunter page. I was trying to add some hunters that were missing, and accidentlly deleted a portion. Sorry for the mess!

No, problem man! I actually had the same issue when I first began adding gifs myself. For the gif to work you need to add |frame| instead of |thumb|, for example instead of File:Angelsfalling.gif|thumb|right| it would be File:Angelsfalling.gif|frame|right|. Bkshadows (talk) 03:07, May 20, 2013 (UTC)Bkshadows

I just saw your edit on Prometheus's page about Chronos...As far as I know, the Chronos shown on the show was the god who could control time and not the Titan Kronos/Cronus..Generally people confuse them due to similar sounding names, but they are said to be different...ME$$AIAH 05:21, May 20, 2013 (UTC)RaghavD

I personally think your exagerating, but I do see your point about the same thing be repeated. However as the information is generally presented in different ways, I don't really see the need to remove it. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:43, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe your not exagerating, but I carefully read the page over, from top to bottom and I can say that it seems okay now. All in I think its okay leaving it now. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:51, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Using Past Tense
While it's true that using past tense in canon is better to read, but have you truly seen the number of pages that have to be modified, buddy? I did edit the Harvelle's Roadhouse and Ash pages into past tense, but we need to start right from Season 1's Pilot episode. Do we start editing or we leave the pages like that and make sure that newly created pages are written in past tense? RaghavD  The One and Only  16:46, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to, say, butt in, but yes, I do think we need to weld them into PAST TENSE if needed. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:48 PM, June 4th 2013
 * Well then we better start right away, afterall there is no use waiting, while doing something good(It's a saying in my native tongue)  :P RaghavD  The One and Only  16:54, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then we better start right away, afterall there is no use waiting, while doing something good(It's a saying in my native tongue)  :P RaghavD  The One and Only  16:54, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Time's a-wasting, currently. Get a move on it! ha ha -- ImperiexSeed, 12:57 PM, June 4th 2013


 * I edited the Wendigo episode. I'm not 100% happy as some sentences didn't quite sit together. But it'll do for the moment. RaghavD  The One and Only  17:09, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been advocating this for months now and nobody is listening to me, which is why I put emphasis. Nobody even responded to this forum that it's bsolutely frustrating. It's not like the community won't benefit, I just don't know why people won't show support. FTWinchester (talk) 17:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * And I am well aware of the number of articles that need to be rewritten, but I can't do it all. Everybody needs to follow guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines I proposed haven't garnered any solid support to turn them into actual policies. FTWinchester (talk) 17:37, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * In this, I support you fully, bro! Just, tell me how I can help. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:38 PM, June 4th 2013


 * Thanks. If you agree to the proposal, two things need to be done--the first being disseminating information about the proper tense usage, and the second being adhering to the guidelines. Again, thank you very much. FTWinchester (talk) 17:41, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe we could assemble a team of selective users who go around fixing the tense usage in adherence to its guidelines? -- ImperiexSeed, 1:48 PM, June 4th 2013


 * That would actually be great, but seeing as I had very little to no success in the matter, I suppose an admin like you would have more success. FTWinchester (talk) 01:53, June 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. Let's make it happen! Enlist users like General MGD 109, Twilight Despair 5, and MisterRandom. Hang a message on all of their talk pages, stating what needs to be done. I PAST TENSED some info on the soul page. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:17 PM, June 5th 2013


 * Alright, thanks, man. FTWinchester (talk) 02:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, yep. Let's do this thang. ha ha -- ImperiexSeed, 12:12 PM, June 6th 2013


 * Sure I'll joint you, I agree the pages should be in past tense. Thanks for inviting me. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Just let me know what and where you want me to do. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:33, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about me? Self-Declared God of Supreme Conduits (talk) 21:43, June 6, 2013 (UTC) Kesslerbeast


 * Sure, man. It wasn't my intention to leave you out, I was just quite preoccupied in the Buffy wikia, so I wasn't able to ask everyone currently active in joining. Thanks for your support! FTWinchester (talk) 21:51, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

re: Rising Son talk
It's cool, man. It just boiled down to fanwank, anyway.--50.89.225.132 19:35, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

re: Lust+Chastity
It's fine, dude. We all usually miss something when we're adding something. And I really enjoy the irony of the same actress playing Lust and "Chastity"--didn't even realize that until you posted it.--50.89.225.132 15:35, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Give me five minutes. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:46, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Done, I hope its up to standard. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:05, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Chat?
If you have time, care to get on the chat?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 16:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Affiliates
Well, this is up for discussion. But frankly, from experience, affiliations don't do very much for raising our page views & site visits, rather, SEO (search-engine optimisation) and appearing 1st in Google search results is what gets people visiting our site. So I don't really see much point in affiliation, unless it's for another Supernatural Wiki (e.g. Supernatural Fan Fiction), because then in a sense, we are from the same community of editors. Whereas in the case of BTVS and Charmed, there is virtually no link between the two apart from the fact that the shows are of the supernatural genre.

So yeah, it doesn't do much for us nor is it a particularly meaningful affiliation. Good point about the links to other CW wikis though, those aren't official affiliates, it's just Wikia arbitrarily sneaking in links to other Wikis so as to prove Wikia's overall search ranking (because people spending more time on Wikis is a plus for them). I would go ahead and remove them, but something tells me you'll want to push for affiliation with Buffyverse anyway? Calebchiam Talk 04:18, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, of course, it's always open for discussion. But it's one thing to visit another Wiki to learn from them, it's another to start becoming an active editor there. Perhaps more would visit (though personally, I never click on affiliate links) but I think you'll agree that it's unlikely editors of another Wiki would suddenly decide to become active editors on this Wiki unless they were already interested in the show. (And if they already were, they would have found this Wiki already.)


 * Just to clarify though, there is no precedent for this. The decision to not affiliate was my own, so we are following it only by silent consensus, so if you want to change it, be my guest. Calebchiam Talk 04:50, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no biggie and thanks dude :) and sorry if you got too many notifications on your talk page. For some reason, my message kept appearing before Calebchiam's last message.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:56, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

Why is every user on this wiki just ignoring everything I have to say, on talk pages or blog posts? Take your response on to the "fighting" topic, I sent in a response, so did General, and immediately, in the opening, you just addressed General even though I also left a comment. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:51 PM, June 26th 2013

Ok, well....if that truly is the case, I have no problem with that. Oh, I'm sooo looking forward to Season 9, but I'm really curious as to what it's going to be about. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:11 PM, June 27th 2013

Re:Redirects
Yes, go right ahead. They don't count in the list of article pages anyway, assuming you create them correctly. I've done it here, which would give you this when you search for it. Calebchiam Talk 02:50, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Hey, I was hoping if you have the time to help me out with an Infobox for a wiki I'm editing. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  12:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link to the wiki I've told you about.

http://coupling.wikia.com/wiki/Steve_Taylor.

See the infobox for the character. I've got the basic template from Community Central. I had to fill up the required details like Ex Partner, Present Partner etc. I did not like the end product of it. I mean the background color of the wiki does not match with the infobox's colors and the color is too light to read. Could you design a template with suitable colors? I mean it's possible to change the colors in the infobox, right? Also I have no idea why is there space between each line. I'm just asking if it's possible for you or not. I would appreciate any help. :)  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  15:25, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What you have done so far is good. Only one thing left is the width of the infobox. Can that be trimmed? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:01, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dude :) I'll let you know if I have any trouble.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:10, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Eve on the main page
Just thought I'd let you know that I added Eve to the main page under Deities. Do you think Lucifer should be added to in the same category as he was the creator of the demons? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I was talking about the Top of The Main Page. Pardon the turn of phrase :) RaghavD   Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'll think of a way to do that. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:18, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Done. btw, on the main page there is a slider which consists of 4 images. One of them says that S9 premiere is on Oct 3rd. Anyway to edit that?. I think one has to search for the Slider template of the Supernatural Wiki to edit that. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  14:48, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I had to dig a little. But I finished editing it. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  15:25, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Browse and Slider sections are restricted only to admins. I just searched for the respective templates and edited them. In any case I never really tinkered with templates as a regular user, so I don't know whether anyone can edit them or not. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:39, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I took care of it. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:33, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pages
Hi FTWinchester, the Wiki term for what you are describing is granularity, and for Wikis, the policy we follow is that we create individual pages for all the things within a certain category. It's more practical too, because one isn't going to be able to find what he wants within a page which is a huge long list. At the same time though, the category namesake (e.g. Rituals) will be a general pages that will describe the different types of rituals (Summoning, Warding, etc).

IMO, everything within Supernatural canon is worthy of documentation, even if they appear briefly or in only one episode. More information is always a good thing, after all. Hope this helps. Calebchiam Talk 03:58, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Great that you noticed it (the Slider thing). I fixed it now. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  11:35, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Dude I totally wasn't going to argue with you, just wanted to know. Go ahead and change it back, I was only curious but the first title is absolutely fine :)

Gurgatory (talk) 16:45, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

New Pages
If you'd like, you can give me a list of pages you want to create. I would try to collect as much info as I can. I'm a bit free these days, so I took on the task of filling info on the Anime series. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:49, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

For rituals like summoning of Zeus, should there be a separate page like Special Summonings or something like that? or just a separate section in the Summoning page? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  06:01, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of rituals for one show. Anyway it is actually a good way to organise the page. On, the other hand, Zeus wasn't the only pagan summoned. I know that novels aren't considered canon, but even Hel was summoned in the latest novel. I was thinking of a page like "Summoning Gods" and add info on both these gods. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  06:20, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, for Hel and all the characters/creatures from the novels. I knew that you created new templates, but I might have missed out on some, because I wasn't aware of the MixedCanon template until now. It actually makes sense, rather than saying that they are outright Non-Canon. The reason is that some of the novels were from Kripke's assistant herself. That is like almost Canon. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  06:33, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm guessing you were just talking about Hel's section on the Summoning Gods page. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  06:41, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I think this warrants for a Summoning Gods page. I will re-watch those episodes and add info accordingly. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:37, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Seraph Talk Page
Why did you remove your comment from the talk page? There was nothing wrong with what you said. RaghavD  Born Sinner, the opposite of a Winner  05:34, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

That's true too and I understand your plight very well. RaghavD  Born Sinner, the opposite of a Winner  06:07, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Re: X or Y?
Maybe both, I don't know cause they don't come out until October 12, so maybe Christmas? Why are you asking? Pokemonfan201 (talk) 18:32, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

New Spell
Hey I re-watched the Taxi Driver episode this afternoon. I noticed that Sam uses an incantation to release Bobby's soul to Heaven. Do you think a page is required? Soul Release Spell sounds a li'l lame. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  13:19, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

It's a different one from when Dean released Benny to resurrect him, right? I think it could have its own page (just basing my answer on Caleb's). I'll try to think of something, and I'll tell you if i got a name. I think for now you could start doing the body of the article? FTWinchester (talk) 13:27, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a different incantation. I think I'll do it tomorrow morning and drop me a name by then. Or you're welcome to do it. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  13:33, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Take your time. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  13:55, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Can we talk please, its about your new higher-tier angels catagory, I think you might have been a bit lenient with the description, higher-tier. So why you have the time, I would to chat. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:20, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

How are Esper, Ion, Nathaniel, Virgil higher tier angels? RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  17:35, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. And, good thinking on the Battles category. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  05:32, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  13:38, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

It's been quite awhile since we last talked, here, on the Supernatural wiki. Relating mostly to the fact that I no longer own my own laptop, so I have to use other resources, like library or my Wii U pad. While excited, I don't understand how it can be beneficial to the story for Lucifer to return, without him extinguishing humans, demons, Angels, etc. There would literally be no story. You take care, bro. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:54 PM, September 23rd 2013


 * I enjoy the series' Archangels. But, yeah, the Archangels, in who they are, languish everything around them to dust. Speaking on a contextual basis, like I said, there'd be no story with them in it. They bash down any character (besides God and Death) that crosses their path; Angels, demons, Deities, spirits, monsters and humans. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:47 AM, September 26th 2013

Template: Alias
I happened to see your message for David. The templates are sysop editable only. For Crowley, you mean that you also want King of Hell to appear? Is that it? RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  16:22, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the Recurring and Minor Characters template. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  16:27, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware I had, I must have accidentally deleted it when I was clearing up the link problem, sorry. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:08, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Beast of burden with a beastly question?
hay man beast of burden hear just wanna know if there are any pages (apart from kesslerBeast's one) where i can talk to people about future series ideas like possible creatures/Big Bads/plots and other such things if u could let me know that would be realy helpful thanx BTW i have a blog post about the Beast of Revolations (an idea of mine) would u like to check it out up to u lol.

05:36, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

REPLY
thanx for the reply mate didnt think u would lol and dont worry about the long reply its cool lol and i agree with you the shows creatures are kinda bland im actuely sick of angels and demons bring in the ancent things man i liked the leviathens but they ould of been cooler. anyway if u have any ideas for the show and u wanna share them my page is open and if u wanna hear my ideas i think maby we can bounce off each others brainstome :) cool and once agane thanx for replying.

agreed Abbadon and the knights of hell are cool but this guy dosent realy push his ideas dose he lol well hears hopeing :) PLEASE SOMETING NEW!

16:54, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Title Card
Yeah, I was trying out the same. I reverted it back. Apparently, I'm not very clear on the exact dimensions of the pic. I'll ask Thesilentpoethosea (previous admin who re-did the theme) for help. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  13:59, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Dude, there nothing to apologize for. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  14:08, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Is it better now? If not, tell me. Should I increase or decrease the transparency? Coz, I can view the pages without any diffivulty, but you never know. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  16:49, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Hyper Links
Which color do you think would work for the hyper-links? RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  15:14, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'll use it and let you see for yourself. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  04:08, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

I do not know it. Guess you'll have to check it on the internet for the nearest approximation. RaghavD All I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man  12:35, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lilith as Big Bad
Don't sweat it, dude. Happens to everyone. By the way, what'd you think of the last episode?--NaiflidG (talk) 16:39, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was much better, too (probably 'cause it had way more action than the premiere--I loved Abaddon equipping her demons with guns, that was so cool). Yeah, the wings thing didn't make much sense, but I'm willing to gloss over that because the skeletal burnt wing shot looked badass. My problems with the episode are with Abaddon. Like you said, she was scared of facing one fallen angel, and also A.) why did she torture the hunters for information when she can read minds, and B.) doesn't she know where the bunker is, since she was in the room when Larry gave Sam the coordinates and she could have looked at them when Sam was unconscious? Even though she had no way of knowing Crowley was there, she could have gone and tried to either break in or launch some kind of attack on Sam and Dean. But, all in all, I did like the episode. Hope we get more awesome moments like it.--NaiflidG (talk) 17:19, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

It could also have been that Abaddon had time to kill and decided to spend it by torturing the information out of hunters (which would also have the bonus of making them feel guilty after they break), so she could have just been in a sadistic mood. Or she was testing her new soldiers' interrogation skills. Good point with the bunker, but since the Titan and his kid and Castiel got in last year, and they had already brought Crowley in, I wasn't sure if the writers remembered that it's supposed to be warded. If there's no follow-up to either point for the rest of the season, I'll assume that the writers forget or just found it easier to write the story a particular way.--NaiflidG (talk) 17:53, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Query
Hey, yeah I'm still active in there, just not editing that much anymore Damon-Balthazar-Salvatore (talk) 16:47, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

My apoligizes friend, I've been on what you might call an EXTENDED vacation but Ive recently returned to this wiki when i received your message from July. I assume all is taken care of now? also I see there have been MANY changes around here lol.(talk)--Bkshadows

Not a big deal friend, if it means that much to you ill undo your creations when i have a chance. That was just to get rid of those black borders dont know why there's so many? but there was nothing "wrong" with your photos dont take it personal. and no there is no standard size for a wiki picture. because I'm in film school I love paying such attention to detail such as the props they use and the Computer Generated Effects. When I first started here it drove me INSANE to try and view a picture with small dimensions, too many pixels or just low quality. I then took it upon myself to replace these with higher quality ones just to give the viewer a better picture. Its just a small habit Ive kept up around here as you can see. (talk)--Bkshadows

May we all not be scorched. ha ha
Many characters say, in Season 5, that together, Michael and Lucifer would devastate a third of the Earth. However, Zachariah says that if Lucifer goes on check, he'll roast every single human to 'flakes of oblivion.' I was wondering, do you think I should post this on pyrokinesis's page or no? Is this assertion enough evidence. I, personally, believe that the Devil is powerful enough to tear apart continents. Catch you around, bud. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:54 PM, October 30th 2013

My goodness, that section on God's page really has gotten bigger, ornated into the form of a mashed block. I'll read it and when I have time, I'll fix it. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:25 PM, November 22nd 2013

I hear what your saying
I hear what your saying, but still he had clearly gone somewhere of the deep end, somewhere along the road he went from eating dead animal parts as part of a spell, to being willing to murder when he didn't need to, to being willing to outright murder and eat a person, I wouldn't say he was really that sane. Still your right, it did make him more predatory, its just in human terms that sort of predatory is closer to a psychopath. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:43, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Template:D deletion
I really didn't check it before deleting. It wasn't appropriately named and thought that it was one of those templates that were unused. From now on, I'll check twice before going on a deleting spree. RaghavD '"I'm beginning to feel like a Rap God"  09:40, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

A Quick Question
That kind of thought never even crossed my mind, buddy. Don't even think about it anymore. RaghavD '"I'm beginning to feel like a Rap God"  15:45, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

Did Sam have super-strength?
I think Sam had a discrete level of super-strength, at times, while he was on demon blood - given the implications through a quote by Dean, when he said, "You're not hopped up on demon blood this time" when they were about to physically fight. Just something to think about. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:00 PM, November 27th 2013

Yes, I think he did. I remember that my brother and I kept a close tab on the fights of Sam and Dean, and Sam usually won especially around season 4, when he was high with demon blood. FTWinchester (talk) 06:08, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Please go to blog The oldest being, archangel or leviathan? and read and respond to my latest comment. I can't believe how anyone, from any standpoint, can think Leviathans stand even a remote chance to the power of archangels. One archangel could take 100 "gods," 5 Leviathans and dragons in an instant. Leviathans, in some form or another, require a level of sustenance while archangels can survive indefinitely without touching food. Archangels can create blizzards, heat waves, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. Lucifer dug 600 ft to the core of the Earth without breaking a sweat, he annihilated ancient "gods" effortlessly, and they can resurrect another being again and again till the end, while simultaneously doing other things. Imagine that; resurrecting the dead endlessly while also teleporting, talking, etc. They have no equal in the show besides God and Death. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:47 PM, December 1st 2013


 * So, what do you think? Please, respond to my message above. There really should be NO controversy regarding archangels and every other character/creature, but God and Death. They win decillions times over. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:24 PM, December 9th 2013


 * Proof? Seriously?! Isn't archangels' appearances enough? My most wildest imaginations couldn't conjure a scenario where a Leviathan could defeat an archangel. An archangel blade, you say? Ok, first off, they'd never get the chance to effectively use it. Before the armed Leviathan could even move, the blade would be as ash at their feet. What, from their side, could Leviathans possibly do to in any way to deter an archangel? With a flick of the wrist, an archangel could hurl a Leviathan to a storm of cosmic butterflies, completely incinerating both the vessel and the Leviathan. They could smother one to death in a mountain of sneakers. The archangel could strike them with lightning for 9 hours till the Leviathan's a sizzling corpse. -- ImperiexSeed, December 12th 2013


 * Really? So is believing a shapeshifter who hasn't appeared yet can shapeshift (without actually seeing it specifically do it) headcanon? But thanks for all your opinions and feedback. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:47 PM, December 13th 2013

Hey, would it be safe to say that with multiple angels, it's possible to tear into supernatural dimensions (seen with Purgatory)? On a totally different note, do you think that we'll get to see some archangels (Lucifer and or Gabriel)? I love archangels but, with them, there's no story. Dean, Sam, Castiel, Bobby, Ellen and Jo couldn't hurt, affect or touch Lucifer for practically the whole season. This is an inevitability that can't be altered when concerning archangels. Anyway, catch you around, buddy. ImperiexSeed, 11:02 PM, December 15th 2013

Hey. Are you done talking to me, or are you just busy? I'd appreciate some kind of response to the above message. Alright, hope to catch you around. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:14 PM, December 17th 2013

I know, but you must realize, eventually, doing nine seasons (and probably a tenth), they're going to run out of avenues, leading to an unavoidable halt. I myself am enjoying this season. Again, with a totally different note, why do users call God the creator of 'the universe?' He's clearly not in Supernatural; he didn't create Death, Famine, War, Pestilence, "gods", and probably not reapers (who were presumably created by Death). -- ImperiexSeed, 6:02 PM, December 17th 2013


 * They've managed to keep this story from crumbling so far, even with some things that don't make sense to me. I can't begin to list reasons why having an angel (now seraph) close friend puts entire arcs at disadvantages and skews logic. Take every time someone's died, for example. I don't know why Dean, Sam and even Bobby haven't used Castiel to do so much good. He could resurrect John, Mary, Karen, Ellen, Jo, Rufus, Will, Charlie's mom, etc. Not to mention every single hunt they go on; they'd save a lot of time and lives by asking Castiel to take care the evils (ghouls, vampires, wendigos, werewolves, maybe wiping out thousands of demons at a time) in Supernatural. And yet, they're still kickin' evil's gnarly ass. ImperiexSeed, 7:55 PM, December 17th 2013


 * I personally like season 9, probably for reasons you don't. I attest, Castiel intervening every time would wrinkle the story to the point of futility, but it'll never chuck the fact of strict cogency, where it makes no sense that these characters wouldn't use Castiel to do all those good things I mentioned. You can't be serious about angels always being epitomized as bright gleams? How can that work with multiple angels being demonstrated, like in "Holy Terror?" I'd be bemused if they tried to demonstrate multiple angels at once with bright gleams. So, they chose the grace to typify the angels' presences. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:37 PM, December 19th 2013


 * I guess it could work if they showed light spraying from multiple vantage points. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:06 PM, December 20th 2013

Michael Photo
Sure, I'll try Gabriel456 (talk) 23:58, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Tried increasing the photo's size abit, but the preview still showed Michael/John being weird compared to Michael/Adam. This may be because they're both in the same photo. I guess I'll have to post two seperate pictures, see if that works Gabriel456 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

How's that, any better? Gabriel456 (talk) 00:07, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

nah, don't worry about it, it's not a bother Gabriel456 (talk) 00:13, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Orphan Pages and Dead ends
Dead-end pages simply mean that they don't link to any other articles - which is not great since all the articles in the Wiki ought to be connected such that it's literally impossible to reach a dead end. Orphan pages have no pages linking to them, which means they can only be found by the search bar - again, not great. There are no official policies since there don't really need to be; we just ought to avoid such pages by creating more links between articles.

Granularity again, I'm quite for it since by having more articles, it makes it more likely that others will expand said articles. That being said, the argument from the other side that some topics have so little information that it only makes sense to group them together is logical as well. So..the former might be preferable, but the latter is sometimes necessary. You will have to use your discretion on this. Cheers! Calebchiam Talk 15:59, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Bye?
You said you might be leaving depending on where the rest of season 9 goes. Um, a friend's coming to pick me up, like now, but I'd really like to talk with you about this. Not to try an change your mind, that's not my place at all, but maybe meet you on chat when we're both on. But, if and when you do leave, I'll miss you a lot. Catch you later, buddy. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:51 PM, December 27th 2013


 * I started watching the show back in 2008, with "The Rapture," and immediately I was hooked. I caught up quickly after that, to where I've seen every episode of every season. I, to date, really enjoy their incorporation of angel/demon lore, no matter where it goes (archangels, Rit Zien, especially the cupid), but I do care about the story. Like I said in a different message, if they branch out, and lather other lore into the story, it will eventually stop making sense (such as the Castiel thing I mentioned). Sera's Bigger and Bad(der) thing can only hold for so long till it becomes impossibly unfair for the boys. Ok, my question to you is, where should they go? They only have so many arteries. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:18 PM, December 29th 2013

The Horsemen's rings?
Who/what forged the four Horsemen rings? The better questions is, who would create such objects? I know this wasn't dabbed at in the show, but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts. Did they just appear when the Horsemen took on form? Were they forged in the supernatural fires of hell? Were they just Earthly rings, maybe like Death's cane and Famine's wheelchair, which changed on contact with the Horsemen?

About the last message...
I'm sorry for making you going crazy...I am new here and what I wrote on your page yesterday, well, it seemed to be holy crap. So I removed it :D My English is pretty horrible and the structure of this wiki is different from the German one...

But I think it although would be funny to "talk" to you guys here :) so forget about that, please.

C U Jo ;D

See? I forgot My sign. (Joanna Beth Harvelle (talk) 14:29, January 2, 2014 (UTC))

Just a few things.
I can easily assume that Crowley's going to use the angel exorcising spell, you know, the one not seen since frickin' four! Or, he might just torture the angel out of him. Why didn't Alastair unleash Death and use him to bend practically everything in the powers of hell favor? Such power would've allowed them to win the war a hundred times over. Death, now operating under the whim of crazy Al, could've slaughtered every opposing angel, raised every deceased demon (even ones from the primeval age), snatch his master (Lucifer) out of the cage without having to go through the seals. Then again, Alastair would probably find that immensely boring and not as satisfying as maiming and torturing everyone he can with his own vessel's hands. Also, why didn't Lucifer use the four Horsemen rings during the apocalypse? He could worn them on his vessel's fingers, and bear the power to manipulate the very aspects of war, famine, pestilence and death. He would've been more powerful than even Castiel when he had all of Purgatory's souls. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:49 PM, January 2nd 2014


 * Well, actually, Death has the power to raise anything organic, living, or active back to a state of consciousness. Because he's Death. So, he can raise deceased demons, because according to Cas and Crowley, archangels can raise deceased demons. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:38 PM, January 3rd 2014


 * Cite them? Are you serious? Fine. There was an episode, in season six, where Castiel says, "We'll [angels and demons] die again and again till the end of time." This means archangels can resurrect deceased angels and demons. Also, Rapahel said Lucifer could resurrect deceased angels. Crowley makes a similar remark in "The Devil You Know." So, if archangels can, Death can too. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:19 PM, January 3rd 2014


 * After Lucifer dug the hole, he started changing and then, Death manifested himself in front of Lucifer. And so, I thought if they (Castiel and Lucifer) used the same words, then it is, in fact, a manifestations spell. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:02 AM, January 4th 2014

Manifestation spell
Can I add a page regarding the manifestation spell Castiel used to make the cupid find form, which actually, could be the same spell used by Lucifer on Death. - ImperiexSeed, 10:22 PM, January 3rd 2014

Hey, is something going on with you and I? I feel drowned in silence. Are you, in any way, mad at me? We've been a good streak for a while now. If not, I see no point in ruffling anything any further. Anyway, if anything, I softly correlated spells used by Castiel and Lucifer in those two instances. Thought something was there, however they could just as easily possess no correlation in relation to the result of the spell. A Horseman's ring, worn, is shown to operate in such a way that the wearer is endowed with infinite dominance over the said attribute. But, anyway, I'll catch you later. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:13 PM, January 11th 2014


 * Thank you, bro, for getting back to me. Please understand if this message is sloppy, it's late and I'm beat. I was referring to what they said in Latin - and if it matched up. And, if they did, then both would be a type of manifestation spell. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:10 AM, January 12th 2014

I'm really offended that you're not responding to any of my comments on talk pages. I need you to level with me on this one. Especially the one you requested that I commented on. What's going on here, man? And not seeing the feed isn't really an excuse, seeing as you can just scroll down. Alright, have a good one, buddy. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:04 PM, January 12th 2014

That makes sense. I'll try to keep that in mind. Alright, so that depends on how you define focus. In the show, it appeared to more regulate their powers than anything else, and Dean was able to access pretty much every power and ability in Death's arsenal (death tap, teleportation, etc). So, I'd say, theoretically, if Dean tried on War's ring, he'd get all of the Horseman's power. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:41 PM, January 12th 2013

Hello again :D
So, if I got that right, English isn't your native language? Well, maybe you agree in that point when I say it's almost demanding to communicate in another language ^^

I noticed the popularity of this wiki and I'm confused about all the extra stuff you've got here! But i like the German wiki better, cuz it's German xD in the rankings there I'm the 9th place! but I think it's much smaller than "yours". i mean, we've got about 500 articles and here are more than 1.500!

key, I'm getting out know (Joanna Beth Harvelle (talk) 21:45, January 5, 2014 (UTC))

Re: Apocrypha
'Kay. Forgive me for pestering you about this, but what is your stance on the canonicity of the guides? It seemed like you supported them as canon (so long as there aren't any glaring contradictions) due to the Astaroth thing, but you also said that the TV show should be our only standard for canon. Should I count you as being for or against their being included as canon (or neutral)? In the meantime, thanks for a lively and thought-provoking debate (and for being the only person so far to give their thoughts on the matter). Peace out.--NaiflidG (talk) 00:52, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good for you, man! I'm glad it brightened your day. Did you find anything particularly interesting so far? Also, unless you have other Companion Guides, I think that this means we both have the Season 7 Companion and The Essential Supernatural (I've also got three of the novels and the first issue of one of the comics--I should probably add information on them, but that sounds like more of a project for when we're on hellatus and now it's only a couple days 'till the current one is over--maybe over the summer). When opportunity arises to get another, I think I'll get the fourth season guide, just because it's supposed to have something in it comparing the general power levels between white-eyed and yellow-eyed demons (and because Season 4 was probably my favorite season and had some of my favorite supporting characters in it, so it might have some really interesting stuff). Which one do you think you want next?--NaiflidG (talk) 05:38, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd love to Season 3 and Season 6 Guides, too. Come to think of it, the Season 8 Companion might also be super-interesting, especially if it has information about the Knights of Hell and the revised hierarchy of Hell (that is, with the Knights of Hell having been created) as of the end of Season 8. It might be easier just to say that it'd be neat to have all the Guides. The novels are kind of crappy in my opinion; of the three I have, I like Night Terror the best because it's got some carnage and chaos on an epic scale they'd never manage on TV (like, there's this scene where a guy gets trapped in the sidewalk or something and a gigantic spider half-melts him with acid and eats his head), but it seemed like there were too many side-characters and not enough focus on the Winchesters themselves. Coyote's Kiss would've been really cool except it focused too much on this OC character and her relationship with Dean with Sam kind of just standing there, and One Year Gone also would've been pretty cool (and offered some background on the Campbell family being at Salem and Soulless Sam's time with the Campbells and stuff) but was just kind of clumsily-executed and had these spelling errors that shouldn't have been there that detracted from my enjoyment of it. And the Aswang sound cool as hell from their page on this wiki; now I kind of want the book, too. Anything interesting from John Winchester's Journal and Bobby Singer's Guide to Hunting? I like the reveal that Ruby was a double-agent because I prefer demons to be pure evil and scheme-y rather than having any speck of good in them, but she was killed off way too soon--she should've stuck around at least through Season 5, just to see her working against the Winchesters and how they react to each other now that the fact she's been tricking them is out in the open (plus, maybe she could've worked with Meg and that would've been fun to see). And we should have gotten the Harvelles in Seasons 3 and 4 (even if it was just to make us get more attached to them so that their deaths in "Abandon All Hope..." would be all the more shocking). Don't even get me started on Anna; I'm still annoyed that the Winchesters apparently never wondered where their other angel ally was for most of Season 5 and that she's villified for trying to save the world after months of non-stop torture and brainwashing (even though Dean tortured other souls in Hell because he'd been tortured himself for so long and Castiel slaughtered thousands and brought the leviathan onto Earth to stop the Apocalypse and killed Samandiriel under brainwashing, yet there's no question of forgiving them) while Gabriel did far worse for much less noble reasons but he is seen as a good guy and mourned and is now apparently coming back to life. /rant--NaiflidG (talk) 19:27, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deal
Oh, cool. I think there is a difference with regards to proper deals and simple agreements (like the difference between Dean selling his soul to get Sam back and his agreeing to hand Henry and the box over to Abaddon to get Sam back). Proper deals have to be sealed in some way to ensure that neither party go back on their word, whereas you're operating purely on trust with just agreements. The thing that confuses me is what the repercussion of breaking a proper deal is, what keeps a demon from just going against their word in the first place--are they just magically forced to obey their deal or is there something negative that happens to them as a result of going against their deals? It seems that the crossroads demons are just afraid of Crowley punishing them for potentially costing them more souls if word gets out that they're double-crossing clients and you're fully capable of breaking deals if you like and you have the contract in-hand, but I kind of got the impression when Castiel double-crossed Crowley that you're just plain not supposed to go against your deal ("Even I don't break a deal like this" or something) and what's the point of having a magically-binding contract in the first place if you can just break it on a whim?--NaiflidG (talk) 18:53, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Leviathans....eating in....Heaven?
I really can't understand the end part of this sentence, which is located on the Angels' page: ''Sometime after God and Death's existence, God creates Heaven. He later creates the first beasts, the Leviathans, and let them roam Heaven, eating and devouring everything in their path.'' What, exactly, were Leviathans eating in heaven? Nothing existed at this time besides God and Death (who, obviously, weren't being munched on by Leviathan). Were they plowing through each other and caused so much damage to both themselves and heaven, that God had no choice but to lock them somewhere to ensure the safety of the universe at large? Unless furthered and revealed in a future episode, it stands to be inevitably impossible for there to be any other explanation than the one I just gave. Literally, nothing existed at that time besides God and Death, which it shouldn't even be said that God and Death couldn't be at all scathed by them because of how obvious it is.-- ImperiexSeed, 8:31 PM, January 13th 2014


 * That still doesn't answer what they could've been eating in heaven, but that's alright I guess. It's really important to look at how Death phrased his question of, Why do you think he created Purgatory? To keep those poisonous things out. Notice he didn't say "Why do you think God changed Purgatory" (which, no offense, automatically destroys the idea that God created Purgatory anyway besides the way it looked when he imprisoned them there) or "To keep them in." (which means he sent them there and that they weren't living there and he just changed it) -- ImperiexSeed, 3:09 PM, January 14th 2014


 * I don't understand how it could be different than God created it. I'm going off what Death say and going from there. I really appreciate your trying to help me here with all theses ideas, but I am looking at this simplistically, and not jump to all these hazy assumptions that could possibly be true in a certain light under certain circumstances. You know? This 'new Earth' concept has never been dabbed at anywhere in what we know as canon, but yours ideas could be potentially possible, which I find highly complicated next to Death's simple question and statement regarding this. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:23 PM, January 14th 2014

Can Leviathan actually mimic the physiologies of other beings?
In "There Will Be Blood," a Leviathan touches a vampire's arm and bears the fangs of a vampire. It seems inarguable that this means they can mimic or copy other beings' physiologies and theoretically gain their abilities. Or can they simply mimic the appearance of any given physical being? What did you think it meant when this happened? If true, this would then make them the most dangerous threat the Winchesters have ever faced. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:38 PM, January 14th 2014


 * Really? What scene are you on, then? The scene I'm talking about is where Edgar touches a vampire and takes his form then bears the fangs of a vampire. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:13 PM, January 14th 2014


 * I'm talking about mimicking abilities not skills. I've now come to recognize that we view things differently because, again, I'm looking at actions or comments at face value, instead of complicating things by, for instance, limiting an ability (shapeshifting by contact) that has been established to work one way variably regarding several points. In other words, they, on at least two occasions, have been able to mimic the physicality of any creature that they've touched. To say they can do this with angels, is technically unproven or even hinted at. But speculatively, it can be argued that when Edgar killed the two angels by contact, he didn't have any need to mimic the angels' powers. I hope you enjoyed "Road Trip" and that maybe somehow you're going to stick it out. See ya, buddy. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:39 PM, January 14th 2014


 * This is where it gets a little mucky. The timing to take things at face value and not fluctuate greatly. You did there, yes, but archangels have proven to be exceptionally strong for beings angels, especially in a comparison between Leviathan. Castiel repeatedly spoke of the sheer impossibility of the task of killing Lucifer was, for it only became possible if Michael stepped in. The only way he was defeated without any action from Michael, was because they teased his pride by giving him Sam as a vessel. Now, no one can cite where it's said in the series that archangels can kill/beat Leviathan or vice-versa. And depending on whether or not Leviathan can mimic angels, I hold inscrutable amount of confidence that Leviathan can't beat archangels. I'll try an stop dumping all my ideas or questions on you and give you some time to edit and have fun. But, later, I will send you messages when I have something I'd like to discuss. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:25 AM, 15th 2014


 * It depends on how you're looking at this. Although, point of view is rightly disposed of in comparison to facts. I'll use an example of a subject we're already talking about. One can say, Leviathan can kill archangels, which is baseless where there's insurmountable hints pointing the contrary. Archangels can destroy Leviathan in an instant for a ling distance. You're right, the bone weapon is the only know conventional way to kill Leviathan, but that's nothing impressive when archangels can only be killed conventionally with a certain weapon. Like I said in the previous message, Lucifer was unbeatable unless Michael stepped in, and was only defeated without action from Michael because they teased his pride by giving him Sam as a vessel. While it hasn't been seen on the show, it's damn frickin' obvious whatever Leviathan touch they can mimic their physicality and, by turn, their abilities. The abilities part is more a theory, I'll admit, but it seems like they can mimic their abilities based on what is seen in "There Will Be Blood." Now, the writers could've messed up what they were trying represent in this scene. But, generally, whatever the writers say, in regards to the show, is canon unless it's in direct contradiction with other information. Um, I'll concede it's what you call a no-win relating to Leviathan capability of mimicking angel physiologies. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:07 PM, January 15th 2014