Talk:Supernatural Wiki

Wiki.png and Wiki wide.png
You guys need something to replace the Wikia logo at the upper left hand corner and a Wiki wide image to promote your wiki. If you need help, I'm here to offer assistance. --Destron Commander 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hey we ALREADY had a logo, where is it?? I was on vacation and I didn't get a chance to visit this wiki, and now when I saw it where is the logo I made?? I can make another one. note: here i found the wiki_wide: http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Wiki_wide.png. Why isnt it on the page??Umairnadeem 12:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that when the Wikia pages got the new appearance about a month ago, the logo got removed. Kyle Nin 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

alright.. i think we have a problem. i did some research and found out that the req. logo sized was changed about a month ago, and the wiki_wide i have is too big because of the required size change. I got a new computer but now i dont have my graphics software (mac. fireworks) soo... itll take some time to be back on again.. sorrry. Umairnadeem 12:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Powers
Alright I keep seeing people putting in extremely powerful powers like Omnipotence in Gabriels powers.

Gabriel does not have Omnipotence. Omnipotence is having Unlimited Power, not even Lucifer and Michael have that otherwise Lucifer could easily step out of hell, snap his fingers and destroy everything including God and Death. People! You need to stop naming the powers things like Omnipotence, Omniscient and other powers like it. This also goes for powers like what the Antichrist had, I seen before that someone put Telekinesis and said that he created a Earth Quake by Clenching his fist, that's not Telekinesis, that's Terrakinesis. Most of the powers need to be renamed because a lot of their names are false. I'm gonna start renaming some of the powers, like I said before stop giving the characters false names and find the name that actually says what they are.

SPN Last Author Standing
Like to write? Love Supernatural ? Great! There is a new challenge, called spn_las, where you write a fanfic of at least 100 words every two weeks based on a different prompt. Then they get voted on and the person with the least votes is out that week and the person with the most is safe next week. Until you have one author standing who wins! What do you win? A snazzy graphic and a $10 GC to Amazon or Barnes & Noble. You don't even need to be a GREAT writer!

http://community.livejournal.com/spn_las/

Calling All Active Users
I am a fairly new, but active member of the Supernatural wiki, and I've got a few things I'd like to contribute, and swear to keep my word.

The first thing I'd like to contribute is giving it a new look. I think now of all times seems to be quite a perfect time for revamping the wiki's blank standard look. I specialize in making designs for the skin and themes of sites like these, and I'd like to change things up a bit with this wiki. I'd also like to keep the information up to date and informative, without anything too spoiler-ish.

I've attemped to contact the last active Admin, or even bring the idea around to an active, but nobody's responding, and yet I've got a lot of good ideas I'd like to contribute to this Wiki. So I would like to take on the role of developing the Supernatural wiki further. Now, I'm calling all active users out there to discuss: who should the next Admin be for the Supernatural wiki?

Thesilentpoethosea 18:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)Thesilentpoethosea


 * Hi! I'm new on here as well and I completely agree with you: this Wiki needs a complete revamp. I've just checked out the Admins' Contributions and the latest edit from one of them is September. Perhaps we should try leaving a message on their Talk Pages. If they don't reply, then perhaps we should contact the Central Wiki. I would like to become an Admin as well.


 * I'll try leaving those messages.


 * ChЯisHдlliwell 06:30, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good to me. Do you know if there can be more than one admin per Wiki?
 * Thesilentpoethosea 16:05, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be. On the Charmed Wiki, there are 3 Bureaucrats and 4 Sysops. I've sent the Supernatural Wiki Admins messages but none of them have replied me.
 * ChЯisHдlliwell 16:54, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be. On the Charmed Wiki, there are 3 Bureaucrats and 4 Sysops. I've sent the Supernatural Wiki Admins messages but none of them have replied me.
 * ChЯisHдlliwell 16:54, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only new to this particular wiki but I also have some ideas. For instance:
 * I think if it had a different colour scheme it would different. Say the blue that they use in the opening of Supernatural in season 6. That with the black would look really cool - as well a new logo  that maybe only had the pentagon for the A rather than all the other symbols. I love them and all but it could just be over kill. Just a thought.
 * tails456 00:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

pagan god
What is your favorite pagan god? For me, it is the Vanir in season one's episode Scarecrow.

PLAGARISM

It has been bought to my attentiont that a number of the episode summaries on this site have been copied in their entirety from www.supernaturalwiki.com (many of which I wrote myself). Please remove this content and write your own summaries. Please note that the terms of the Wikia site state that "You may not submit content to the Service that you did not create or that you not have permission to submit." Jules Wilkinson Supernatural Wiki Administrator

Hiii!

Is there any brazilian editor?? Please, contact me, I'm trying to make a portuguese version!

thank you =)

Kriswelling 14:54, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Which is the best season of Supernatural?
6 seasons and still going strong,this show has changed a lot since first season.Season 6 is getting interesting and the executive producers have promised an awesome finale,but so far which season do you think is supernatural's best season? my favourite is the 2nd....what about you guys?

I honestly think season five was the best season, but season six is a special season to me. I really, really liked that season, and I look forward to season seven. Thesilentpoethosea 01:01, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Creatures

Is 'creatures' the right term to describe God? as well as other beings under this list?

(Anonymius 19:57, September 18, 2011 (UTC))

Season 5 hands down and season 8.Donellusmc (talk) 05:53, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Season 5 is the best, but without the previous 4 being precisely how they are, it wouldn't be what it is now. Season 6 is good but I personally don't consider it canon and season 7 was flat-out terrible. Eight was worse.

Gurgatory (talk) 00:30, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gurgatory about Season 8 being the worst of the bunch so far. Seasons 6 and 7 lacked the first five seasons' magic, but at least they didn't have such awful characterizations. As for what I think is the best season... although I really enjoy the plotting and characters of Season 4, I like the characterizations and overall feel of the first season best. It had grit, intimidating villains, humor that wasn't overdone, a sense of a future instead of bucketloads of more angst that would pouring in in later seasons. Sam and Dean felt like real guys instead of overexaggerated character types. There were new, interesting characters every episode for the boys to bond with, so it didn't feel so claustrophobic.--NaiflidG (talk) 01:51, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's really just personal preference, nothing factual at all, of course... But personally Season 1 was pretty amazing, but early on in the season was rather boring to me. I guess I was just waiting for Yellow-Eyes and Lilith to show up, but most of the episodes that I liked had John in them. I do agree though, it was much more grittier and Azazel was pretty freaking scary. Also compared to later seasons (this is personal preference) the camera made the show much darker and therefore scarier.

My ratings:

Season 1: Good

Season 2: OK

Season 3: Great

Season 4: Amazing

Season 5: MASTERPIECE

Season 6: "Fun"

Season 7: Terrible

Season 8: nojustno (the finale was the best one since Swan Song, though)

Gurgatory (talk) 03:07, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Should I create a page named "Amortality"?
The word amortality means having never been born, and can't die.. To me, this seems like God and Death would be considered that, as they've always existed. Also, it's separate from immortality, in that immortals could've been born, they're just unable to die.. So, should I, or should not create this? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:01 PM, October 15th 2011

In the episode "Shut up, Dr. Phil" when Dean says "Clean up on Aisle Seven" after they discover the decapitated girl, is this a reference the movie "Se7en"? (The connection being a decapitated head)

Eve and Others Missing from Front Page
Is there a reason why so many other creatures are missing from the front page? Eve immediately comes to mind. But what about legends like Hookman, Kitsune, etc. Is it because listing all the monsters would make it too cluttered? If so, I still think at least Eve deserves a mention given that she was the "Big Bad" for Season 6.

--RobWinchester 17:04, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any reason for her to not be there. It's already really cluttered, but considering she was an important antagonist (more than Doc Benton, for example), she deserves some sort of mention... Also, I removed a spam ad that was here. Jmflaig (talk) 03:23, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that I still can't see Eve on the front page.

FTWinchester (talk) 00:38, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Admin
I know several things about the concepts of designing, evil creatures, Wikia and high English, therefore I wish to aid with the website. Yet, my help is limited being just a guest, even with an account. So, if it not much of a bother, I would like to become an admin and maximize the potential this website has.

All the best,

Kratos Jr.

Archangels
I dont like the fact that two archangels die, lets hope they (or at least Gabriel) are being resurected by God in the following seasons. Gabriel was a cool character that I think is important. This is just my point of view. Anyone else who thinks the same?


 * Yeah, I loved him too. But....unfortunately, I don't see him coming back. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:49 PM, June 30th 2012


 * He should though, God resurrected Castiel at least twice, so why not one his Archangels? they are kinda like literal Brothers and have seen god, Raphael (who never mentioned Gabriel and vice-versa was abit of a jerk and killed cass once and maybe god dislikes that) was like i said, a jerk, but Gabriel is one of the only angels to appreciate humanity which would make god proud, and Gabriel sacrificed himself for sam and dean, they are Gods true children kinda, say he should be resurrected.
 * IndigoRider (talk) 02:00, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Castiel's been resurrected because he's God's favorite, for probably his fierce loyalty/devotion and humanity. Similarly to Michael, Raphael's willing to do anything to bring about paradise on Earth by Michael defeating Lucifer, and Raphael completely lost faith in God, so I don't see God resurrecting him, although Cas, in absorbing all of Purgatory's souls, did claim to be a new better God, mocking his very name, but yet God saved him yet again, so I guess he could resurrect any one of them. Gabriel, however, was true and sincere, I thought. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:27 PM, August 14th 2012

Sources for Anna Milton
Could someone please provide the sources for some of the conjecture on Anna Milton's page? Specifically, the statement, "Her character was intended to replace Castiel, who was supposed to be killed by Alastair in "On The Head Of A Pin", as Dean's angelic guide. Due to Castiel's immediate popularity with critics and fans alike, much of Anna's role was given to him instead and she was eventually removed from the series entirely. "

I have never before heard this in the year I've spent being a part of the Supernatural fandom. That is in no way to say that it isn't true or likely; rather, I would appreciate the sources from which this came so I may investigate further.

(I am new to this wikia business, and I hope I'm doing this right. Jmflaig (talk) 02:22, September 7, 2012 (UTC))

Sources in General
Pardon the douple-posting, but I felt this warranted a new topic, separate from the Anna Milton one.

Looking through this Wikia, I've noticed that there are a lot of unsubstantiated pieces of so-called "trivia". Some of these are most likely from "behind the scenes", stated during interviews or conventions. I know that it will be a lot of work, but I propose that we begin adding sources to such things. For example, if Misha Collins mentions something major and previously unheard of at ChiCon, please mention that (and, if available, provide links to where you obtained such information).

Regarding comments made about one character from another, I think we should mention which episode said comments were made in. For example, from Dean Winchester's Trivia section, I would very much like to know which episode Sam declared that Dean knows "all of Clint Eastwoods (sic) movies".

Although it will be difficult, I also propose removing anything that a source cannot be found for. Deletion would not be necessary if there's some way to simply hide it from what non-registered users can view. Basically, let's cite our sources. This will make it much easier to look at quotes and quips in-context; it will also raise the standard and the validity of what gets published. Jmflaig (talk) 02:40, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in "Trivia" and "Notes" Sections; Add a "Conjecture" Section
Provided I don't think of anything else, this should be my last consecutive post on the Talk page (for now).

I've noticed that on some character pages, a "Trivia" section is present; on others, a "Notes" section is present. As a first order of business, I propose we specifically define which each category should contain and keep everything consistent.

Next, I propose that we establish a new section, aptly titled something like "Conjecture". This section is where unsubstantiated theories would be placed. A few examples of what I mean are the following posts on Anna Milton's page, under the "Notes" section: Both of the above can be argued for against and without any canon answer. Therefore, they are purely theory and conjecture, and should be in such separate section. Jmflaig (talk) 02:59, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some fans argue that Michael merely destroyed Anna's vessel and sent her back to Heaven rather than kill her. Support for this claim include her wings not being shown (angels who have been permanently killed off are sometimes shown with their wings burnt into their surroundings) and other characters not referring to her as being dead. However, she has not since reappeared and not all angels that are killed have their wings shown: all of the lower-level angels, Balthazar, Raphael, and Hester also do not show their wings."
 * "Her debut in Season 4 as a fallen angel without power arguably sets up Castiel being depowered from being cut off from Heaven in Season 5. However, there are some discrepancies: Anna loses all of her grace at once yet still retains some of her powers over twenty years later whereas Castiel loses his grace more gradually but ends up completely powerless by the fifth season finale. It may be that she retained some of her power because she was Castiel's superior and thus more powerful, similar to how Lucifer lost none of his powers when he fell. "

My only disagreement with your proposals is the addition of a "Conjecture" section as speculation (i,e. theories) is generally prohibited on this wiki aside from talk pages or blogs. To quote ImperiexSeed, "Look, all speculation does is twist concrete info into something that's based on opinion or preference, which isn't helpful.", and I firmly agree with that statement as I believe for any wiki to be fully accurate, editors can not blur the line between fact and speculation. 108.225.237.8 08:29, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

You make a very valid point! I'm sorry I didn't realize that speculation wasn't allowed here. I just joined yesterday!

I agree with you. You're very right, especially if this wiki is supposed to be subjective. But then, I must ask - what will happen to all the speculation like the ones I've quoted above? Will it be wiped?

In a manner of speaking, yes. In fact, I have already removed the speculation on the Anna Milton page you spoke of. However, I am definitely in favor of your proposal to defining what each catagory should contain for consistency, so I highly suggest you continue proposing it. On a final note, welcome to the wiki and I hope you enjoy editing here. 107.194.22.7 07:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

HOME PAGE NEEDS TO BE KEPT UP WITH.

For one, clicking on the pic for whats up tiger mommy leads to survival of the fittest, and clicking on the pic for we need to talk about kevin does nothing. Winchester7314 (talk) 23:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Monocolored demon?
Just a question, why is Samhain called as a 'monocolored-eyed' demon? Doesn't monocolor mean one or single hued? If any, it applies to any other demon except for Samhain, as we can see differences in the colors of his iris and pupils. Anybody care to shed me some light on this?

FTWinchester (talk) 22:20, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Horsemens?
Seriously? On the front page? Horsemen is already the plural form.

65.92.148.90 06:23, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you adress it to an admin directly on their talk page as that is the best way anything to their immediate attention. If he/she does not respond for a peroid of time, than you can just seek help from another. I may have perviously gave ImperiexSeed as an example, but I would actually suggest you inform Calebchiam as he has always responded to my messages within at least the next day. 108.247.151.170 08:09, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Attention All Active Users and Admin
Let me introduce myself. I'm Sybil. I have a background in webdesign and a  Bachelor's Degree in English/Creative writing. I've been doing Wikia for a while, as a hobby while I pursue my  Master's in Forensic Psychology, and am an Admin and Bureaucrat on the Merlin Wikia and I've decided to work on this Wikia as well because Supernatural is one of my favorite shows and, honestly, because this Wikia needs work. I may not be an Admin on this Wikia, but I am devoted to making the Supernatural Wikia the best it can be!

I can certianly tell that a ton of work has gone into this Wikia already! It looks sleek and the design is a beautifully dark reflection of the show, using the Season 8 Title Card as inspiration. The pages have a lot of good information as well! And it has fairly up-to-date information, including brief teaser-summaries of the next two episodes scheduled to air!

I can practically hear you wondering, "Sybil, if it is so great, why did you say it needs work? Why are you wasting my time?"

Well, let me just say that  this Wikia, as it is right now, is pretty good! But, it could be supernaturally awesome!

So, what does polishing entail?

 * Polishing starts with knowing what has to be polished. I doubt Sam and Dean would waste time polishing their shoes if their knives are what need polishing! However, if they are dressing as Feds, polished shoes would make their ensembles complete. Similarly, we need to know what to polish before we start.

Knowing what to polish:

 * I highly recommend first just browsing around the Wikia (as I'm sure the majority of you have done numerous times before). As you do so, make a note (I like to type a note in my Notepad program, but scribbling down a note by hand works better for some) of everything you notice that bothers you. Include anything and everything, even things that you don't know how to fix/improve, those you aren't sure can be fixed/improved, and the things you think may be so knit-picky and miniscule that nobody else will be bothered by them.

Example - My List:

 * difficult to find Admins
 * some typos and common mistakes in Templates and other common page features
 * for instance:
 * major grammar errors in majority of random Articles I clicked on
 * Inappropriate placement of some pages in certain Categories (ie: some (clearly RP) blog posts placed in categories intended to sort characters and creatures that are canon to the Supernatural show, anime, books, and comic, not for fan-created characters - see the Categories for: Creatures, Archangel, God's Creations, Angels, Garth, Ghostfacers, etc.)
 * Unnecessary Categories (ie: Garth, etc.)
 * sometimes poorly cited sources

Once you've done this, look at your list.

 * If you can go ahead and fix anything on it, then start polishing! :D
 * If you have things on your list that you can't do (either because you don't feel comfortable changing it without discussing it first, or you don't have time to handle it right now, or you don't have clearance/permission to edit it (ie: you're not an Admin), or you don't know how), then put those things (politely, please) in a comment to this post, in your own talk topic or blog post, or contact an Admin with yourr suggestions and maybe another user will be able to polish it! Remember, we can only make  the Supernatural Wikia  supernaturally awesome by working together, just like Sam and Dean work better as a team!


 * Badgesidea.png also recommend looking at other Wikias to see both what you think they do well and what they do poorly. Look for things other Wikias do orr have that we should too! For instance: some Wikias give Achievement Points to users for being active and users can earn Badges for particular accomplishments (see Fig.1).   I've also seen fanfiction sections/collections on some  Wikias..


 * A good active Wiki is the Merlin Wiki, but there are tons of good ones! Just look up your favorite shows and/or books and I'm sure you'll find some worth checking out!

Polishing, like knife cleaning, requires the proper tools. Sam aand Dean use oil,  a cloth, and a sharpening stone.

Here are the tools I recommend for polishing a Wikia:

 * ​General Wiki Guidelines
 * Micrsoft Word (or another equal document program)
 * ​this tool is very useful because it spots some (though not all) grammar and spelling errors
 * dictionary.com  and thesaurus.com/
 * great for checking spelling and finding more descriptive words
 * Google Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer
 * perfect for fact-checking
 * citationmachine.net
 * makes citing sources easy

Things to Look for and Fix While Polishing an Article:
 * typos
 * they're, their, there
 * you're, your, yore
 * its, it's
 * "i" before "e," except after "c" and in words like "'neighbor" and "weigh"
 * tense  should mostly stay the  same -  past  tense is best  (remember we don't have  angels  to help  us time-travel, so our  grammarr should reflect that things that have already occured in the canon are in the past)
 * present tense should only be used when discribing characters who are still alive (ie: "Dean is a hunter") or discussing actions/events that are still on-going (ie: "Dean owns an Impala," "Castiel frequently reports to Naomi and, unbeknownst to him, spies on the Winchesters for her")

I know  it seems  like a lot.

 * And it is. But, if  we all pitch in annd workk together, we can make the Su pernatural Wikia  supernaturally awesome!

Everyone can help polish the Supernatural Wikia! Your  friend, Sybil WorshipperOfTheOldReligion  16:01, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * "Well, let me just say that  this Wikia, as it is right now, is pretty good! But, it could be supernaturally awesome!"


 * I actually agree with you on this. My major gripes in this wiki are the more-than-sporadic presence of incorrect grammar, not to mention the use of proper tenses in writing. I've seen other wikis use only the past tense (at least on narratives and episode summaries), but our wiki seems to take more liberty than that. I think the community should really look more into these two problems to make the articles a bit more streamlined. I have also some other qualms on certain pages including 1) some data that are only tangentially relevant, 2) the liberal, and sometimes subjective, use of canon and non-canon information to suit a personal view on an article or page, and 3) vague criteria on what necessitates a page--but see in this wiki, some changes require or sire days-long debates that rarely achieve fruition.


 * (I'm all for badges and stuff because they look cool, but I hardly think that is absolutely necessary as sometimes other members would edit every minor thing just to get their edit counts up). FTWinchester (talk) 13:20, January 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your imput, FTWinchester! You make some very good points! The extremely poor grammar and the lack of a uniformed tense are two of my biggest concerns as well. The other issues you bring up are also rather huge and definitely require addressing! Of them, the mixing of "head-canon" psuedo-fact and canon fact in articles and on other pages intended only for supportable, sourcable canon information (blogs and user pages are better suited for non-canon information) and the loose definition of what constitutes a page  (and a category, for that matter) are the issues you mentioned that bother me the most.
 * As for the difficulty in making changes to the wikia because such changes are debated for a long time, there isn't an easy way to fix this because, no matter what, it is impossible to make everyone happy. I've seen some sites have polls about big changes to the site (both prior to and after those changes). This provides a roughly accurate picture of how active users feel about those major changes. If the majority votes to make the change, it is made. Then, if the majority votes that they dislike a change that has been made, the site is reverted to how it was prior. On other wikias, I've seen a policy that small changes (like page edits or adding a page that fits the defnition of an appropriate page) can be done by any registered user without discussing it, medium changes (like editing page names, adding categories, etc.) can be done by any registered user as long as a certain number of Admmins (anywhere from 1-5) approve it, and large changes (editing the wikia's layout/organization, etc.) can be done by any Admin as long as a certain number of other Admin (anywherefrom 1-3) approve


 * The admins didn't want the wiki to use polls because they want consensus in deciding things. They said that even if just one user do not agree with the majority--there still won't be a consensus. Any change must conform to everyone and not just the majority. I think the admins could explain this much better than I could.  FTWinchester  ( talk ) 21:02, January 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * I, personally, like the badges because they encourage active participation in the wikia and reward active, hard-working users. I can see (and have witnessed) how some make pointless edits just to get more points and badges, but in my experience it is worth it because just as many users are honest aand earnest with their edits and are rejuvenated in their attempt to better the wikia  by the  prospect of being recognized and rewarded for their hard work.
 * Blessed Be, Sybil WorshipperOfTheOldReligion 17:35, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may clarify, it's not the admins that want consensus in deciding things, but it's actually a gerneral policy on Wikia according to this wiki's bureacrat Calebchiam. In addition, I am strongly against the idea users needing apporoval by one or more admins to make changes as an admin is not supposed to be the "bosss" of a wiki, they have no more authurity than any other user. Not to mention everyone is free to edit without permission from admins, registered or not. I suggest you consult Calebchiam with your ideas as he is very fluent in Wikia policies, so he could tell you which ones would suit the wiki or not.
 * If I may clarify, it's not the admins that want consensus in deciding things, but it's actually a gerneral policy on Wikia according to this wiki's bureacrat Calebchiam. In addition, I am strongly against the idea users needing apporoval by one or more admins to make changes as an admin is not supposed to be the "bosss" of a wiki, they have no more authurity than any other user. Not to mention everyone is free to edit without permission from admins, registered or not. I suggest you consult Calebchiam with your ideas as he is very fluent in Wikia policies, so he could tell you which ones would suit the wiki or not.


 * You  bring up a great point. However, there  is a difference in "consensus" and uniformity of oppinion. Consenus literally  means "majority of opinion" (dictionary.com). It isn't about unanimous agreement, but  about the a agreement of the majority. Polls are designed for this.  I merely suggested it because a system  that fails to bring discussed and beneficial changes to fruitation, as you (FTWinchester) described this wikia, is in need of reevaluating.
 * Yes, certainly needing approval to change the wiki is not always  a good thing! I believe small changes and medium changes that follow the guidelines shouldn't need approval to do. But, large changes should be approved in some fashion - admin approval, vote,  etc.


 * I agree that nobody is the "boss" of the wikia and nobody should be. That is why I posted this topic in an area where everyone could see it and it could act as a think tank instead of contacting one person to see if any of my suggestions " would suit the wiki or not." However, Admin do have more authority than regular users. Wikia allows them to make certain edits that others can not. Admin can also block users that break the rules. But, it  is important that Admin do not abuse these privileges and don't act as if they own the wikia because the Supernatural wikia belongs to both nobody and everybody.


 * Blessed Be, Sybil 00:18, January 14, 2013 (UTC) WorshipperOfTheOldReligion


 * Believe me, I was bringing up the points you just gave on a similar discussion a few months ago. I am aware of some institutions using super-majority or overwhelming majority as a form of consensus, but Calebchiam (an admin) said otherwise for this wiki.  For now, I'll be waiting on the opinions of other users. Although, Calebchiam also mentioned silence is a form of soft consensus. If no one argues with what you propose, I suppose we could soldier on with the changes. FTWinchester (talk) 02:33, January 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody includes CabelChiam. Well, according to CalebChiam, there's no "admin-approval", as you're suggesting. Oh, except for his. Your stance possesses much ambiguity, if you will. Name and portray the examples you are describing, so that I can fix them. Link me personally to their pages. Obviously there's going to be inaccurate tensing and obviously it needs to be fixed. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:41 PM, January 14th 2013

I am a little confused, what do you nobody includes CalebChiam, ImperiexSeed?


 * Are we still undecided on unifying the tense of the verb to use? Other good wikias have a policy on the tense to use in writing. Our articles are very disorganized in terms of tenses. I suggest we create a policy/guideline for this.


 * For example, narratives should always be in the past, as they have already occurred within the Canon (i.e., Abaddon killed Henry Winchester, Charlie stabbed the spellbook, Bela stole the colt).


 * Dead characters should almost always be described in the past tense (Rufus was a hunter), in contrast to still existing characters, who we describe with the present tense (Dean is a hunter).


 * Description of abilities, skills, and current status of a character or object must be in the present tense (Telekinesis is the ability..., Pyrokinesis refers to..., Enochian is the language..., The Demon-Killing Knife is a powerful...), although depictions of their use, or if they are no longer active, must be in past tense (Anna Milton travelled to the past..., Famine could cause..., Alastair was able to heal..., Ruby cast a spell...).


 * Actions still ongoing should be in the present tense (Kevin is deciphering the tablet..., Castiel is under Naomi's control...). FTWinchester (talk) 15:41, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * FTWinchester: I think those are excellent guidelines! Shall somebody create a Policy page for them?  Would you like to? If you don't or haven't the time, I gladly will (though I may not get around to it until next week). WorshipperOfTheOldReligion (Blessed Be, Sybil 18:12, February 7, 2013 (UTC))

I was thinking of receiving some more inputs from other contributors. I hope they care enough to even at least look at it and agree. Also, I'm not sure if regular contributors are allowed to post Policies. My post was a suggestion on how we could do it. (Also, sorry for breaking the line you made). FTWinchester (talk) 18:38, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope others do care enough to help better the wiki by adding their thoughts!!! Truthfully, I'm not even sure any Admin other than ImperiexSeed are still paying much attention to the wiki (my perfuse apologies to active Admin I haven't seen around!) because the only Admin who even contributed to this long discussion on the betterment of  our wiki was ImperiexSeed. So, perhaps they could make a policy page? - WorshipperOfTheOldReligion (Blessed Be, Sybil 00:20, February 8, 2013 (UTC))

The truth is, Sybil, aside from ImperiexSeed, the only other Admins that are on the wiki (that at least I am aware of) are Hallichester (who has been absent for a long time now), Thesilentpoethosea (who has also has been absent since at least before I began editing on the wiki) and MisterRandom2 (who has rarely edited since Calebchiam made him an Admin), so basically ImperiexSeed is the "only" active Admin we have. In addition, Caleb generally only responds to messages on his talk page or handles matters brought to his attention by users, so I suggest you contact him if you want his thoughts on your ideas. Here's a link to his talk page. In regards to your suggestion for a policy page, Caleb already created multiple ones which you can find under Policies on the Categories list, however other users either are unaware of the pages or just ignore the polcies that were set as I never see anyone bring them up aside from Caleb himself. I hope I was of help. 108.225.236.91 03:03, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this imput! Perhaps some more active users should be made Admins? That way the responsibilities are shared and no one person has to bare the burden of it all. As for having to bring issues up  to Admin, that's completely understandable. However, "active" Admin should also be present enough on the sites they are the gaurdians of that they notice big issues before users have to contact them personally. They should at least watch  for changes to this, the Talk:Supernatural Wiki, page. As for the policy page, I thank you for pointing this out to me! It is a relief to know that, at least, one doesn't need to be made. However, for users to even know these exist they have to search for them. Then,  there are 2 policy categories with 8 pages between the 2 categories, one with 5 pages and the other with 3. That is not user-friendly at all! A link to a single policy page/category/whatever should be readily available on the homepage (if not in the topbar) so that users know where to find it for reference (not to mention know it even exists). Also, one of those policy pages that currently exists (Supernatural_Wiki:Simplified_ruleset) list as the 3rd rule out of 12 as "Ignore all rules." Now, I know that Wikipedia has this idea and far be it  for me  to question Wikipedia, but I really think users might be taking this too far... Perhaps our wiki should revise this to something like "Question rules that don't work or make no sense. If the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining the wiki's quality, propose changing them. If concensus is against changing them, ask for help understanding them and working within their parameters." -WorshipperOfTheOldReligion (Blessed Be, Sybil 04:14, February 8, 2013 (UTC))

I fully agree that we need more Admins, however Calebchiam is the wiki's only bureucrat. So internally, only he can give a user Admin rights which he will only do if he deems someone is experienced enough, have been on the wiki for long enough, still actively contribute and most of all he is sure they will not abuse the position. This is the impression I got from Caleb when he had denied ImperiexSeed's request to be a bureaucrat and devulged to another user on how he can eventually become an Admin. All I can say is you could suggest to him in promoting more Admins for the wiki. On a side, I looked into the rule in question and quite frankly I  have to agree as "ignore all rules" is counterdictive and in my  a highly problematic loophole as it basically allows a single user the freedom to ignore any policy as they see fit which would inevitably result in frequent edit wars with other users who follow those policies. What's the point of having policies for a wiki or even Wikipedia itself, if there's a rule that allows you to ignore them. 108.225.236.91 04:43, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does having only one Bureaucrat feel an awful lot like returning to feudal times of a dictator king with  total power and serfs who work hard but still can't  pay the taxes instead of the more democratic system the wiki is supposed to be? Now, I'm not saying that Calebchiam is a dictator at all! I only mean that one person shouldn't have so much power and responsibility. Over and over again history has showed us that that  just doesn't work - the common population stuggles in hardship and the leader either is too distanced from them to realize, too weighed down by all  his/her responsibilities, or simply doesn't care. Those systems flounder and the hard-working lower class either toil away with no hope till they die, immigrate, or revolt. So far, this wiki's system feels like the common users are toiling away or just leaving. I find that very sad! I want our wiki to truely reflect the awesomeness of the show we all love! So, I say that instead of hopelessly toiling away, leaving, or revolting, all of  us (registered & unregistered users, admin, moderators, and bureacrat(s) ) who are active unite with the common goal of working together to reevaluate our system, analyze its flaws, and fix it to the best of our combined abilities. -WorshipperOfTheOldReligion (Blessed Be, Sybil 06:51, February 8, 2013 (UTC))

If you don't you mind, Sybil, I am going to bring this discussion to Caleb's attention myself as I feel he would be opened to your ideas for improving the wiki. 108.225.236.91 07:31, February 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I've read through the discussion. I did see this a few weeks back, but didn't see a need to comment on it. I don't have a whole lot to say. Sybil's long post at the start is just a shout-out to users to get involved, which is all fine and dandy. Grammar, spelling, stuff like that, it's not a specific problem to Supernatural Wiki, it happens to all Wikis and it happens because some content creators aren't great with their grasp on English, but that's fine because we have editors to proofread and fix these errors, yeah, in any case, we all know this.


 * That being said, it's good that the issue regarding proper tenses in articles and all was brought up, what we really need is a full Style Guide - this is not a guide to grammar or pointing out common spelling mistakes, but it serves to detail how we document information on the Wiki (e.g. Dean is a hunter, Rufus was a hunter, as mentioned above). It could also detail the policy on documenting cultural elements of the show. If anyone wants to create a page at Supernatural Wiki:Style Guide, be my guest. Following community input, it can be made into official policy and referenced in disputes whenever necessary.


 * As for badges, I am strongly against implementing them on the Wiki. From experience, users end up making junk or extremely minor edits to up their edit counts and unlock 'achievements'. I also think it reveals a lot about one's motivation to edit on the Wiki. Is it to document a show that you enjoy? To spread knowledge and information? Or are you doing it for the prestige? If you want a reward for your work, the Wiki is not the place to be. Wikis want volunteers, not achievement-seekers. To implement badge programs on the site would encourage the latter. This is why the badge program was met with resistance when Wikia first suggested it, and is also why some of the larger Wikis with developed communities have chosen to reject it. Yes, it could get more users to participate, but we also lose out on the matter of principle. In any case, those are my views on the subject, feel free to disagree.


 * Regarding Ignore All Rules (IAR), which was posted in the Simplified Ruleset back in 2007…first of all, this was 5+ years ago, I don't think simplified rulesets are posted on Wikis anymore. Nonetheless, the IAR principle actually has some good reasoning behind it but it tends to be misinterpreted due to its provocative title. The other Wiki I work on (which is #2 in size, iirc), changed the IAR rule to something a lot less provocative: Use Common Sense (UCS). IAR was never meant to be used as a reason to disregard existing policies at whim, the spirit of the rule was that users should look at the fundamentals of certain policies (what the intention behind it was, what kind of ideals it is trying to encourage) rather than be fixated on following each policy to the letter and end up with a lot of bureaucratic red tape. In other words - use common sense. Basically, if your common sense tells you that ignoring a particular rule would benefit the Wiki, then go ahead and ignore it. That's the idea behind IAR anyway.


 * The policies on the Wiki aren't quite complete yet…I keep intending to institute the basic polices that keep all Wikis running smoothly but I never seem to get around to it, I'll try to get it done soon.


 * As for Sybil's analogy about my position as the lone bureaucrat on the Wiki, I find it somewhat amusing but of course, it's quite unfounded ;-) Unlike an actual dictator, I don't enjoy any luxuries/benefits from being a bureaucrat, I come to Wikis and edit and give my input and then carry on with the other things I have to do. I'm just volunteering like everyone else. No need to be quite so melodramatic about it, Sybil, this is a Wiki not feudal China. >.<


 * I am open and have always been open to having more admins on the site. I am also of the opinion that Wikis function best with 2-3 bureaucrats. Having more than one means that there are others to continue sysopping users should one bureaucrat go inactive. It also means that the bureaucrats can act as checks and balances to each others. More sysops is of course, a good thing - pages/files can be deleted faster, vandalism reverted and stopped more quickly. If you check out my talk page, you'll see that I've never rejected sysopping users because 'we have enough sysops' or anything of the sort. Getting sysop privileges does grant the user the capability to cause a lot of damage to the Wiki however, not to mention the fact that they'll be asked to resolve disputes in a neutral fashion, which is why I've only had a few requirements before I sysop users. (You can find them on the talk page of any user who has requested sysop tools from me.)


 * Ultimately, it just requires a dedicated user. Before anyone goes off and tells me that the requirements are too difficult to meet, the fact that I sysopped Imperiex (who went on to abuse his powers to block users he disagreed with, etc) should indicate that I have been quite liberal in granting them to users. I was eager to get another bureaucrat for the Wiki, that I nearly crat'ted him, that is until I took a gander on his talk page and saw what he was doing as a sysop. I rejected his request, of course, and stopped short of de-sysopping him (which I was strongly considering). Thus, I hope it can be understood that it is not my intention to make sysop/crat tools an exclusive thing, but obviously these tools cannot be handed out freely to anyone who requests for them.


 * Finally, as for what consensus means, the dictionaries have several definitions for it, but the Wiki definition is stated here, and quite well-explained might I add.


 * This ended up a little longer than I thought it would be. Cheers Calebchiam Talk 04:51, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Caleb,
 * Thank you so much for your comment! It is good to know that the wiki's policies are being looked at! I will be glad to help with that any way possible. I do think changing the IAR rule to a UCS rule is a good idea. Also, I'd be glad to help create the style guide. As for the consensus information, I greatly appreciate it!
 * - WorshipperOfTheOldReligion (Blessed Be, Sybil 18:50, February 9, 2013 (UTC))
 * PS: Please know that my analogy was in no way meant as a slight against you or your leadership! I know you work very hard and care a lot about the wiki! I only meant it as a means of expressing a problem I noticed - no one person should have to hold all the bureaucratic responsibilities; that just usually doesn't work so well. As  for being melodramatic, I apologize!- I tend to get that way when I am passionate about something; its one of my more annoying quirks. I'm very sorry if I offended you in any way! It was not my intention to do so.
 * PS: Please know that my analogy was in no way meant as a slight against you or your leadership! I know you work very hard and care a lot about the wiki! I only meant it as a means of expressing a problem I noticed - no one person should have to hold all the bureaucratic responsibilities; that just usually doesn't work so well. As  for being melodramatic, I apologize!- I tend to get that way when I am passionate about something; its one of my more annoying quirks. I'm very sorry if I offended you in any way! It was not my intention to do so.

New page?
Since we already have a page for Knights of Hell, should we also make one for King of Hell?--68.202.180.121 02:36, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * It was elaborated on the page of Hell, and on Crowley's page. It was only ever used by Crowley himself, unlike the Knights of Hell, which is a class of demon (that just happened to have only one confirmed member thus far). Personally, I think it is rather unnecessary to have a page on it. FTWinchester (talk) 02:47, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought Crowley and Azazel's different powers as Kings of Hell got compared at a con or something though, which would imply it's a real title. And Lucifer's page has him as a King of Hell. Should we zap that?--68.202.180.121 03:06, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * I took it that the position was real, but the title itself was only self-styled, much how real-life monarchs expand their official ruling titles. I don't think Azazel would call himself King of Hell as I think he believes that is reserved for Lucifer. I don't know, though. Maybe the other contributors could input more in this query FTWinchester (talk) 03:21, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Azazel served more or less as the field marshal (highest-ranking army officer) of Hell as opposed to being the king, as he led other demons on Earth  in following Lucifer's (the true ruler of Hell) orders to free Lilith in order to break the 66 seals. Wheras Crowley more than likely came up with "King of Hell" when he took over after Lucifer's reimprisionment  as only he has been referred to by that title, intially by Crowley himself. Also, to correct the uregistered user above, Lucifer's page actually refers to him as the "ruler" of Hell, not "King". With that said, I agree with FTWhinchester to the unnecessity to have  a page for it. 107.194.27.211 07:25, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Recurring
The script/code for the recurring creatures/beings on the front page is off. FTWinchester (talk) 05:19, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

I did notice it long back and tried to fix it too. But it did not work out. Even the featured images' code is off. I don't know it these templates are accessible only to admins or not as I never tried to edit them as a regular user. Anybody care to fix that? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  10:38, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well, how about that. I actually managed to edit it, but nothing changes. FTWinchester (talk) 12:25, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

I have a theory. Remove the code for the countdown clock and see what happens? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  14:13, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

My theory proved right. I removed the code for the countdown clock and all glitches on the page disappeared. I'll ask the person who designed the Countdown clock to tweak its code. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  15:35, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then. FTWinchester (talk) 16:55, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Relationships
I've noticed that most of the Relationships pages that stand on their own (by which I mean pages like Dean and Ruby, Sam and Jo, Bobby and Castiel) are unneccessary because they are essentially just summaries of episodes the characters in question have been in together, occasionally with something like, "He felt concerned for her." My suggestion for these pages (and I'll start doing it if no one objects) is to trim them down and better explain the relationships instead of "She did this, he did this, and this happened."

I'm not sure if this is gonna fly, but if possible, I'd like to remake most of these pages as entries on the Dean's Relationships, Sam's Relationships, etc., because honestly, there's only so much you can say about two characters' relationship before it turns into wordcruft and speculation. Most wikias have a character's relationships with others on the character's page itself (like so). I'd like that to eventually be the case here.NaiflidG (talk) 23:19, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Haunted Houses
I've enjoyed this site a lot, often perusing the site during episodes or doing research for info to add to my websites, but I'd like to suggest one more category: Haunted Locations. I would be handy (at least to me) to find at a glances locations reported as haunted or known as haunted houses in the series. Thor2000 (talk) 14:08, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Let's see what others think of it. RaghavD  Heck yes, I'm so ODD!!  16:03, August 30, 2013 (UTC)