Forums: Index The Impala Citation Change

Need your opinion on this guys: Supernatural Wiki talk:Citations

It's been more than five years since I authored this and I have noticed I now disagree on something I have written down before.

If the information is contained in an official Supernatural book or companion, then the book could also be cited.

The companion books and even the Essential Supernatural are now horribly outdated and I don't think it is proper to still cite them. But because this is now a policy and every editor are equal, I would need your opinions on the matter. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 23:16, December 22, 2019 (UTC)

Support - a positive vote.
Oppose - a negative vote.
Neutral - a neutral vote.
Comment/Observation/Note - a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to close voting and make a decision on a specified date.
{Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat.

Discussion[edit source]

  • Support - For sure. This has become an issue in the last day or so with an unregistered user repeatedly kicking up a fuss over whether or not Alastair in the second demon or not. Seriously, its getting annoying.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:30, December 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - While the information may be outdated now, it is still a canon piece of work, and Supernatural has frequently contradicted past canon and past lore even within the show itself. I think that the information should still at least be considered in the notes and trivia section of character pages. Dtol (talk) 00:00, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I agree with Dtol. Even outdated they are still canon in some content and this is why we have trivia sections.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 00:27, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - IMO, anything coming from licensed Supernatural media should be on the wiki. However, we do know that not all licensed media is created equal, in that a side story in a book, for example, doesn't matter to the series. Thus, I think the information should be kept, but it should be mentioned that it comes from a specific source. I think that's how all information should be treated - as statements made in licensed media, whatever that media may be. Orion (T-B-C) 00:47, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion - It could be listed under the Trivia sections like we do for non-canon things like the two Anubis', but a lot of the information is otherwise contradicted in the show. Like Alastair potentially being the second demon being contradicted by Stuck in the Middle (With You) which suggests Lilith and the Princes of Hell were the first five demons. We've got an unregistered user who seems to be trying to badger us into getting his way about this very issue and its seriously getting annoying.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 01:10, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - What I wanted to say about the Princes of Hell is exactly that, as well as about the Princes of Hell, also about the Knights of Hell, that the Knights of Hell are the very first hand picked by Lucifer, so Crowley does not necessarily confirm it has that the princes of hell are older than the knights of hell or other white-eyed demons, exactly as well as Dtol on Alastair's talk page.

Henry said: Knights of Hell are hand-picked by Lucifer himself. They are of the first-fallen, first-born demons.

Crowley said: The oldest of the old demons. The first generation after Lilith. Lucifer turned them himself, before the oceans drank Atlantis. Which really begs the question who the next demons really are, who were created shortly after Lilith?

The Essential Supernatural stated: Alastair is at least very old and powerful, possibly the second oldest demon ever created. I would say that Alastair was created at the time of the Prince of Hell

Nothing on the show proves irrefutably that the Princes of Hell are older than the Knights of Hell or Alastair.

I would suggest that we view this as a canon discrepancy

Neither the show nor Supernatural's books have confirmed how old Samhain actually is, and yet this wiki assumes that it was created prior to Lucifer's imprisonment at the same time as the Knights of Hell. The information from Alastair as the second demon that was created only after Lilith was at least confirmed by the writers. So if the information about Alastair as the second demon created only after Lilith is wrong, then the information about the age of Samhain in the story section is also wrong. Conclusion is: Alastair is the second oldest demon ever created (determined), but the Princes and/or Knights of Hell were the first demons after Lilith, in the form of the very first generation and/or order after Lilith. Alastair, however, was a single demon and therefore cannot be compared to the Princes and/or Knights of Hell. If this is not the case, it could also be due to bad writing. 89.166.232.40 (talk)

  • Discussion - There's the unregistered user I mentioned posting that comment in completely the wrong place. This is not the forum for that discussion but they won't give up.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:50, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Hm... in my opinion, books and TV canon should be separated or else, there'd be chaos. I'm going to echo what the previous users said and say that information from the "official" books should be put on the Trivia section or a whole new section dedicated to it. Touchinos (talk) 04:41, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion - I don't know if it's coincidence or the same person but the subreddit of Supernatural is also recently barraged by people who bring up the Essential Supernatural. It is official material, yes. But official materials can also be non-canon (or follow their own canon): i.e., the animation series, or the novels, etc. I agree with the notion that they should be mentioned but in the Trivia/Notes section as opposed to the main article. The show retconning itself I think is not the same as the show retconning the companion books, because they are separate forms of media. The show is correcting itself, and, ultimately, the show is our highest form of canon. FTWinchester (talk) 13:11, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I already messaged FTWinchester. But I still think as it’s official source of canon material for the first few seasons it should remain in some form. Maybe put all the information on the Pad page and citation any direct retcons or changes in canon.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 15:27, February 25, 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion - I think that if a source was intended to be canon when it was created (i believe that to be the case of the Pad), then any contradiciton with the series should be considered just a canon discrepancy, with the latest information being the most relevant, reguardless of the source/media it was presented. I believe that novels and comic books are for sure non-canon, but for other companion/immersive books like John Winchester's Journal, Bobby Singer's Guide to Hunting, etc i really don't know if they should be considered non-canon or canon with Canon Discrepancies. Of course that if a major actor, producer/writer of the series or a writer of a certain media ever states that something is canon, then i believe that no further discussion should be needed and the piece of media should be considered canon and any contradictions considered canon discrepancies. And someone knows if the novels/comic books were ever described or promoted as tie-ins to the series? Doctor49 (talk) 16:19, February 25, 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion - The canon discrepancy page could get unnecessarily bloated with official materials that carry a lot of non-canon information. I don't think that's a good idea. Personally, I think the highest form of canon we have is the TV series. Think of it this way: if an official material carries 10 pages of canon content but 90 pages of non-canon (or retconned) content--are we really comfortable in our articles getting muddled by a majority of such content? If an official canon material and the show support each other most of the time, then highlighting the few discrepancies makes sense. The whole purpose of citing a material outside the show was to support canon status. If we are citing them for mistakes or outdated information--then maybe we shouldn't have those citations/content to begin with, except perhaps in miscellaneous or trivia sections. FTWinchester (talk) 16:36, February 25, 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the books (Companion books etc.) are still worthy to be cited in the wiki and it would be wrong to cut them out, since this wiki is about Supernatural, however the mentioned idea to add them in the Trivia/Notes or completely in a new section is not a bad idea. If necessary we could create subpages for Canon Discrepancies page.

--Mgdodl (talk) 08:13, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

  • Discussion - Moving outdated info to the Trivia/Notes would be agreeable to me. If they remain canon then by all means, they could remain in the main article/body. FTWinchester (talk) 16:05, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.