Needs a quote
Does anyone remeber a good quote for monsters, that we can put on this page, all the other important pages have one. General MGD 109 23:28, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure. Can't seem to remember one that collaborates all them, there's ones that individually describes them, not as a whole. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:36 PM, July 17th 2012
I know, me neither thats why I put the question on here, I figured some one would remeber one, my best guess is it would have been said in the sixth season, that was the surposed monster season. General MGD 109 23:43, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Like there's some for Wendigos, Werewolves, and Shapeshifters, yes. However, there's not one that depicts and circulates them all, possibly other than Eve's comment of them. Maybe she let one slip. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:46 PM, July 17th 2012
- That's what I figured, now we just have to wait till some one else thinks of one, or remeber one. On another subject, is there a quote on the ghost page? General MGD 109 23:49, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
As she's mentioned in apperances as a monster, and is a native of Purgetory (which I assume means, her soul goes there when she dies, as nothing naturally lives in Purgetory, as it was made as a prison.) Shouldn't she be mentioned somewhere on this list? General MGD 109 (talk) 22:26, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing, we don't know what type of monster she was. So, where would you say we list her? -- ImperiexSeed, 9:17 PM, August 16th 2012
- Personally, I think we should make a page for her race of Monster ("Visyak's Race" maybe) that way she can be listed. AaronHW (talk) 03:35, August 17, 2012 (UTC)AaronHW
- I like that idea, I'll do it. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:15, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, no. Definitely not. Her race was not even seen/mentioned, so no. Sorry, but we know nothing of her race, so making a page for it would be unnecessary. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:39 PM, August 17th 2012
- We do know a few things (powers for instance,) but I surpose your right, it isn't enough information to make a page, I'm sorry I didn't see your addition till after I made the page. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:26, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
- It's fine, it's just doesn't warrant an entire page. For future reference, if we don't know the name of something, the race (biology, traits, nature), or the like, please don't make a page for it. Thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:57 PM, August 17th 2012
- We do know a few things (powers for instance,) but I surpose your right, it isn't enough information to make a page, I'm sorry I didn't see your addition till after I made the page. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:26, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think it does, and I vote for a petition to remove the page from speedy deletion. Wikis are supposed to list all possible things that can be known from a certain universe.
Votes 2 Leviathans vs 10 jefferson starships who won
Shapeshifters eating humans?
Isn't it possible that Edgar mean shapeshifters are vunerable to vamptonite in general. Because assuming that shapeshifters dont eat humans and eat the same food humans do then presumably they'd still be poisoned by it. Which would make more sense as the leviathan were trying to exterminate all things which kill humans or eat them. So it's more likely shapeshifters don't eat humans but actually are just vunerable to the syrup.
Although not mentioned in the series, the Ōkami is stated in Bobby Singer's Guide to Hunting to be pretty much a Japanese werewolf. I don't know for sure if the book is canon, but it is official. The Ōkami in the book is the same Ōkami that Bobby references in the episode Weekend at Bobby's. Even so, the criteria for ranking monsters on this page is a bit vague, to begin with. I suggest we rank the Ōkami along with the Werewolf. FTWinchester (talk) 19:37, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
So there similair in traits, that doesn't put them on the same level, Werewolves are higher-tier monsters, when ever they refer to one, it near always described in a way showing great respect and fear for them, for example when listing his achivements, in a self motivation speach (Of Grave Importance), of all the monsters he's ever faced, Bobby chose werewolves, likewise Dean describes them as "Bad Ass" and "Powerful" (Heart). The Okami in "Weekend At Bobbys" Didn't seem to be that powerful, I mean granted Bobby only defeats it using a food chipper, but still, it was hardly that strong, from what we've seen it doesn't seem strong enough to rank it in the same level, Skinwalkers have also been called the cousin of the werewolf, but there hardly of the same rank. If it returns, and if proves tougher, then yes it can be moved up, but until then all the evidence we have say its weaker monsters. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:28, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
- The book did not just say cousin. The book meant similar in every way other than their geographical distribution and weakness. Jefferson Starships were supposedly the perfect beast, but in their debut and only appearance, they were also killed rather easily by Sam and Dean in the precinct. FTWinchester (talk) 23:32, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Well the thing is books can't always be taken for face value, and my point is the Okami didn't seem that powerful in the episode. As for the Jefferson Starships, in all fairness there were only three of them, two were killed by the four, and they may have been strong monsters, but Bobby, Sam, Dean and Cass are all highly capable fighters, the fact they carry silver knifes gave them a edge over them. Besides don't forget Eve was still working out the kinks at the time, the ones near the end, fared a lot better, so perhaphs she had only just finished perfecting them. By the way, thanks about the Banshee, I was unaware of this information. General MGD 109 (talk) 23:54, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. Anyway, before I start correcting spelling on the feeding habits, do you recall any instance saying dragons feed solely on virgins? As far as I remember, they were only abducting virgins to find Eve a vessel. FTWinchester (talk) 00:04, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Glad you've seen sense, and I know it wasn't stated, but it is implied, for starters one of the distingushing traits, they use to identify them is the virgins, something which is common in european dragon lore (and some asian I think) second they only needed one girl to be Eve's vessel, what do you think all the others ones they captured were for? Thirdly it stands to reason, as at no point were they shown abducting anyother type of person, so what did they eat? It wasn't directly stated, but its quiet obvious from the episode thats what they do, plus thats what the real world lore says, so its mearly a case of putting two and two togther. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:10, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
- You can't blame me for asking. I have experienced a lot of double standards in this wiki where someone would not take an implicit canon reference but would accept info from vaguely canon sources. At least the debate would be limited on the talk page instead of becoming an edit tug-of-war. FTWinchester (talk) 00:13, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't blame you, your perfectly right to check, I to have experianced this problem, and undid countless edits where just that had happened. General MGD 109 (talk) 00:21, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
when edgar points out that the food additive kills shifters couldnt he just have meant that if shifters eat actual food with the additve they'll die? cause shifters have never been seen eating or even expressing the desire to eat humans so presumably they eat something else. and if that was just regular food then the shifters might just die when eating that rather than eating humans. does that make more sense?
Let's not forget, Leviathan are way, way older than humans, and even Angels and Archangels. So they'd know a lot about the nature and characteristics of a Shapeshifter. So, if they said a Shifter would die upon eating their additive, it likely implies that they need nourishment, or even that they need human food. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:24 PM, February 14th 2013
Are Familiar's really monsters? They admit that if there not it begs the question what are they. But they don't seem like monsters, they seem more akin to Gollems, creatures created by magic. Also at no point was it referanced they were monsters, or anything like monsters. Should we class them as monsters or not? What do you think. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:54, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
The page states that low ranking monsters have the weakest abilities and are the easiest to kill. But okami are still listed. While they possess few abilties, aren't they probably one of the hardest to kill. I mean how easy is it to stab a vicious creature seven times with a bamboo dagger blessed by a shinto priest? Granted Bobby's woodchipper works wonders but woodchipper trumps everything. So shouldn't okami rank higher just due to how hard they are to kill?
This is really just me having fun and thinking out loud, and I know that wendigos are humans that turned cannibal but I think it would be interesting if that wasn't only a human thing, say if a vampire ate another vampire then it would become more powerful and blah blah, just thought it was interesting, plus I miss wendigos, they're one of my favorite monsters.
Cannibalism is most likely just one of numeral factors needed to cause the changing into a wendigo, although I could be wrong. I really feel you're grasping at straws on this. But depending on the number of factors, a vampire eating another vampire may or may not be enough to cause a shifting of their entire physiology to a wendigo. So if any angel ate another angel, they'd what, turn into a wendigo? -- ImperiexSeed, 4:19 PM, March 1st 2014
That's, as far as I know, is how turning into a wendigo works for humans. Also take note this is just an idea and not an arguement or anything like that. As I understand it, a human would eat one or more other humans to survive then turning themselves into a wendigo. I don't think if an angel ate another angel they would turn into a wendigo, this was more of an idea that I thought would be cool. Bigmar6775 (talk) 23:22, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
No? Then fine, but then the act of cannibalism isn't the determining factor for changing into a wendigo. What, would you say, makes the difference for humans then an angel or another creature? Since we're throwing out ideas, I'm curious. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:35 PM, March 2nd 2014
Once again, just an idea. In the actual Supernatural universe, only humans can turn into a wendigo. This was more of a fan idea. If angel ate another angel on the show, it probably wouldn't turn into a wendigo. Angels exist on a different plane of existence also so that could change things. Maybe a vampire eating a vampire could turn into some sort of hybrid, but I really don't know. Once again... Idea.Bigmar6775 (talk) 20:59, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
Please don't say that again, I know it's an idea. That may well be, but "just a human thing" is very ambiguous but I'll leave this be. However, I'd like you to see I was just trying to stretch this out into what is the reasoning why cannibalizing just turns them into a wendigo-what is the underlining factor, or are there components without which would disrupt this process? Very well, the angel thing is satisfactorily reasonable. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:31 PM, March 3rd 2014
The Tiers system has left out a fair number of monsters and possible-monsters: Crocata, Shtriga (which the show identifies as a kind of witch but behaves more like a monster) Rakshasa, Baku, Banshee, Soul Eaters, Bisaan, Pishtaco, plus all the creatures from the comics and novels (such as Selkies, Oni, and Borderwalkers).
Couldn't help but notice that Crocotta, Rakshasa, Sirens and Pishtacos have been omitted, these were on here before. Any reason why they're not considered monsters now? They're still listed as monsters on the superwiki.
Edit: Also I happen to be watching a Season 10 episode "Hibbing 911". When Donna Hanscum asked Dean about the events in the episode The Purge, Dean refers to the Pishtacos as "Monsters sucking on your fat". Bkshadows (talk)
So there has to be no consensus as to the removal of Crocotta, Pishtacos, and Rakshasa from the monster list? Are they going to another list, are are they just free-standing beings now? Reka12452 (talk) 15:58, November 5, 2016 (UTC)
Uhm hey, sorry for late response. Monsters are children of Eve. We have no clue that Crocotta, Siren and Rakshasa are monsters. Most of the beings are referred are monsters but few of them were confirmed to be one. I am still not sure about Kitsune tho. SeraphLucifer (talk) 16:06, November 5, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Ok, I guess I'm getting hung up on the phrase "confirmed to be one." What did/does this confirmation process consist of? If monsters are *only* the ones that we saw or know that Crowley rounded up, there are few other non-monsters on the current monster list as well. Dean calling something a monster doesn't "confirm"? Besides, the person that removed the aformentioned beings from the list didn't even move them to the "Unknown Ranking" or "Non-Canon" sections, they simply removed them the monster page altogether. Reka12452 (talk) 16:59, November 5, 2016 (UTC)
Which ones are not monsters on the list you think? If Dean/Sam calls something monster, that doesn't really confirm that thing is a monster. They called Crowley, Deities monster either. What do you think we should do anyways Reka? SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:06, November 5, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
A group of beings where edited out of the monsters page with the explanation "Those are not confirmed to be monsters". When i saw that, I thought "crocottas, pichtacos and arachne aren't confirmed monsters?? Well then, what are they?? What's 'confirmation' consist of? Are they just in confirmation purgatory?? Will they ever find a home on page? Then I saw vetalas, and lamias and kitsune on the page and I thought, "what confirmation process happened with them, that didn't happen the crocottas, pishtacos and other deleted ones? It can't be that one group is hunger-based and the other isn't, or that one group were captured by Crowley or seen in purgatory and the other wasn't, so what is the litmus test? So, i'm not declaring "we should do" anything, it would just be nice to be enlightened with answers to these questions so that i understand what/who makes the non-obvious monster determinations. Reka12452 (talk) 18:09, November 5, 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Reka, as he said I'm not sure what/who is making the non monster determinations. They're still listed as monsters on the Supernatural Super Wiki. While Dean and Sam have referred to Crowley and others as monsters many times. Dean also referred to Tessa as an "angel" in one line of the series and it destroyed several years of canon. We took Dean at his word then. Shouldn't we take it now? He definitely called pishtacos monsters, so I'm inclined to believe they are along with arachnes. Sam and Samuel said the last one was seen 2000 years earlier only for one to show up after they discussed how all of the monsters were acting erratic that season when Crowley put his Purgatory plan in motion. I generally assumed that most of the creatures on Supernatural were children of Eve and monsters excluding spiritual creatures such as Soul Eaters, Shojos, Banshees etc. I'm just not sure what happened as Reka asked what is the test on declaring what is a monster and what isn't? Bkshadows
Well, the list used to contain every single creature we saw in the show. But after season 6, monsters were revealed to be descendants of Eve. So we have to put the confirmed creatures that were related to Eve. I was doing the list recently, without adding any kind of speculation of course. Firstly, Alphas are confirmed to be Eve's children. That proves werewolves, shapeshifters, vampires etc. are monsters. Wendigo was also confirmed to be a monster, Ellsworth confirmed that. Okami and Lamia were confirmed by Bobby and they migrated US in order to join Eve. Nachzehrers are related with ghouls and vampires. Also, ep 9x20 revealed that Vetalas are monsters either. Most importantly, the creatures end up in Purgatory are monsters as you know. I don't think Arachne, Crocotta are monsters but I'll check transcripts again. Only, I am not sure about Kitsune on that list. It's good that you brought this topic up. We need discuss and renew the page. SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:34, November 6, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Hey, Seraph. i guess i just haven't conveyed to you why your repeating "Eve's children" isn't clearing up anything for me. I of course already know that Alphas, etc. are Eve's Children. What i don't understand is why you think that the beings you took off that list ARE NOT ALSO HER CHILDREN. *OR* if they are not her children, why they are not still monsters but simply another branch. Motherless monsters, if you will. Because when was the word "monsters" deemed synonymous with "Eve's children"? What other category have you decided that we call these outliers? and btw, i don't understand how Eve can be the mother of formerly human wendigos just because Ellsworth uttered their name, but Dean's say-so is no good for pishtacos. Am i making sense? Anyone?Reka12452 (talk) 09:53, November 6, 2016 (UTC)
I get what your saying Reka, I'm just as baffled as you are. As Reka said of course we already know that alphas etc are Eve's children.. what we don't understand is why you think that the beings you took off that list are not also her children? Again I thought the show established very clearly in Season 6 that EVERY supernatural creature excluding Angels and Demons can be traced back to Eve. As Ben Edlund said "Eve is the mother of a bloodline, the birthing entity at the moment of genesis for ALL the lines of monsterdom." We know that includes Vampires, werewolves, etc.. Why wouldn't this still include Arachnes, Crocottas, Pishtacos and Sirens? They were all called monsters by one character or another in their respective episodes. What were asking is what is your reasoning for believing they're not monsters? and who said they weren't in Purgatory? As Reka again pointed out how can we take the word of Ellsworth's when he says its a monster but not Dean's? Dean explicitly stated pishtacos were monsters. Sure he could have been using slang, as they sometimes do, but this also goes back to the argument in season 9 over the Tessa is a angel comment. I'll always believe he was using slang, a few other users did as well but it was the decision of the community that since we saw him on screen calling Tessa an angel. It was established as canon, I think this situation should be no different.
The only creatures that I am unsure of as being monsters are Banshees, Soul Eaters and Shojos because they're non-corporeal spiritual beings. Where as Eve herself was corporeal. However that's just my personal opinion, they too could also very well be her children. Bkshadows
Hey guys, I am so sorry for the late response "again" , I checked the transcripts and most of them are not even called as monster on the episode. This list was made by someone way before I join the wiki. I changed them as we don't have an exact proof that some of them are not monsters. Without certain confirmations, we can't presume that they are monsters. For example Arachne. As you know Greek Gods exist on the show and they could be created by either Zeus, Prometheus etc. but that is a speculation too. First of all, we are certain that the creatures that end up in Purgatory are monsters, the ones Crowley captured and Alphas. By the way Tessa has been called angel by Dean did not put Reapers in angel category. This Wiki's only unreliable page is Reapers, we still discuss it with FTWinchester. And Reka, I'd say that Crocotta Soul Eater is monster but Season 6 changed the definition of "Monster" as you know. If you have any suggesstions and questions about certain monsters, lets talk about them if they belong to the list or not. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:09, November 18, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
Nothing is for certain on Supernatural, new ideas or retcons keep popping up everywhere, like Mary still hunting after Dean was born. It's best not to take in new information and remove all past information. A creature that is neither human, angel nor demon belongs here, as there is no other category for it. Although Ben Edlund said "all the lines of monsterdom" descend from Eve, it is never explicitly stated what and what not that includes. We don't know where Shojos came from, and wendigos were human beings who ate human flesh. The word "monster" is also used rather loosely, with Gabriel referring to pagan deities as monsters in "Hammer of the Gods", but they are not Eve's children, are they? At least, their true origin has never been made clear.
Personally, I think this page should be the home for all non-angels, non-humans, non-deities and non-demons. Unless the show makes things clear, we need to be a little more lenient with how we use categories and pages, not be super strict about who or what goes where. Kajune (talk) 15:32, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
Well, then we'll add every creatures on this page divided by 2 sections; ones that are descendants of Eve and the unconfirmed ones. Any other offerings or views? SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:36, November 18, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
I think that all creatures in SPN other than the obvious exceptions are part of "monsterdom" and belong on the page. I find that the emphasis on 'confirmation' just serves to shine a light on lapses in the writing, frankly, which kind of annoys me. Having said that, as long as all monsters are acknowledged on the page, i won't fuss about what section they're assigned to. 00:06, November 19, 2016 (UTC) Reka12452 (talk) 00:08, November 19, 2016 (UTC)
I'm in agreement to list all of the monsters out, as Reka said I don't mind what categories they're in, as long as they're listed on the page. I feel creatures that are neither angel, demon, or deity belong here. Bkshadows
New Monsters Season 12
Are there new Monsters in Season 12?
Arachnes are clearly descendants of Eve
Arachnes appeared first and only in Season 6. This was the season where monsters were going all on the offensive on Eve's orders, including by going transcontinental and showing up in unexpected countries. Given the context where the Arachnes, a Greek monster species, appeared in America, we can guess that they were working under Eve's orders. Likewise I don't understand why the entry groups the Kitsune species away from other Eve's descendants. They very much look like regular monsters to me.SonOfEve (talk) 08:23, November 25, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but this isn't definitive proof. For now, it's still clearly speculation, because no one said that they are monsters, and we shouldn't really be 'guessing' their species. I don't know about the Kitsune, but just because real-world lore says so, doesn't mean it's fact on SPN. Demons are fallen angels in real-world lore, but they're not on the show. Dtol (talk) 11:56, November 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Again, Kitsunes are clearly related to the monsters sired by Eve, and I'm not talking of any lore, I'm talking about what was seen on the show. They have two main abilities, their super-strength and some animal-like features they use to hunt their prey (their claws, just like vampires rely on their teeth). What's more, like other monsters, they feed mainly on the human body. And they don't have magical superpowers such as teleportation and telekinesis. All this makes them more similar to other Monsters than to angels, demons, fairies, and so on. It is a stretch to say that they're different from vampires or werewolves to group them together. The entry says their powers are too specific compared with that of more well-established monsters, but really, what specific powers do Kitsunes have that other monsters don't? Their powers are actually all standard Monster. SonOfEve (talk) 08:09, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- As to the Arachnes, there's another evidence pointing to their being monsters, which I did not mention before: the fact that they have the power to turn humans into one of their own. This is not an ability ever demonstrated by angels or demons or fairies or banshees. It's an ability often employed instead by vampires and werewolves. Oh, and Eve. SonOfEve (talk) 08:18, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- It's still sort of speculation by this point. Just because their abilities resemble those that are confirmed to be monsters, doesn't me they are. Until it's stated outright on the show, it's technically speculation. Things have been removed from pages with a lot of evidence, but are still deemed to be speculation. Dtol (talk) 12:15, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
Fairies are ther own generalization, do not belong under monsters
I dont understand why fairies and fairy types are on this page. Fairies have their own little world, if you will. Angels have Heaven, Demons have Hell, Monsters have Purgatory, Ghosts have the Veil, and Fairies have Avalon. Why are they on this page?
(2600:1700:BBA0:A190:ECC7:DD6:DB22:1FEF 21:46, January 9, 2018 (UTC))
Fairies are on this page as creatures with unknown creators. Angels, Demons (and Ghosts) all have clear origin and creators outlined by the show. As fairies are mostly unknown, they are generalised here with other origin-unknown creatures, possibly because the word 'monster' is used quite broadly in the show. Dtol (talk) 21:55, January 9, 2018 (UTC)
First next time do not insert a new topic in the middle of an old one, make sure you do so after the other conversation. As for this topic please see the topic above named monster omitted. The explanation was given there and consensus reached. Now can and admin move this entire topic to the end of page were it should have been instead of the middle of the Arachnes topic--ThomasNealy (talk) 05:13, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
I am undoing your edit. Do not go against consensus again. It was decided along time ago to have them on this page. Furthermore they do not have a known origin. Do you know who made them? It was never said in show where they came from. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:48, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
Monsters omitted part 2
It seems that this issue needs to be reopened. So once again we need a consensus on what does and does not go on the monster page. User:Thetwindler has a good idea about creating a new page Creature to cover all the things that are not descended from Eve. I undid his edit not because I disagree with it but rather because the concensses on the topic from '16 was that "this page should be the home for all non-angels, non-humans, non-deities and non-demons." Please give your opinion on the matter. Personally I would rather have the monster page be just that a monster page. --ThomasNealy (talk) 22:47, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
I don't know... They are just referred to as "monsters" in the show and frankly we don't know what is and isn't descended from Eve half of the time.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:00, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better for those unknown origin to be on the monster page, because like WG18 said, a lot of those species are referred to as 'monsters', and a creatures page just seems a little unnecessary. Dtol (talk) 23:06, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is about the creatures from the Bad Place. My opinion, monsters from the Bad Place are still monsters despite not being descended from Eve. For all we know, seeing the identity of the hooded figure, there could even be an alternate Eve in the Bad Place who spawned more monsters than in the main world. If the Bad Place wasn't still a parallel universe like Apocalypse World (whatever we're calling it) I'd have called them aliens. But I agree, anything that's not a human, demon, angel, ghost, deity, primordial being, or regular animal should be categorized as "monster". KillRoy231 (talk) 23:15, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
I believe the monsters from the Bad Place should be added as they were evil creatures and didn't show signs of being human. Also, why were they even excluded as they can easily be identified as monsters and the characters identified them as such. (Kingdevo215 (talk) 23:24, January 19, 2018 (UTC))
while also a good point the issue right now is if we should divide the monster page into two pages. one for eve and her descendants and one for everything else in monsters. which would also have an impact on the bad place things that you brought up. or leave it all as one page and delete the new Creature page that User:Thetwindler created --ThomasNealy (talk) 23:31, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
would that include the other non-monster monsters. like elves, fairies, zana, animals, and everything listed under creature,unknown rank right now? basically keeping it as he home for all non-angels, non-humans, non-deities and non-demons. as the last debate decided?--ThomasNealy (talk) 00:12, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
Ehh I’m just gonna give my 2 cents. Gotta agree with Thetwindler on the fairy debate don’t know how they got on here. Guess I never even noticed before, but it seemed like the debate was going nowhere so I never checked back. Like someone said fairies are connected to Avalon. I think it’s a safe assumption to say they aren’t monsters because of they originate from the fairy realm. I think all creatures connected to Avalon should be classified as a type of fairy and nothing more. Don’t know why Zanna is on the page either, all monsters have usually been malevolent at one point or another. Zanna were created specifically to be guardian angels to children. That doesn’t seem to go with the common attributes of a monster, wherever they come from I think it’s safe to assume it sure as hell wasn’t from Eve.
I realize I’m bringing a couple old things but I forgot all about this debate. Honestly I go by the Super-wiki when it comes to defining these things. The writers of the show have confirmed that that’s they’re go to website when they’re writing the scripts. On there it has a monster page that list them as Amazons, Arachnes, Banshee, Baku, Changeling, Chupacabra, Crocotta, Djinn, Dragons, Ghouls, Gorilla-Wolves, Jefferson Starships, Khan Worm, Kitsune, Kraken, Lamia, Leviathans, Nachzehrer, Okami, Phoenix, Pishtaco, Qareen, Rakshasa, Rawhead, Rugaru, Shapeshifters, Sirens, Skinwalkers, Soul Eater, Vampires, Vetala, Wendigo, Werewolves, Whispers, Wraiths. And I agree with them. I think I was taken a little too literal when I said everything that isn’t an angel, demon, deity or ghost should be on here. Obviously there are exceptions such as the Whore of Babylon, she’s a creature from hell definitely not connected to Eve, nor Purgatory and definitely not a monster, same with the Shedim. I suspect the Bisaan and Shojo aren’t listed on there because they’re spirits. Shtriga isnt listed because its a type of witch. Familiars are a type of creature, not a monster. As far as I'm concerned the classification of a monster is the list I just copied from the Super-Wiki. I think those should be the ONLY creatures listed on this page. I realize you guys will do consensus as always. Just giving my opinion on the subject. Bkshadows (talk)
I feel like laughing now. Your statement was indeed taken very literally. It was your comment that shaped how the page was dealt with since nov of '16. it was also on your comment that the consensus reached a compromise. well let's see what everyone else has to say on it now lol. --ThomasNealy (talk) 03:17, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think we should make a page to separate creatures.For while, called monsters they aren’t of Eve’s creation. Reason is, the arguments of what is and isn’t a creature made by Eve would grow. We have general pages with notable exceptions. Example, the Deities page. While it is mostly for the pagan gods, Lucifer and God are mentioned as while not pagan gods, they with Lucifer far less considered a deity by some. It also makes note of other beings listed as under the same title or of similar status. My point. The monster page should have a section, with creatures of unknown origin or lineage. As some monsters not aligned with Eve aren’t of one race of monsters.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 06:07, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
In my view, all Purgatory-linked creatures, ie, all creatures that were born in Purgatory or who go there when they die, count as monsters. This includes Eve's children, but is not limited to them, as some species who were not born from her have been called monsters. Yes, I do know that angels and demons are not Purgatory creatures, and they have at times been referred to as such, for example, when "monster" is used in the sense of "evil being". But beasts have been called monsters in the non-moral way even if it is known that they are not descended from Eve. For example, when Sam said that vampires and Leviathans are "cousin monsters", he was using that description in a morally neutral way, to denote that these two species shared ancestry. Monsters (including Leviathans) share many common characteristics - they feed on humans in a predatory or parasitic way, and their powers (unlike those of angels, demons, fairies, etc.) are of a physical or biological character. Most, perhaps all, also seem to have the ability to turn a human organism into one resembling their own species. That's why creatures such as Kitsune and Arachne should be classed as monsters even if they've never been explicitly linked to Eve or to Purgatory - because they possess all the basic characteristics of an Eve-related species and none of heaven- or hell-bound supernatural beings. That's also why Banshsees, for example, shouldn't count as monsters - their ability to become invisible or to pass through walls is clearly magical, not physical, in nature. Another good argument against making their being monsters is that they're vulnerable to wardings and signals. Monsters, like humans, never seem vulnerable to this kind of stuff - only magical beings, such as angels and demons, are. The Cloaked creatures share a lot in common with Monsters, but they don't count as one, I guess, because they belong to what is either a different planet or another dimension - they have therefore nothing to do ancestrally with Purgatory's creatures. (That is, unless it turns out that they come from some type of Another Dimension Purgatory.) I like Bkshadows's list and if it is true that the writers use it as their go-to source, then it's Monster list shouldn't be controversial. SonOfEve (talk) 18:19, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
SonOfEve, were in agreement. Kitsune and Arachne are already classified as monsters in my book, per the show, because as you said they possess all the basic characteristics of an Eve-related species and none of heaven- or hell-bound supernatural beings. Now whether it will be listed on this particular wiki is up to the consensus. As you mentioned in paragraphs earlier, monsters were acting erratic in Season 6. Given the context where Samuel says the Arachnes, a Greek monster species, appeared in America for the first time in decades we can conclude that they were working under Eve's orders and it would fit that narrative that all monsters were acting erratic that season. I also agree with your definition of a monster as “they feed on humans in a predatory or parasitic way and their powers (unlike those of angels, demons, fairies, etc.) Most, perhaps all, also seem to have the ability to turn a human organism into one resembling their own species.” This has proven to be true in the show and that statement right there also rules out fairies, familiars and Zanna as a type of monster.
You also bring up an interesting point about the banshees being non-physical and how monsters have never been affected by sigils; I assume this is why Shōjō and Bisaan aren’t listed as monsters over on the Super-Wiki, because they are non-physical, spiritual beings. However the only reason I’m willing to over look this (only in a banshee’s case) is because it’s a monster on the Super-Wiki and they’re usually spot on about just about everything. I can post some links if it needs to be confirmed to anyone that the Super-Wiki is used by the writers as their source of info. Multiple writers, and even Jared and Jensen have said it is their number one go to on all things Supernatural. In that case the monster list from over there could be considered to be pretty official. Also while banshess are non-physical they do feed on human brains and feeding on human flesh is often a monster trait.
Twilight, I understand your argument of leaving monsters of unknown ranking on here however; I’m not sure what that would consider. I don’t believe Zanna, are monsters for the reasons I stated above, nor the Whore of Babylon, nor fairies, familiars or Shtriga. That just leaves Eleanor Visyak's Species and I have no problem with keeping her considering she’s from Purgatory. If we are to make a list of monsters that are unconfirmed to come from Eve on the page in my opinion it should consist of Eleanor Visyak's species. Of course the list of non-canon monsters can remain because they're just that. Non-Canon. Bkshadows (talk)
I think creating an entirely new article for creatures colloquially called "monsters" that aren't proven descendants of Eve is silly. In fact, I think we should just add all creatures called "monsters" in the show to the "Monster/s" categories and create another one for "Descendants of Eve", or "Known Descendants of Eve".
Basically anything aside from Leviathans and Reapers, that is linked to Purgatory is a monster. My point is aside from Vampires, Shapeshifters, Werewolves, Ruguru, Ghouls, and few others, there are some creatures that seem to be of unknown creation. Like the Zanna. However we don’t know there creator(s). Maybe instead of making a page for supposed monsters not of Eve’s Alphas. We make a category for Supernatural Beings of Unknown Origin. This way only creatures proven to be either of Eve’s Alphas or created by her go on the monster page.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 04:59, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
Man what a big discution, i was with internet problems but anyway, resuming, i think the creatures page unnecessary and redundant, should be deleted, and the Creatures section on this page shall remain at it is, i aways see saw this section as a list of the creatures of unknown creator/origin and not necessarily as related to Eve, even the ones that clearly are not related to Eve like the Shedim, the whore, zannas, etc.
Also i don't understand why of this "Monsters are only the created by Eve and nothing more" thing, the characters, fandom and probably the staff of the show consider many species as monsters, specially since the staff use the super-wiki as a source and they list basically anything aside from angels and demons as monsters, bisaans and banshees are spirits? I think the bisaans are stated as spirits according to the lore existent in the universe of the series, but the lore in the universe of the series isn't aways right, like Samhain, that is described as having horns in the lore but hasn't, bisaans seens to be a organic/fisical thing, and banshees can be stabed with gold knives right? So the're are material beings.
Also, we have to see what the writers want to pass to the fans, in season 6 finale, in the recap intro, the producers decide to put Crowley's spech about the purgatory along with many clips of supernatural creatures, like that leprechaun wayne whittaker, (even Veritas, althought deities are confirmed by the staff to not go to purgatory when die) impling that they go there too (this way passing that all supernatural creatures besides the demons, angels go to the purgatory when die, not just Eve children), the Crowley's spech alone pass that there's many species of supernatural beings considered monsters not just in the moral, but in the literal way, the crowley says something like "an untapped oil well of every fanged, clawed soul", he also ask, in his search for the purgatory, to Sam, Dean and the others hunters to bring him creatures, he say creatures specifically not Eve descendants, not monsters. So to me is same to assume that: Monsters aren't just Eve creations, and others creatures besides Eve children go to Purgatory when die, and can/must be called monsters.
I agree with Twilight and to a degree Orion’s idea, a compromise would be to create two categories, one for "Descendants of Eve" and another for creatures of unknown origin. As Twilight put it, this way only creatures proven to be either of Eve’s Alphas or created by her go on the monster page. As far as the unknown creatures go they can simply be put into a “creatures of unknown origin” category but my opinion stands that that category simply does not belong here on the monster page. I believe that right should be for Eve’s descendants only, just like the Super-Wiki. I think that’s a fair and honestly quite practical compromise.
Also not to offend you at all, Doctor49 but I’ve had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say. The staff of the show have confirmed that they use the Super-Wiki as a source, yes, but by no means is everything over there considered a monster. They have a specific page which list all of the monsters out and it’s the exact list I copied over. Nothing More. The paragraph at the top of Super-Wiki monster page also specifically states each monster on the page comes from Eve. Yes, Banshee’s can be stabbed but so can a Shojo which is also non-physical and a Shojo isn’t considered a monster on the Super-Wiki, only a creature. For all we know Samhain’s true form could have horns but weve never seen it, Hell we’ve never seen any of the demons true forms, all weve seen is demon smoke. What it feels like you’re saying is: because they showed clips of Veritas and Wayne Whitaker when Crowley was doing a voiceover saying purgatory is full of every fanged clawed creature to walk the earth, that must make Veritas and leprechaun monsters as well. By your logic you’re saying that just because they showed clips of them in the season flashback they could be classified as monsters. That’s implausible especially when we have proof otherwise such as the writers having confirmed themselves that deities have nothing to do with purgatory, you said it yourself. Bkshadows (talk)
Quite late to the party. Sorry. Generally, everything descended from Eve is a monster. Bkshadow's suggestion is okay, but I generally don't agree with some of the monsters listed by the Super-Wiki. The shojo, for example was referenced as a monster and a spirit in the same episode so it's a bit vague. Fairies are most definitely not monsters. Pagan deities are not monsters. If we're talking about the Bad Place creatures, we can list them under monsters provided that the monster page provides a clear explanation that it covers both monsters in the lore/technical sense that they are descended from Eve, and monsters that are colloquially called as such but do not follow the hierarchy or classification of Purgatory-based creatures. Instead of working on this as an inclusive list, it might be easier to list which ones we can exclude. FTWinchester (talk) 03:05, February 2, 2018 (UTC)
So will their be any consensus? Originally I said a compromise would be to create two categories, one for "Descendants of Eve" and another for creatures of unknown origin but since we have a creature page, can we do away with the creature section and have this page be dedicated to Eve's descendants only? Seems redundant to have the same list on both pages. Bkshadows (talk)
Notice of intent
Notice of intent - I was asked to close this but from what I've read, I'm not seeing much of a resolution here. There is general agreement that the previous consensus for this page, namely: "this page should be the home for all non-angels, non-humans, non-deities and non-demons.", cannot hold because there are certain entities like Zanna, and Fairies that fall under this category but we would not think it appropriate to call them monsters. There's some back and forth about whether or not to keep the Creature page, but I'm not seeing a definite resolution either way.
I can't close this discussion as anything but a "no consensus" because none of the proposals has generated significant support. Many participating users have added their two cents about what makes a monster, but no proposal has really been fully endorsed and developed by those here. But a "no consensus" is not much of a resolution, so I'm keeping the discussion open for now.
If I can add my two cents, I would say that "Monster" is a problematic term to use as the title of an article. The problem, as others have pointed out during this discussion, is that "Monster" is a value-laden term. We don't describe things as "Monsters" unless they behave "monstrously" - as in, they kill people and consume their organs, et cetera. That's why even though some creatures are not established as Descendants of Eve, we find no issue with calling them "Monsters", because they fit our conception of what "Monsters" are, e.g. Kitsune/Arachne. I see some reference to the terms that the Winchester brothers employ in the series, but I'm not sure those arguments do much. People often use language loosely and vaguely, just as long as it gets the job done in communicating the gist of things. Everyone here agrees that ghosts should not be classified as monsters, but if you remember the "We hunt monsters" mantra that the brothers often use, the brothers casually group ghosts under the broad category of "monsters they hunt". I'm not arguing that ghosts should therefore be classified as monsters based on this example alone, but I want to point out the difficulties of having the distinction about what is / is not a monster turn on the word choices used by characters in the series.
The second problem is that "Creature" is a category that encompasses "Monster". Anything that is a monster is a creature. But not everything that is a creature is a monster. That's why having a "Creatures" section in the Monster article is strange, because the implication is that a vampire, werewolf, skinwalker, is not a Creature - which would just be bizarre.
If I can offer a common starting point based on all I've read so far, I would put it in terms of categories:
- All Monsters are Creatures.
- Some Monsters are Descendants of Eve, while others are not.
If anyone disagrees with these two statements, feel free to say so. But if you accept the two statements above, here's how we can possibly move forward:
- "Creature" page stays. "Creature" has a section on "Monsters" that has the subsection: "Known Descendants of Eve". Anything not under the subsection is a Monster that is basically either: unknown as to whether or it is a Descendant of Eve, or explicitly known to not be a Descendant of Eve.
- Optional: In addition to #1, an article titled Descendants of Eve is created (adapted from the current Monster article) given the noteworthy canonical role that "Monsters that are Descendants of Eve" have played in the series.
- "Monster" redirects to "Creature".
This solves the aforementioned problems about "Monster" being a value-laden term, because "Creature" is a neutral and less biased term. But if you disagree with this 3-part proposal, feel free to propose another based on the common understanding that we've reached so far, namely:
- All Monsters are Creatures.
- Some Monsters are Descendants of Eve, while others are not.
- I agree with Calebs idea. It is a nice compromise and would help clear up this mess once and for all. I agree with all 3 parts. --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:03, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Support-- Caleb's compromise seems to be the best way to go forward. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:42, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- When I was reading the paragraph leading up to it, I actually had in mind what turned out to be Caleb's compromise. So, it definitely sounds like the right thing to do. KillRoy231 (talk) 00:13, February 12, 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Caleb’s two statements. Caleb if I understand you right your saying that we remove the creature section on the monster page and change the name of the article to "Descendants of Eve." While on the creature page, we’ll simply list all of the creatures out and also create a section for "Known descendants of Eve". I support this idea. Bkshadows (talk)
- Neutral —- While I agree with this in principle. Monster is the correct terminology for at least Eve’s children and all their children. I see it odd, that they are the only major supernatural race that has a different terminology from the show to the wikia. So I can’t at this juncture give a support or oppose vote.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:51, February 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this division is nonsense. Four types of created beings have been presented thus far: celestials (angels and the like), demons (self-explanatory), fairies (self-explanatory), and monsters. If it doesn't fit in any three categories, it must therefore belong to the fourth. Even if we ignore that, the fact is, all monsters have similar abilities and habits (superhuman strength, feed on humans, etc.), and the only creatures that don't fit this category are things like Soul Eaters; things that can warp space and time, teleport, and so on.
- I understand that this may sound like speculation to some, but the show itself makes no distinction between "monsters" and "creatures". The distinction is purely fan-based, and therefore irrelevant. The terms "monster" and "creature" are used interchangeably, and it is only the fans that attempt to differentiate between the two. -- Orion (T-B-C) 22:26, February 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Support - As I suggested earlier, we can easily put a disclaimer in the Monster page that it includes both colloquial use of the word and those that specifically refer to descendants of Eve. We have to remember that the show took care to explain that Purgatory-based monsters are related to Eve, so to group them with creatures that aren't is technically breaking canon--which we shouldn't do. On the flip side, coming up with "Creatures" also means we are going against canon by using a term not used by the show in the same manner we would want it to. By explaining within the article that unclassified creatures are placed in the article under the "common" or "colloquial" definition, we avoid having excessive pages and categories. Overall, I don't mind having both Creature and Monster pages as Caleb suggested, but I definitely and strongly oppose suggestions that ignore Eve's relationship to the technical definition of monsters that the show established. FTWinchester (talk) 02:17, February 18, 2018 (UTC)
As of the time of my input, we have 5 support, one neutral and one comment that sounds to be in opposition. We have a day to close this, and so let me address the point raised in the opposing(?) comment;
- Four types of created beings have been presented thus far: celestials (angels and the like), demons (self-explanatory), fairies (self-explanatory), and monsters.
This is highly questionable. Hellhounds are God's creation but are neither celestials, nor demons. They are not fairies, and are not Purgatory-aligned. There are clearly more than four types of created beings. Tulpas are also creations, and do not fall under any of these. Ghosts do not fall under any of these. The Golem is another creation that does not fall under any of the four categories. The Whore of Babylon is an entirely separate being. If this is the crux of the argument against the proposed argument, I would say this is a rather weak counter and should not override the current consensus. FTWinchester (talk) 02:17, February 18, 2018 (UTC)