Supernatural Wiki

The Winchesters season 1 is currently streaming on The CW and HBO Max.

READ MORE

Supernatural Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Supernatural Wiki

Wincest & The Wiki[]

This Wiki is supposed to be a reference on everything Supernatural. As it so happens, Wincest as well is an important part of the Supernatural fandom; it has even been referenced in the show itself ("The Monster at the End of This Book").

So if we aim to become a definitive guide to Supernatural then we need to cover all aspects of the show and its fan-base. If you will head over to SuperWiki, you will find more than one page dedicated to this particular topic. It's not just because someone doesn't like Wincest that it should not be documented. Even I'm not a great fan of Wincest, but even then I deemed it fit to include a page on one of the "rages" of the show.

So please, stop undoing the edits on the Wincest page and classifying it as a candidate for Speedy Deletion. Thanks.

Hallichester... 12:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


Winchest is non-canon. By that logic we should also include fanmade episodes. Also, this is not Supernaturalwiki. Blaziken rjcf 13:35, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


Although it has not been referred to as Wincest on the show, it was mentioned by Sam and Dean in The Monster at the End of This Book. Therefore it does have a root in canon.

And I never said that we should include fanmade episodes. You are twisting things around. All you do is go about undoing others' edits, which by the way are justified edits. This Wiki needs a serious overhaul and you are not making things easier by going about undoing edits over and over. This Wiki needs an Admin to control it but sadly none of the Admins are active and neither are they granting Admin powers to those who are ready to take on the mantle.

Hallichester... 10:39, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hallichester has made the better argument in that it is indeed canon (I've seen the episode myself). I've taken off the speedy deletion tag, and please do not re-add it unless you have a new argument. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 10:36, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?[]

Several editors have questioned whether this article merits deletion, and the place for such a discussion should occur here on the article's talkpage, not across edit summaries (this goes to General and 108.225.237.169). I should also mention the three-revert rule which is put in place to prevent edit-warring, it also makes you both liable for a block but I don't think it's appropriate for the situation here and the policy is still relatively new.

In any case, should the article be deleted? I am of the opinion that it should not.

First of all, it is a part of Supernatural culture. Wincest is one of the most 'popular' aspects of Supernatural fandom, to the point that it has been mentioned in an article on Tv.com, which is a news source of sorts. This gives the topic both credibility and notability.

Furthermore, what makes Wincest even more distinct from other pairings like Destiel (which is pending deletion) is that it has been mentioned in the show. And I quote the article:

Dean: And what's a slash fan?
Sam: As in Sam-slash-Dean... together...
Dean: Like "together" together?
Sam: Yeah.
Dean: They do know we are brothers, right?
Sam: Doesn't seem to matter.
Dean: Aw, come on. That's just plain sick!

Wincest was mentioned in The Monster at the End of This Book by Sam and Dean. Later on in "Sympathy for the Devil", Sam and Dean come across Becky Rosen writing a Wincest fanfic.

Dean: Of course, but the most troubling question is, why do these people assume we're gay?

Being the Supernatural Wiki, we are an encyclopedia for all things Supernatural. Of course, there are some basic tests like notability, otherwise we'd be documenting every fangirl's blog about Supernatural, but the point is that Wincest has clearly passed the test for notability, it is canon and is a significant aspect of Supernatural culture and should thus continue to be documented in our Wiki. Hence, we should keep this article. Calebchiam Talk 10:10, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

More references showing notability: Entertainment Weekly 1, Entertainment Weekly 2, see number 11 Calebchiam Talk 10:27, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
I also point to the section above where a similar discussion had played out and the final decision was to keep the article. Calebchiam Talk 10:12, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's a my counter argument, its fandom, all of it, the majority of the information on the page is fandom, and the pictures are all photoshoped. None of its Canon, it’s all made up, this Wiki was created for simply the facts and canon information, not for fans own opinions and speculations, we've (by which I mean me, and several other uses) have recently been trying to crack down on removing all fandom from this site, this page is an affrontal to all of that, and every other effort to remove speculation from being portrayed as fact, that has been going on, for the last few years, if we’re going to allow this page, what’s next? Creating pages for fan fictions? For your own characters?

And don't say, it was mentioned so its canon, so it was? So what? It didn't play any significant part in the plot; it was just there to give Sam and Dean, more to be disgusted by, and to mock the fans who create these sorts of things. There thousands of other short references in the show, Metallica, AC DC, Poltergeist (film) Pornography, Banshee, Flight 401, Lake monsters, Water spirits etc. Are you saying we should create an in-depth page full of speculation and no canon information for all of them? No I didn't think so.

All this information belongs, on the other supernatural wiki, this one was created so that it would include simply facts, if you going to keep it, at least get rid of all the speculation, but then that’s most of the page, so if you do, there isn’t much point of keeping the rest. Is that a good enough argument for you? (Ps: I'm sorry if this comes across as hostile, but I wanted to get my points through.) General MGD 109 (talk) 17:18, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think you should relax a little, because you do sound rather agitated. But if you're not, then do disregard this.
Anyway, I will start from the most basic level of this issue. First of all, not all the information on this page is fandom, and not all of the images are photoshopped. While some of the page is dedicated to documenting the fandom aspect (which it should, as an article on Wincest), you will notice the rest of it is about the times Wincest has been mentioned in the show. Also, only 2 of the 4 images are photoshopped. Then again, if we were to keep this article, having photoshopped images showcasing what Wincest is about is not necessarily a bad thing.
You bring up a good point that by allowing for this page to exist, we are allowing other fanfiction pages to exist. However, this is not the case. As mentioned above, what makes this article notable is that it has been mentioned by reliable third-party sources. As an FYI, Wikipedia's notability policy mentions the same thing: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Although we are not Wikipedia, their concept of notability is certainly relevant to any Wiki - which is an offshoot of Wikipedia. This negates the indiscriminate inclusion of topics which you mentioned. Allowing Wincest therefore cannot be equated to allowing any random piece of fanfic to enter the Wiki.
In addition, as to the other aspects you mentioned (e.g. Metallica, et cetera), I feel a need to point out that many other Wikis about TV shows have no problems including such topics, assuming that it has come up a sufficient number of times. For example, the Heroes Wiki has its article on Death in the Heroes universe, as well as for specific items. Even if we choose not to follow this, Wincest is still especially notable because it has been brought up on the show not once, but twice, and it has reliable third-party sources and can be said to be a significant part of Supernatural fan culture. This is not an easy requirement to reach for any other part of Supernatural culture (e.g. Destiel), which is why we will not and do not allow such articles on the Wiki, further proving that your slippery-slope argument does not work.
Also, you seem to be using the term 'speculation' incorrectly. For the most part (and I'm sure you'll agree), we use the term 'speculation' for any conjecture about what future events will occur on the show that is derived from our own reasoning rather than what the show's creators have confirmed. The Wincest article does not speculate on any such things, it merely documents what has happened in the show in the past. So, regarding all your arguments that this page is nothing but speculation, I don't exactly see what you're getting at, because it certainly doesn't fit the actual definition of 'speculation'.
"All this information belongs, on the other supernatural wiki, this one was created so that it would include simply facts, if you going to keep it" - I'm sorry, but why are you arbitrarily deciding that this Wiki is for nothing more than facts? Not only is what the other Supernaturalwiki is doing completely irrelevant to us, I think you will agree that our Supernatural Wiki is an encyclopedia for all things Supernatural. In case you think that this is just me arbitrarily deciding a tagline, I should point out that many other topical Wikis have such taglines. Of course, we do not include every bit of fanfic, however, the idea is that we are more than just a list of facts, we document cultural aspects, which are just as meaningful as what happens on the show. There's a reason Wikipedia has articles on pop culture phenomena and not merely factual articles on history and geography, et cetera.
I think what it all boils down to is: Should we have articles on the cultural aspects of Supernatural? Your earlier statement that our Wiki is for nothing more than the show's facts is untrue. We have articles on other parts of Supernatural culture, for example, Salute to Supernatural. It contains no facts pertaining to the show itself, but we still find it worthy of documentation. Why don't we delete that? I think if we did, we'd be losing important information about Supernatural culture which is worth documenting.
So should we have articles on the cultural aspects of Supernatural? In my opinion, why not? It doesn't hurt the Wiki in any way to have these articles. They are probably sourced, and their topics are sufficiently notable. Isn't the Supernatural fanculture important and worthy of documentation? You seem to find it to be a most objectionable aspect of Supernatural. As a personal aside (that is to say, not based on proper logic, but emotional reasoning), I put it to you that Supernatural culture transcends the show itself and makes Supernatural more 'colourful', multi-faceted, and most of all, interesting. I think it would be a loss to all Wiki users if topics like Wincest were removed. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 03:05, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

p.s. It's certainly not true that Supernatural's showrunners included the scene of Wincest to mock its fans. From what I remember, it was merely a gesture to acknowledge that part of its fanbase. Calebchiam Talk 03:05, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I was to aggressive in my first point, I'm sorry. This topic just made me loose my cool, as quite frankly, I find the notion of including insestreus relationships, as repulsive, and I'm pretty sure every sane person agrees with me on that concept.

Okay here is my couterargument, to your counterargument: For starters, following your points, I think your argument is flawed, as I've already said this wiki was set up, to document canon information, not fandom, while I admit not all of the information is fandom, and not all the images are photoshoped, you can not deny that the majority is fandom, and dedicated to documenting the fandom, and I hardly need to tell you, as you are the Admin, that is not what this sight is for.

Onto your bit about wikipedia, I think your comparison is to broad, this wiki is set up entirely for supernatural, while Wikipedia is set up for all information, to follow your encyclopeidia analogy, if i was to pick up an actual encyclopiedia, I don't believe it would include an indepth article, on a fiction romance between to brothers, do you? Because if you do, I have to ask what kind of encyclopedia you read. Also we can't simply just cut it so broadly, and truthfully there is no reliable third person information for winchest, as even fictionly (and please don't go into metafiction, that is a confusing topic) it doesn't exist.

While I admit that these wiki's do have such pages, I would like to point out I do not edit such pages, and as I am not a fan of that show, I have no right to campain for its destruction, on the mentioned wiki. And quite simply you can't have just one rule for one, one rule for all, although not as popular (most of the time) other fan fictional pairings are also popular in the supernatural fandom. Quite simply it has to be all or none, and it can't be all, as that would discredit the wiki's accuracy, and ruin basically everything any contributer who has ever added to this sight, that was factual information, did.

I admit I misused the work speculation, what I ment to say was fan theories and fan fictions, and such. Further more you have not addressed my point, about dealing with other minor referances, you claim this is important because it has been mentioned twice, Metallicals been mentioned over a dozen times, AC/DC atleast a dozen, Poultergiest, atleast three, but none of them have a page, because quite simply there just referanaces, they play no part in the mythology or facts of the show, they don't matter, and this page is simply one of them, two minor referances.

And I disagree that this wiki should be here, to do more than simply document facts, as quite simply, recalling to my earlier argument, who gets to diside which parts of fandom are important or not? Exactly, its either all or nothing, and I've already established it can't be all.

Futher more your comparison to Salute To Supernatural, is well, to be frank ridiculous, that is a factual artical detailing actual events that occur in the real world, that link to the show, it doesn't premote or portray fiction and fan beliefs. Saying that is the same, is like saying are pages that list the writers, directors, producers etc are all fanfiction and minor referances to, are you really saying that? Because truthfully that is ridiculous.


And again you fall back to your own personal opinion, who are you to deside which opionions matter and which don't? I agaist this page, because it is entirely metafiction. And would also like to hear everyone's opinion on this page, so as such I'm placing a request on most users talk page for them to contribute there views. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:02, September 17, 2012 (UTC)


Since we are getting a bit more technical here, I thought it might be prudent to ask you to be careful about the terms you are using. Because logic-wise, some of your arguments are breaking down.
"as I've already said this wiki was set up, to document canon information, not fandom, while I admit not all of the information is fandom, and not all the images are photoshoped, you can not deny that the majority is fandom, and dedicated to documenting the fandom, and I hardly need to tell you, as you are the Admin, that is not what this sight is for."Anyway, you are operating under the assumption that Wikis should only document facts and not culture. You say that this is not what the site is for, and say that as the "Admin", I should know this. The only argument here I see is the whole "What should the site be for?"
Next, you are being too literal. When I say encyclopedia, I don't mean the actual book 'encyclopedia'. I merely mean that it is like an encyclopedia in that it documents many aspects of a certain topic. So your whole argument about 'picking up an encyclopedia and flipping through it' is interesting, but not particularly relevant. Even if we want to compare it to an actual encyclopedia, you say "don't believe it would include an indepth article, on a fiction romance between to brothers", to which I say, why not? It's not a fiction romance story, it merely documents a part of Supernatural Wiki fandom, with third-party sources and canon information. You have not shown me why this is so wrong.
"Quite simply it has to be all or none" - Sorry, but this is really the worst reasoning one could give. You are creating a false dilemma in saying that we keep none or keep all. This is simply not true. Why would it be true? Like I said, there are requirements before a topic is considered notable. Is it mentioned in canon? Does it have third-party references? Is it a significant part of Supernatural culture? Perhaps the third question is a fudgy question, but 1 is difficult to meet, and 2 even more so. All you are looking is at extremes when there are very simple, logical explanations for the middle ground. It's not all or none, it's 'some'. If you want to rebutt this, you have to prove that it's not possible to have some. But you have no way of doing so. What are users who want to create more pairings articles going to do? Flood the recent changes with such articles? We can easily delete them and explain to them what requirements such an article must have to be considered notable. Difficult? Hardly!
I didn't neglect to address your point. Like I said, I would have no problems including such things. I will quote my argument since you missed it:
"I feel a need to point out that many other Wikis about TV shows have no problems including such topics, assuming that it has come up a sufficient number of times. For example, the Heroes Wiki has its article on Death in the Heroes universe, as well as for specific items. Even if we choose not to follow this, Wincest is still especially notable because it has been brought up on the show not once, but twice, and it has reliable third-party sources and can be said to be a significant part of Supernatural fan culture. This is not an easy requirement to reach for any other part of Supernatural culture (e.g. Destiel), which is why we will not and do not allow such articles on the Wiki, further proving that your slippery-slope argument does not work."
"And I disagree that this wiki should be here, to do more than simply document facts, as quite simply, recalling to my earlier argument, who gets to diside which parts of fandom are important or not? Exactly, its either all or nothing, and I've already established it can't be all." - Again, the false dilemma. We get to decide which parts of fandom are important or not, it's the whole 3-part requirement, is it canon, is it in third-party references, it is a significant part of Supernatural culture?
And why are you saying that the Wiki should not be more than fact? You misunderstand my argument about Salute to Supernatural. I never called it 'fanfiction', I called it 'culture', just as I am calling Wincest 'culture'.
Let me show you the logical implications of your "Wikis should only be about canonical information". Why would we document conventions? Because they happen in real life and are related to Supernatural? Well, Wincest is enjoyed by fans in real life and it is related to Supernatural. Because the article is factual? So what? Wincest is based on facts too, you cannot deny the show's references or even the history of Wincest as mentioned on the page. Those are hard facts. Okay, then you say, well it doesn't 'promote fiction or portray fiction or fan beliefs', to which I would point out that it isn't a reason why that article should exist, it is only an argument as to why Wincest shouldn't exist.
So why should Salute to Supernatural exist? Sure, it's based on facts, it's attended by people in real life and it's related to Supernatural. Wincest fulfils 2 of those 3, and maybe the 'attended by people in real life' bit to a small extent - in the sense that it is enjoyed by people in real life. Logically speaking, if you keep conventions, then by the same reasoning, you keep Wincest.
Even if you prove somehow that Wincest does not fulfil the same criteria (Maybe 2/3 isn't enough?), you have not shown why Salute to Supernatural should exist. Didn't you say that this Wiki should only be an encyclopedia of canonical facts -> things that happen in the show? Conventions are not a part of the show, they are outside of the show. So by your reasoning, let's delete that too then.
This is why I said you should be careful with the terms you are throwing around.

If by factual you meant canonical information:

  1. Wincest is still referenced in the show and therefore canonical -> meaning it should be kept.
  2. Supernatural Conventions while related to the show, are not in any way presented in the show (except for that one specific convention that 'happened' in an episode), thus Salute to Supernatural should be deleted.
  3. No other fanfic-related pairings and such comes on the Wiki, because none of them have roots in canon.


If by factual you meant that not only canonical information, but "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences" in a broader perspective and outside of the show. This is already assumed -> We write based on true things, not lies, so I assume you meant the first ("canonical information"), but even so let us explore the connotations.

  1. This definition of "factual" encompasses "canonical information", therefore Wincest is still kept because it was canonical.
  2. Supernatural Conventions are kept simply on the merit of them having happened and being related to Supernatural.
  3. No other fanfic-related pairings and such comes on the Wiki, because none of them have roots in canon.
In both cases, Wincest is kept either way.
And before you bring up the whole thing about Metallica again, I will reiterate that I would have no problems in including it in an article as long as it is not a one-off reference (Dean listens to Metallica in his car in episodes: .....) Even if this is too much for you, what makes Metallica and all the other references separate from Wincest is the presence of third-party sources. You said earlier: "and truthfully there is no reliable third person information for winchest". Firstly, it's spelled "Wincest", secondly, I gave you 2 third-party references at the very beginning. Since you missed it, I will post it here: Entertainment Weekly 1, Entertainment Weekly 2, see number 11, and I will even throw in one more for good measure: Tv.com
I don't know if it's the language barrier, it doesn't seem to be that English is your native language given the spelling mistakes you have made. (I apologise if I am wrong on this.) However, to facilitate the discussion, I would like to once again ask you to be careful about the terms you are using. As you can see above, by exploring the logical progressions of using the word 'factual', I can point out how you seem to be contradicting yourself. Don't rush a response to this, take some time to understand this. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 01:19, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
p.s. I included the links to other Wikis to show you that many Wikis are more than just about canonical fact and they thus do very well in being a complete encyclopedia on their topics. I'll even throw in another example: The 2nd largest Wiki on Wikia, the RuneScape Wiki, see these two articles. We may not be those Wikis, but it becomes clear that there is nothing wrong with a Wiki taking the approach to documenting more than mere facts, and being willing to document 'culture'. Understand that Supernatural Conventions are just another part of Supernatural culture. Calebchiam Talk 01:19, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
I also think you might want to look into your reasons for wanting it deleted again. Is it because of your own personal beliefs (sexual prudishness?) or because you believe this is the correct approach the Wiki should take in deciding which articles are notable and which aren't. You said earlier that "I find the notion of including insestreus relationships, as repulsive, and I'm pretty sure every sane person agrees with me on that concept." I am personally a Christian and have no respect for incest or any similar topic, but Wikis are neutral. They are meant to document what exists, not document according to our personal beliefs, so the idea is that one needs to be professional and keep strictly-personal beliefs out of the discussion. Thanks. Calebchiam Talk 01:38, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be removed. This undermines everything this show is about and is very insignificant. It shouldn't be on here.Mr.black (talk) 02:42, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you haven't shown how this undermines everything about the show. It only documents a cultural aspect of Supernatural Wiki. Furthermore, as seen from the numerous third-party references, this topic is certainly notable. Calebchiam Talk 03:05, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
No. And simply because - for the most part - this wiki substantiates only canon info, and while Becky indirectly mentioned it, there's a perfectly functioning wiki about FanFiction. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:06 PM, September 17th 2012
You do realise that what other Wikis do is completely irrelevant to us. We are not affiliated with them even if we are all under the broad term of 'Wiki's. What other Supernatural Wikis are about and what content they has no bearing on us. This Wiki mentions canon info only? Conventions are not canon, they are not part of the show, we still document that. And even if we accept the untrue premise that the Wiki is only about canon info, Wincest is canon as it has been mentioned on the show. Calebchiam Talk 00:24, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
If there is one thing I've gathered from editing on Wikis, it's this: Canon is important. Wincest is canon, in a way, and therefore I say the page stays. Love and Lust 00:46, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
Although I am in full agreement that fanfiction has no place on this wiki as it is uncanonical nor official to Supernatural, Love and Lust makes a valid point, Wincest is indeed canon. With that said, if the page does ultimately stay, than I firmly suggest that at least all content on Wincest not mentioned in the series be removed as that applies to non-canon. 108.225.237.169 01:50, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I suggest: An entire page dedicated to Wincest or Destiel might be a bit to much, but perhaps a paragraph in the 'Dean and Sam' and 'Dean and Castiel' relationship pages detailing it. Something indicating its usage in fandom, if it can't be refined enough to fit with the canon without streching into fan fiction it can be put in the trivia. While I do agree that being mentioned on the show does give it full right to be on the wikia, I just don't think it's substantial enough (in canon that is) to have its own page. Auditore7 (talk) 15:03, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Possible solution. As Wincest is a canon (aspect) of the series inner fandom canon. Meaning like when they founded out about it and that Becky Rosen was typing up a Wincest story. This page should only include any CANON information that is reveal on series or in official canon interviews that can be linked. Any stories that are linked to just fandom in reallife meaning fandom stories written by none employed Supernatural ppl shouldn't be included. Even if it is bashed off a canon aspect. (Even if it's fandom in the series.) Personally Wincest creeps me out (just two brothers together) like I cannot comment. But even if the community wants to say canon only, Wincest is a canon confirmed part of the series even if it's fake within the series. And we CANNOT pick and choice which canon aspects are right and wrong. We only reveal in to other users.: The Twilight of Your Despair 17:09, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for the grammar typed it on my iPhone.: The Twilight of Your Despair 17:09, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


I completly agree, if we have to keep this page, then we should remove all non canon information, except perhaphs a sentance, in the triva section, maybe. But it doesn't even deserve that, at the most we should take Auditore7 idea, and place a footnote of it on the Sam and Dean page.

Now I still want to point out, as you keep rebuffing my, its almost all fanfiction points, you have however failed to answer my point, that simply all its canon is, is two referances in two episodes, that don't even play part in the plot, there are hundereds of them, and none of them have a page devouted to them, so why should this one? And as nearly everyone else agree's with me, its fiction, and information can't be taken from fan fiction.

Now on to your comment on my spelling mistakes, yes english is my native language, I am mealy mildly Dyslexic. Granted Factual has mixed meanings, when taking about fiction, I would like to point out that I never said that this paring was fandom, I said almost all the information on this page was Fandom or Metafiction, and neither of those things have any revelavance on this page.

I also question your description of insest as sexual prudish? I'm sorry but are you suggesting that insest is a good thing? I mean seriously? But that is irrelevant to are argument, personal beliefs are, the fact we disagree with it, does not contribute to mine or anyother users arguement, it just means we aren't sick.

I would also like to point out, that all but one comment here, is agaist this page, and we know have eight seperate contributes adding to this conversation, that is over double the number that have contributed to previous disscussions involving deleting or keeping pages and six out of the eight want this page gone. You said we had to disscus it, we've disscussed it. You said everyone must cast there views, well they have, and now where fininished, it looks like we, who don't want it are the majority, I'm sorry, but most users want this page deleted. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:39, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you keep missing it but I'll repeat it for the 3rd time, we should include Wincest and not stuff like Metallica because it has third-party sources and is a significant part of Supernatural culture. I have said it above, you just keep missing/ignoring it.
As for the 'sexual prudishness', I think you need to re-read my sentence and try to understand it again. I never insinuated that sexual prudishness is wrong or that incest is okay, in fact, I agreed with your position. I can't help you if you keep misunderstanding what I'm writing when it is completely literal. My only assertion was that it is irrelevant to the purpose of a Wiki.
Finally, Wikis do not operate by majority vote. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. What prevails in discussions are points/arguments. Even if 4 people believe we should delete it, and 3 people disagree, the article will not be deleted because there is no consensus, and in cases of a lack of consensus, the status quo is kept. Basic Wiki policy 101. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 08:35, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing against fan-fiction, or this page remaining. However it should be kept to canon, and since I find the Wincest in canon insubstantial to be a full page, I am simply suggesting it be merged with the pages of the relationship between the two characters.
Another idea I have is for these pages to be kept, expanded into fan-zone and put in a whole new category (called 'Fanon' for instance) and nothing in the canon part of this wikia would direct to them. Auditore7 (talk) 16:31, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so your telling me that this thing has been rigged since the start, regardless of how many editors disagree with you, your still keeping this page? I'm sorry but do you realise what your saying? Your talking like a dictator, and acting like a hypocrite, you critise other admins because they use there personal views to deside points, but now your doing that yourself, and don't argue you have reasons, all the others did.
But moving on, I'm getting the feeling this is becoming to personal, what started as a differance of opinions, has now cascaded in to a full on fight. I will admit that I started all this with my aggressive opening argument, and for that I've already appologised, and I will again, I'm sorry. But I tried to end the personal level of this there, this has become to much a personal thing, can we end all of that, and simply put it as it is, two different fans, with different opinions on this topic? I would also like to appolgise for missing your explination on why not to include those other referances, and for missreading your comment of sexual predismum, I admit I am not without fault in this argument.
If you may I will summerise this argument: for you, you think this page should be kept, as it is mentioned in the show, and is thus part canon of the shows canon, plus it was mentioned on two seperate events and it is a semi-popular part of the shows fandom.
For me I belive it should be deleted, as the majority of it is fanfiction, half the images are photoshoped, its canon comes from two minor referances, that played no part what so ever in the plot, and it goes agaist this wiki's standard of facts only policy, that I and many other users have rigidly stuck to. I would also like to question what these reliable third party sources are? As all that you've mentioned fall under fan fiction and speculation.
Do you disagree that that is the core of are argument?
Now look, I am willing to compromise on this issue, if the information must be kept, then I want this page removed, and it to be shorterned, and moved the Sam and Dean realationship page, placed under triva or Fandom. If the page must be kept, then I will except that, provied all the non canon and fandom infomation is removed, except a line or a few lines, mentioning its popularity in fandom, as well as the photoshop images to be removed.
Can we please come to a compromise, as it is clear that neither of us is going to give up on this argument, and then move one, ignoring all personal feeling raised or caused in this, as I don't like making enemies, over such a simple topic as MetaFiction. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:09, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
This was never rigged, but this is how Wikis make decisions, by consensus. I never said we were necessarily going to keep the page, I merely pointed out that thinking we would definitely delete it because of a slight majority is an incorrect mindset.
Call me whatever you want, the fact that we're discussing this and we have progress (right now it seems that the consensus is that the information should definitely be kept in one way or another), sufficiently proves that I'm not being a dictator or a hypocrite. If I was, would I bother talking to you? Talking to you is frustrating enough as it is, since you seem to misread or completely miss out on anything I write, and you don't even seem to re-read my previous arguments to see what you have missed out. If I wanted to be a dictator, it's only a matter of blocking you, which I haven't because that's not what 'collaborate editing' is about.
"and it goes agaist this wiki's standard of facts only policy" - If you read my earlier argument, you would know that the Wiki has no 'canonical information'-only policy, not to mention how I showed above that regardless of what you mean by 'factual', the logical progression of that term only shows that this article should be kept.
This is not the first time you have asked me what the third-party references are, and this is not the first time I have answered it. I am losing my patience if the most basic skills of following and understanding another user's argument can't even be shown.
And I quote: "I gave you 2 third-party references at the very beginning. Since you missed it, I will post it here: Entertainment Weekly 1, Entertainment Weekly 2, see number 11, and I will even throw in one more for good measure: Tv.com"
As all that you've mentioned fall under fan fiction and speculation." Again, there is no 'speculation', I asked you to use terms that were relevant to the discussion because that's the only way we can progress, you still went ahead and used 'speculation' anyway..'fanfiction'? You yourself said that "and is thus part canon of the shows canon", so it's certainly not all fanfiction.
As for deleting the article but transferring the information to the Sam and Dean Winchester articles, I am perfectly acceptable with such a compromise. The principle of the matter is that the information must be kept in some way or another. Calebchiam Talk 00:42, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Calebchaim.The information should be kept. It should be noted, however, that it has been pointed out as fan-fiction of the Supernatural books in the show. As it clearly reflects the real life fan-fiction of Wincest, the article can contain real life fan-fiction without exiting canon or being constrained by it. In a way, it is canon fan-fiction. Auditore7 (talk) 13:06, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
Okay Calebchiam, I wasn't accusing you of being either, I was just trying to make a point that we where going into this to far, I mean we've turned this discussion into a fight, over a trivial issue, between two people who never actually met each other.
As you agree to that compromise, then lets do it, I'll do it myself personally, and then move on from this, I mean were on the same side really, we both whats best for this wiki, we just have conficting opinoins on what is best. And I don't think their's any real reason to fight. I admit I started it, and for that I'm sorry, I think we both let this issue become to much.
As for your third party sources, I saw them, but I didn't think they counted, as neither was under canon. And I'm sorry for using "speculation" you've already complained about that, and I still used it, sorry I wasn't really thinking.
I would also like to note, I don't hold those opinions of you, I think your a good admin, you (as do I) mearly go to far sometimes. I also didn't mean it as general rule, when I said facts only policy, but you have to admit that is the standard approach most contributers take to this wiki. Further more I wasn't bringing up those resolved issues again, I was mearly sumerising are discusion, hoping it would help bring it to an end.
So sure lets reach that compromise, I transfer, most of the information onto the Sam and Dean relationship page, and then we can just end this. I hope this little heated argument, does not affect are relationship deeply in the future, for as I've already said, I don't like making enemies, particually over trivial matters. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:38, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

In closing[]

By consensus, the information will be kept but moved to separate articles, following which, this article will be deleted. This talkpage will remain as an archive of this discussion. Thanks to all the editors who contributed their opinions. Calebchiam Talk 10:06, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement