/Archive1

It's iffy without seeing the image, but I'd say no, the text can stand by itself for the most part (although IIRC the article doesn't mention all the stuff taking place in front of a green/bluescreen.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should really archive this page! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I never noticed that I forgot to mention the green screen. It has been added to the text. Ωphois 19:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed your concerns, from the Family Guy season 1. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the successful efforts at achieving WP:FA for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)/archive2! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm, why in the world would I need to source that? If you don't believe me, just watch the movie..... ASGtheDON (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you mind telling me why you reverted my removal of huge masses of unsourced cruft? The article was a mess. It needs a short, concise plot summary (see WP:PLOT), not that gargantuan thing that made the page unreadable (and unnecessary non-free images). This has been a problem for years, so I took action. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it is a problem, then by all means trim it. But please do not entirely erase it and then task someone else with restarting from scratch. Ωphois 14:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did plan on creating a useful summary. I had to get rid of that monstrosity first though, to make the page readable while I did so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then. Ωphois 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I probably should have clarified my intent in the edit summary, anyway. The Heroes character articles have been a problem for years, another 24 hours isn't going to hurt it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know why you are always reverting my changes on the Running Man page. If there is something wrong, you can edit it but why revert everything. I do not see why everything I add or change is inappropriate. I am the one who created and who updates this page. Please give me a reason as to why my changes are inappropriate. For example, Lizzy is not a fixed cast member, I referenced it on the episodes page. However, stating that I don't provide references when there are no references for her being a fixed member either doesn't make sense to me. Aman329 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was meant for the ratings section. Ωphois 04:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but the ratings are cited. If you want more specific citations on the site as to specific dates, that can be provided. Aman329 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the only citation given is for a website's main page. You will need to add those specific URL's to prove each rating. Ωphois 04:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be a problem. Thank you for taking the time to sort this out. Aman329 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not discussing it sooner. For the past year we've had to deal with a now blocked user who used to edit Korean articles, and would keep adding the ratings while refusing to list any sources. She occasionally comes back with sockpuppets, so I thought you were her. Ωphois 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while, but I have cited all the ratings. Hopefully this won't be a problem anymore. I should have cited it properly in the first place, thanks again. Aman329 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Although, per wiki policy, the ratings should not be in the collapsible tag. Ωphois 16:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had the title displaying the proper case for iCarly. Do you have any idea why it won't now? --Confession0791 ^talk 02:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start working on the split on my project page. I am going to try to find as much production info as I can find. I have seen other acricles that don't even have that information. Any way I was wondering Do you know of artciles for the season that have been created but redirected and when time comes I will post them there. If you want you can look at any of the work I am going to do opn my project page when it is up and make any changes you thing that it might need. Just let me know you made some changes. I am hoping to get this up and running by the end of next month.I do agree what Aussielenged said on the talk pageJoey Tomson (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you swing by again? Thanks. The summaries have been copyedited twice now. Courcelles 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Taare Zameen Par. Thanks for making it a featured article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replied at the FLC for List of X-Men video games. I hope you can revisit the list to assess the changes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC))\[reply]

Hey Ophois, why did you revert my editing of the said summary as "The season ends with a near-fatal accident of the father and the sons."?? Rockin291 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)rockin291[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Castielinfobox.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversal of my edit, with the offensive edit summary, is highly uncollegial. Perhaps discussing it first would have been preferable to the slap in the face. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the copyright tag, now fixed it. Anyways why did you remove the entire infobox? If you're reversing edit, please think of what you're doing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikrishnanpv.nair ans (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what I was doing. The infobox is not necessary, as everything is explained in prose. The image does not meet non-free image rules, as it does not help one's understanding of the soundtrack by showing a picture that is more or less identical to the infobox image. The purpose you listed on the image also lists it as the main infobox image, which it is not. Ωphois 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is your problem? Check Inception and Inception (soundtrack) for instance. So what would it be okay for me to change the poster and make it look different? Anyways what's ther reason for removing the infobox as a WHOLE? Seriously? This takes a lot of effort and what you're doing is being a pain. Infobox IS necessary because I've to update the chronolgy of the composers (Shankar Ehsaan Loy) which can't be done without an infobox. Get it?HK 19:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have cited two separate articles, which does not make sense seeing as TZP is one article... Those are also not FA's, so they are not held to as high standards as this article is. And the infobox IS NOT necessary, as the few tidbits of information are already stated in the paragraph right next to it. There is no point in putting a whole infobox of redundant information to list part of a chronology for people who have their own article. Ωphois 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lage Raho Munnabhai has infobox, for instance. I might as well create a wiki for the soundtrack then. Is that fine with you?HK 04:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Lage Raho Munnabhai's soundtrack section is pretty much just the tracklisting, so an infobox helps to display the missing info. This is not the case with TZP. Anyways, I really don't see any need for a separate article when the main article entirely covers the topic. An article for just the soundtrack would also lack notability. Ωphois 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you site sources that say Infobox should not be used when there's no missing info? Almost every featured movie wiki has a soundtrack wiki of its own, so what's your point? HK 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikrishnanpv.nair ans (talk • contribs)

And most of those soundtrack articles and very short and lack notability, and pretty much are word for word what is already in the main articles. Just because people in the past created poor articles doesn't mean it has to continue. Ωphois 03:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so intent on having a chronology for the trio, why not just create a nav box for them? Ωphois 16:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ophios, could you review Family Guy season 1's FLC review, since you commented on it's first nomination. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artical has been copy edited. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay took care of that and left a response on the review page. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed typos and some choppy sentences. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As the main contributor to the Taare Zameen Par article, could you please state your opinions of the gross discrepancies mentioned in the talk page? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Supernatural (season 6). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Coekon (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert legitimate changes, please. Especially without giving any reason. Remember that this is English Wikipedia. Film Fan (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Season three of Supernatural, an American television series, began airing on October 4, 2007. This is the third season to air on the CW television network. Season three regular cast members include Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles, Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan.

  How many times do you have to keep repeating that it's the third season?

• "This season focuses on Sam and Dean continuing to hunt".

  Continuing to hunt what?

• "... and a rivalry with Bela Talbot (Cohan), a professional thief who steals the Colt".

  A rivalry between Bela and who? And what's "the Colt"?

Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to clean up the lead. Do you mind saving that for last? Ωphois 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to look at the article when you think you've finished with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll have it done tomorrow. Thanks. Ωphois 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, so I cannot do much. If you are talking about User talk:Jsigned, I don't see any edits by you on their talk page. Maybe discuss your reasoning there first, and add links to the discussions that made decisions on this article and all Indian articles to which you refer in the edit comments. I will back you up as well. If you still get no response or change in behavior, there area a few avenues where you can get administrator help. BollyJeff | talk 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found discussion and added link. BollyJeff | talk 23:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing that you revert edits on the season articles regarding cast just before the episodes synopses. I was just wondering why you revert some to not having the cast names, and some with. Surely if one or two of the season articles have cast names they all should? – Blue☆Stars83 16:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first three seasons already have sections related to casting, so having a section that lists cast members for those is redundant. I left it for the other articles because they don't have detailed information present already. Ωphois 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Casting are different. After going through each seasons articles, I've noticed that one or two have both a cast AND casting section, or just a cast OR casting section. Maybe, to tidy up/equal the articles out, there should be either 1, a cast section above episode synopses or 2, a casting section after the episode synopses? – Blue☆Stars83 18:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely shouldn't be two separate sections, and production information should generally go after the episode synopses, so option 2 is the best one to go with. I don't really monitor the season articles past the third one because I plan to revamp them later to get them to FA status. Ωphois 18:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles are fine how they right now to be honest, but just need a little cleaning up, and all the season articles to have the same layout. As for the Cast/Casting section issue, just arrange a Casting section below the Episode Synopses on all articles. – Blue☆Stars83 18:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for the cast section for you. If you check out Friends (Season 1) and look at the cast section. It like that for all 10 season of Friends. Maybe that would be an idea? – Blue☆Stars83 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is more of a list for stunt casting of celebrities, and other actors who aren't included in the casting section though. For articles, it's always better to have prose rather than lists. Ωphois 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having a table type thing like that, that covers everything, from a seasons main cast to guest stars and recurring cast would be more suitable. Whereas a prose could take up a lot of space, that might not necessarily be needed. It may look samey as the Friends episodes articles but it would look a lot more tidier. But hey, that's just an opinion. – Blue☆Stars83 19:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current formats have already been approved by the FAC process, and I believe it's a policy that prose should be provided where possible. Ωphois 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, then I take it that the Casting section below the episode synopses will be the section to be kept and worked into all epsiode articles? – Blue☆Stars83 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only say because some of the articles have a cast section above the synopses. So I'm not sure if the FAC refers to the Cast or Casting sections? If you want any help in dealing with writing up the Casting sections so the articles can get done a bit quicker and not one at a time, let me know! – Blue☆Stars83 19:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 in season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Supernatural (season 2) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 7, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Season two of Supernatural, an American paranormal drama television series created by Eric Kripke, premiered September 28, 2006, and concluded May 17, 2007, airing 22 episodes. The season focuses on protagonists Sam (Jared Padalecki, pictured) and Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as they track down Azazel, the demon responsible for the deaths of their mother Mary and father John. They attempt to discover the demon's plan for Sam and other psychic children—young adults who were visited by Azazel as infants and given abilities, and whose mothers often then died in a fire. During their travels, they use their father's journal to help them carry on the family business—saving people and hunting supernatural creatures. The season aired Thursdays, 9:00 pm ET in the United States, and averaged only about 3.14 million viewers. The cast and crew garnered many award nominations, but the episodes received mixed reviews from critics. While both the brotherly chemistry between the lead actors and the decision to finish the main storyline were praised, the formulaic structure of the episodes was criticized. The season was internationally syndicated, released on DVD as a six-disc box, and made available through digital retailers. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! Here's a screen shot of your FA article on the Main Page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome. I missed seeing it on the main page, so thanks for the screenshot! Ωphois 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you removed part of your comment on the Talk:Star Trek into Darkness page. Can I ask why? It was a justified question. MisterShiney ✉ 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally put that because I thought he was asking for a reliable source for "Into" being capitalized, but then I realized he meant for the inclusion of a colon. Ωphois 19:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh cool. This conversation has gone around in so many circles it has my head spinning. About time it gets sorted. MisterShiney ✉ 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ophois, I wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing your comments at this article's FAC [1]. I'm a little concerned, since it's received no support so far and that's exactly the reason it failed its first FAC. So if could take another look at it, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, here I am with an update: you probably already know that this article failed its 2nd FAC, so after waiting the obligatory two weeks, I've re-submitted it for its third. If you could go over and take a look at what I've done since the last time, I'd greatly appreciate it. [2] Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply in the talk section. Instead of casually reverting and calling my correct changes "disruptive", try talking to me. Explain how I'm wrong. Film Fan (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Fan has agreed to a proposal I put up at Talk:Taare_Zameen_Par#Lead_section. Please consider accepting this. BollyJeff | talk 22:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ophois. If you want the Slumdog sentence that I deleted kept, then cite it! Film Fan (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC) It is cited in the article itself. That is how leads work. Ωphois 15:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's how leads work, is it. It should be cited the first time it's mentioned. Film Fan (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is how it works, to un-clutter the lead. Please see WP:CITELEAD. BollyJeff | talk 16:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I may point out that it's not important information. Surely its mention later in the article suffices. To say that a film a film has been compared to another is really saying nothing without elaborating. Film Fan (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are interested. The article Mother India is undergoing a peer review. You can have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the topic to Supernatural season 2 up for Featured Topic review. If you agree or disagree with this nomination please voice your thoughts there. GamerPro64 00:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hola.

To make it clear right up front, I fully believe your edits were in good faith. I am writing below in order to open up dialogue about the edits, with the hope that we may come to a mutual consensus.

I see you removed the birthdates and deathdates I added for the various fictional characters of Supernatural. Please let me know if there is a rule that such information may not be included.

I searched for such a rule. The closest I found was this:

Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography (placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation).

I found that here.

The question may amount to: "What constitutes undue emphasis?" I don't personally think I was creating an undue level of emphasis by adding the bits of information I added; but I admit that, since "undue" is somewhat subjective, that can be debated in good faith.

Still, this sentence comes from a section called "The problem with in-universe perspective." In that section, it says:

The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

I certainly didn't omit any real-world info. Anyone reading the articles will know, without a shred of doubt, that these characters are fictitious. Therefore, I feel I was keeping with the spirit of the rule as I understood it.

Moreover, the line above about birthdates is a bullet point introduced by the following line:

Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include

So, while birthdates are often featured in articles written from an in-universe perspective, the mere fact that a birthdate is featured does not, in and of itself, make an article one that is written from an in-universe perspective. My understanding is that birthdates could be included in articles about fictional characters, provided that the article is not written to make the character appear to be non-fictional.

Let's use Sam as a good example. After my edit, the introduction to the Sam article read as follows:

Samuel "Sam" Winchester (2 May 1983–present) is a fictional character and one of the two protagonists of The CW Television Network's Supernatural along with his older brother Dean. He is portrayed by Jared Padalecki.

Anybody reading that would know immediately that Sam is a fictional character. I do not believe my edit provided undue emphasis on the character's birthdate. I certainly didn't omit any real-world info, nor did I do anything to make the character appear non-fictional. The article, even with my edit, is not written from an in-universe perspective.

There are fan wikis out there that are written to make it look like the fictional characters are real persons. We can compare the Sam introduction to the introduction to this Zefram Cochrane article on memory-alpha.org:

Doctor Zefram Cochrane was a Human scientist in the 21st century. An eccentric genius, he was the inventor of warp drive on Earth and became the first recorded Human to travel faster than light, prompting official first contact with the Vulcans.

The Zefram Cochrane introduction is written from an in-universe perspective, and I completely understand (and agree) that it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. But I cannot come to the same conclusion about the Sam Winchester introduction above.

All that said, I wish to reiterate that I fully believe your edits were in good faith. I hope that, given my above explanations, I may have convinced you that we should re-add the birthdates and deathdates of the various Supernatural characters, provided that no efforts are made to make the characters appear to be anything other than fictional.

Best regards,

allixpeeke (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though is that their birthdates aren't notable at all, and (with the exception of Sam) have no impact on the series. Including it would just be adding unnecessary information. If an era or specific year a character was born was important, it would be in the plot section. Ωphois 23:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I appreciate hearing the alternative perspective.

Moreover, I can understand and accept the perspective that, for most of the characters, their ages are not highly significant. I can understand researchers not caring about Gordon Walker's age, for example.

But, I would still like to make the case that, for members of the Winchester family, birthyear and deathyear information is highly significant. Before I make that case, however, I must first make an allusion to actual people.

When a person accesses an encyclopedia in order to research an actual person, the birth and death information is usually readily available immediately after the name, and I surmise that the reason it is made available in that fashion is so that the researcher can easily and quickly fit the object of her/his research into a cultural time frame. Knowing that Madison was born in the eighteenth century and that Kennedy was born in the twentieth century can greatly help the researcher understand the figures based on their likely experiences and the various elements of culture and technology that surrounded them. I've no doubt that you agree, so I shan't labour this point any further.

What I would like to stress is that I believe the same can be said of the Winchesters, and especially about Sam and Dean. Sam's birthdate is probably the most significant birthdate of anyone in the series, as I'm sure you will agree. But Dean's relationship with Sam makes Dean's birthdate almost as significant. Obviously, Sam doesn't have any real memory of his mother (at least outside of time travel), but Dean, being four years his elder, does have memories of their mother. Having both birthdates readily accessible makes it easy to calculate just how old Dean was when he lost his mother, and losing one's mother just a few months before turning five will undoubtedly have a major impact on any child. We also know that Dean's and Sam's childhood relationship to one another was extremely significant, since Dean essentially had to raise his own brother. The fact that they were only four years apart--that Dean was himself a child taking on a parental role--had a significant impact on how the two related to one another, and to their father. It's also worthwhile to have that information readily accessible in order to figure out where the two main characters fall growing up within the socio-political landscape of the '80s and early '90s. Surely, we can agree that it would be a very different show if the characters had grown up instead in the socio-political landscape of the '60s and early '70s, and that's a mere two decades of difference. Different cultural norms invariably affect the way persons (real or fictional) act or behave. So, it would seem to me that, in the very least, we should include quick birthdate references for the two main characters, if not in parentheses immediately following the names, at least in the character information boxes on the right-hand side of the screen.

Still, I do not wish for my case to end there, because the most significant date in the entire series--even more significant than Sam's birthdate--is Mary Winchester's deathdate. This is the event that turned John--and eventually Dean and Sam--into hunters. Currently, the Mary Winchester blurb gives her deathyear, but does not specify the date. A researcher would have to go to the Sam page, search through article to find Sam's birthdate, then add six months. Even then, however, the researcher may be unsure, since the researcher might not know if the "six months" thing is an approximation or an exact measurement. By specifically saying "(1954–2 November 1983)," the researcher knows that it is not an approximation, that "six months after Sam's birth" is an exact measurement down to the day. (It also allows the researcher to easily see that Mary was less than thirty when she died, although I will admit that her age is much less significant than the age of other characters.)

Finally, we have John Winchester, who was also born in 1954 and who died on the 19th of July, 2006. While his deathdate is not as significant as his wife's, and his birthyear not as significant as his sons', nobody had a more profound impact on Dean's and Sam's development than John--not even Bobby. In the character info box on the right-hand side of the John Winchester page, it lists his nationality as American. Methinks his age and birthyear are equally significant as his nationality. Just as he wouldn't be the same man with the same values were he to have been born, say, behind the Iron Curtain, he also wouldn't have been the same man with exactly the same values were he to have been born in America a hundred years earlier.

In summation, while I can accept the point that, for many of the characters, birth and death information is not highly significant, I think a case can be made that, at least for the Winchester clan, the significance is present. In the very least, I think such information should be included in the character info boxes for those characters who have their own articles, like Sam, Dean, and John, since the info boxes are essentially quick reference guides, and since I think age is more significant than, in the case of John e.g., that he was a former mechanic.

Best regards,

allixpeeke (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an age of a character or age gap of characters is significant, it would already be mentioned in the plot sections. Ωphois 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ωphois,

Please take no offence to my saying this, but I made a litany of points, and you only attempted to respond to one of them. Moreover, your one response fails to accurately address the specific point it attempts to address. The point I made is that easy-to-access, easy-to-find birth-and-death info is far more useful to researchers who wish to use this encyclopedia for research than birth-and-death info which is buried somewhere in an article. Adding "(1954–2 November 1983)" doesn't take anything away from the article, and only serves to improve it.

Another point, which also seemed to get ignored, was that John, Dean, and Sam each have character info boxes on the right-hand side of their articles. I made the suggestion that, even if we don't include birth-and-death info immediately following the character names, we could put that info in the character info boxes, because John Winchester's birthyear and deathyear were certainly at least as significant as his nationality (which is already listed in his info box), and were undoubtedly more significant than his having formerly been a mechanic (which is also already listed in his info box).

Do you have any objection to the inclusion of birth-and-death info in the info boxes?

Respectfully yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you cite the episode or reliable third-party source for the dates, I don't mind them being in the infoboxes. Ωphois 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ophois. As I have stated before, I would like to see this third-party source that you mentioned. The reason I keep on undoing your edit on "Once Upon a Time (TV series)" is that those counterparts that you keep on adding back in are not necessary. "The Beast" and "The Crocodile" are not directly stated as to be Rumplestiltskin's actual counterpart, only implied. Also, there is no need to add "The Miller's Daughter" as Cora's counterpart considering that she is already considered to be the iconic figure albeit under the name Cora.

I don't have time at the moment to find the sources. I previously included them in the article for each of those, but other editors removed the refs because they deemed it too obvious to require sources. If you want to the refs now, you can look through the page history. As for your argument, the characters are specifically referred to in the series itself as those names. If we followed what you are saying, we would have to remove Mad Hatter, Evil Queen, Queen of Hearts, etc. since those characters go by their "real" names in the series. Additionally, the article has been using this format for some time now, and has been supported by other editors. Ωphois 00:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for creating such a wonderful page for her. Secondly, a petition for Rachel Miner to be brought back to play Meg exists at change.org/petitions/supernatural-bring-meg-back so I was wondering. Is it possible for it to be included somewhere on the page? Maybe under the "reception" part? --VMDS7HOTHV (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia prohibits links to petitions such as those. From my understanding, the character was killed off because Miner herself chose to leave the role due to her suffering from MS. Ωphois 00:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 3, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 3, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"What Is and What Should Never Be" is the twentieth episode of the paranormal drama television series Supernatural's second season, and was first broadcast on May 3, 2007. Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) finds himself in an alternate reality after a confrontation with a djinn. The creature appears to have fulfilled Dean's greatest wish: that his mother had not been killed when he was a child. Dean is happy until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. He then rejects the alternate reality and attempts to bring himself back. The episode was written by Raelle Tucker, and marked the directorial debut of series creator Eric Kripke. It featured the return of deceased characters Mary Winchester (Samantha Smith) and Jessica Moore (Adrianne Palicki, pictured). Kripke enjoyed expanding upon the character of Mary, who was only briefly depicted in earlier episodes. Despite obtaining low ratings, the episode acquired positive critical reviews, praising Ackles' performance and welcoming the return of Smith and Palicki. Tucker also received a Constellation Award for her work on the episode. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Acheria started correctly as a stub about an Indian (Asian) bit of folklore. Then someone was confused (and the confusion exists on the web also) and thought it meant Native American. But from what I can find, eg [3], it's clear this is Asian. The wikilink is just going to confuse people. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The demon on the series is the Indian (from India) spirit. The development section explains that it's based on Hindu mythology. Ωphois 21:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 844 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if I come off as sounding rude or defensive or something, but I honestly don't understand why you keep reverting my edits. I'm not accusing you of doing it for the sake of doing it (I know you're not, you've let some information stay in unchanged), I just don't see legitimate reasons for many of the reverts. (Though I acknowledge that I may just not understand Wikipedia's guidelines, since I haven't been here as long as you - and of course I may just be overly protective/sensitive about my additions.)

The editing of the "Abilities" fields in the characters' information boxes weren't meant to be redundant - I had noticed that the section as it was had the "Abilities" showing in the out-of-universe section of the infobox (information about the characters' actors, creators, and the first and last episodes the characters appeared in) rather than the in-universe section it belonged to (information about the characters' species, gender, etc.) as it appears on other fictional character pages, and I tried to fix it. The new version merely moved the "Abilities" field to the in-universe part of the infobox, with no other alterations made; the revert moves it back so that it's clumped in with in-universe section again. Honestly, it sticks out like a sore thumb to me and it's been bugging me for awhile. If you have a good reason for wanting it to stay that way, please tell me and I'll let it go, but if not, please revert your reverts. Keeping in with general reverts, may I ask why the last episode the characters appeared in aren't allowed to be put in the "Last appearance" field?

I also object to the reverts on Lilith and Ruby's pages. On Lilith specifically, looking back, I have to assume it was the deleted bit about her eating babies being a fulfillment of her mythic counterpart's roles that was unsupported? Since that pretty much was Lilith's role in myth and her eating the babies was confirmed in the episode cited, I assume that it was removed because Kripke did not specifically name it as the way she was fulfilling her mythic counterpart's role? I can't access the link myself to check; what exactly did he say? If he didn't mention it, I'll let that go. I removed the 66 Seals link in the Plot section that you re-added only because the section it linked to had been deleted. If you'd like to recreate the deleted section (which used to be on the main Supernatural page, under "Recurring elements"), all right, but otherwise it's a dead link that shouldn't be there.

I can't decide which source you meant when you said it is unreliable. If you meant Knight, okay, but then there is no point to me readding his quotes to Lilith's page as you asked because he's not a reliable source. That leads me to think that you mean Gamble is an unreliable source, which frankly I don't understand, since she is a far more reliable source than Knight, having been a long-time writer for the show as well as (for a time) its executive producer and show-runner, the one actually in charge of the show. The only way I can see why you might call her "unreliable" is if you meant that she may be painting herself in a more favorable light than some of her co-workers by saying she was the only one concerned about the implications of Sam raping Ruby's host. If so, I understand, but her account was the only one I could find that discussed the topic (mentioning the negative fan reaction), as well as the only one that gave more out-of-universe material on the topic that added to the page (why the writers included the relationship, their views on the topic and ultimately their approach). If other writers come forward saying that that's not how it happened, we could add their accounts in as well. I would just really like to include information about this controversy, since it did incite such a reaction among fans in the early part of Season 4. I feel that Ruby's page benefits from including it. Could you please clarify what you meant by "unreliable source"?

Again, I'm sorry if I'm pushing it or if I came off as confrontational. I just strongly feel that my edits are more helpful than harmful. We both want these pages to be great. If my reasoning made sense to you, that's great; if not, maybe you can explain what I'm doing wrong and what I'm not getting so that in the future, I won't have to bug you again. Hope we can figure this out. Cheers!--50.89.225.132 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. See my responses below:

The editing of the "Abilities" fields in the characters' information boxes weren't meant to be redundant - I had noticed that the section as it was had the "Abilities" showing in the out-of-universe section of the infobox (information about the characters' actors, creators, and the first and last episodes the characters appeared in) rather than the in-universe section it belonged to (information about the characters' species, gender, etc.) as it appears on other fictional character pages, and I tried to fix it. The new version merely moved the "Abilities" field to the in-universe part of the infobox, with no other alterations made; the revert moves it back so that it's clumped in with in-universe section again. Honestly, it sticks out like a sore thumb to me and it's been bugging me for awhile. If you have a good reason for wanting it to stay that way, please tell me and I'll let it go, but if not, please revert your reverts. Keeping in with general reverts, may I ask why the last episode the characters appeared in aren't allowed to be put in the "Last appearance" field?

Sorry, I didn't realize that it moved it to the in-universe section. Please feel free to readd those.

I also object to the reverts on Lilith and Ruby's pages. On Lilith specifically, looking back, I have to assume it was the deleted bit about her eating babies being a fulfillment of her mythic counterpart's roles that was unsupported? Since that pretty much was Lilith's role in myth and her eating the babies was confirmed in the episode cited, I assume that it was removed because Kripke did not specifically name it as the way she was fulfilling her mythic counterpart's role? I can't access the link myself to check; what exactly did he say? If he didn't mention it, I'll let that go. I removed the 66 Seals link in the Plot section that you re-added only because the section it linked to had been deleted. If you'd like to recreate the deleted section (which used to be on the main Supernatural page, under "Recurring elements"), all right, but otherwise it's a dead link that shouldn't be there.

Yes, it was because it was not specifically stated. Anything else would be conjecture on our part, which isn't allowed.

I can't decide which source you meant when you said it is unreliable. If you meant Knight, okay, but then there is no point to me readding his quotes to Lilith's page as you asked because he's not a reliable source. That leads me to think that you mean Gamble is an unreliable source, which frankly I don't understand, since she is a far more reliable source than Knight, having been a long-time writer for the show as well as (for a time) its executive producer and show-runner, the one actually in charge of the show. The only way I can see why you might call her "unreliable" is if you meant that she may be painting herself in a more favorable light than some of her co-workers by saying she was the only one concerned about the implications of Sam raping Ruby's host. If so, I understand, but her account was the only one I could find that discussed the topic (mentioning the negative fan reaction), as well as the only one that gave more out-of-universe material on the topic that added to the page (why the writers included the relationship, their views on the topic and ultimately their approach). If other writers come forward saying that that's not how it happened, we could add their accounts in as well. I would just really like to include information about this controversy, since it did incite such a reaction among fans in the early part of Season 4. I feel that Ruby's page benefits from including it. Could you please clarify what you meant by "unreliable source"?

It's not that Gamble is an unreliable source, it's that the website used is not considered a reliable source. Trust me, there are tons of interviews out there that would be invaluable to these articles, but there are guidelines on what can be allowed as a source. Ωphois 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I see now. That (that the fan interview was unreliable) makes sense. Thank you for replying and explaining. G'day!--50.89.225.132 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ophois! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tracy Strauss has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]