Talk:List of Supernatural episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of Supernatural episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted

Merge Proposal... 2?[edit]

There are several references to a merge proposal, but no tag for it. Is there any reason to have this list when there is a page for each season and the exact same information is listed there?71.195.215.71 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this information is redundant as each season page has exact same episode summaries. Keep the episode lists, but remove the bulk of the metadata.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like having a list of all of the episodes on one page. Less clicking to do to find one. This article is useful as is. 76.120.193.176 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you add the proposed merger tags it's really helpful to actually link to the discussion section that you start for the merge proposal. I just dug through the main article change logs, back to 17 July 2009, and discovered that User:71.195.215.71 did indeed add them all to the page on that date, starting with this revision.
There is a good reason to have both this list and the separate lists. This list is a spinout article for the main Supernatural (TV series) article, with the individual season articles as spinouts of both this and the main article. It's nice to have this list simply because it's nice and can be very useful to be able to see all of the episodes together, regardless of season. There does need to be more "Main" and hatnote links added to reinforce the relationships between the different articles, along with some general cleanup (which I'm about to do), but I'm going to remove the actual merger tags. If there was a larger discussion about this somewhere, feel free to re-add a merger proposal tag back and link to that discussion, but as long as the only concern is "There are several references to a merge proposal", along with unsubstantiated opinions about the usefulness of the article, I don't see a need for any mergers.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got a big chunk of it done.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense, seems more like a fans ode to the show that reasonable wiki. There are entire season pages with episode summaries, again a list, with single line of information is sufficient. Should initiate a community vote on this.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messed Up Guide[edit]

I believe someone was trying to edit something on Season 2 on th eepisode guide and now Season 2 is messed up. I'm not sure how to fix it, but if someone else will, thanks. Harlot666 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Episode Pages[edit]

Can someone who's fimilar with Wikipedia better than me add the pages for each episode (or at least some of them.) If thats confusing I mean add a sperate page such as the ones for "All Hell Breaks Loose, Pt. 1 and 2" If someone will make them, I'll take the time to add the complete summaries, trivia, etc. --Harlot 10:11, 18, May, 2008(UTC)

We can't have episode pages unless they have references like All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) does. If you want to look for references, I can help you make some pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can get refrences easy from the ratings websites and tv.com, if those are enough. - User:Harlot666 4:28, 19, May 2008 (UTC)
It's not going to be easy unfortunately. I made the Hell Breaks Loose one, and it was a bit of trouble. Try google news and avoid ones that have anything to do with blogs. If you can find five references that significantly discuss the same episode, list them here and I'll help you make the article. The easiest one will probably be the latest season finale. See this search - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one refrence, if it counts. It provides a short summary, music from the episode, and trivia from the episode.
http://www.tv.com/supernatural/no-rest-for-the-wicked/episode/1199072/summary.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=episodessh&tag=episodes;title;0
Would getting the website where the ratings were found help? User:Harlot666] 4:50, 20, May 2008

Description[edit]

I noticed that the description of "Hunted" (210) doesn't seem to make sense ("After Dean tells Sam that needs to protect him or he will have to kill him, a distraught Sam sneaks off to Indiana without Dean.") Could somebody who's watched the show fix this? InvertedSaint 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing episodes[edit]

Umm, what the heck happened to season 2? I think the last edit was an attempt to clean up some dates, but we're now missing two episodes!! Can someone find the airdates we need and clean up the table? Or can 211.30.43.103 please explain what they were attempting to acheive? :) --Stretch 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to spoilerfix.com since most future ep summaries are word-for-word from them.

To do[edit]

  • Images. done
  • Long summaries should be moved to their own pages. done
  • References. Where's the viewers numbers coming from. - Peregrinefisher 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Added reference for the final Nielsen numbers.[reply]
  • Reformat second season episodes to match the first. - Debuskjt 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) done[reply]
  • Move all summaries into articles to start stubs for individual pages. Think it would be good to just have a complete Supernatural "project" so we don't end up with ever-expanding short summaries. - Debuskjt 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Done up through current airdate.[reply]
  • Shorten summaries to be very short lead-ins to main articles. - Debuskjt 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) done[reply]

Unaired episode summaries?[edit]

What is the policy here for summaries of unaired episodes? Would that not be considered a spoiler? I'm removing the summary for "Houses of the Holy" for the time being because of this. —simpatico talk 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The page is clearly tagged with a spoiler warning and Wikipedia is not censored (thus spoilers are allowed). They should be left in the article. - Debuskjt 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But the only way we can know the content of an unaired episode is through other people's official summaries. Are we just going to paraphrase those? Seems dangerously close to plagiarism, seeing as we have absolutely no other information to go on but exactly what is given in said summary (except for televised promos and sides -- but the pure speculation based on those things clearly should not be allowed in an encyclopedic article). Official summaries, promos, and sides may be misleading or give entirely false information about the episode (as in the incident when Summer Glau was said to be playing the zombie girl in "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things"), and there is no way of knowing whether they are correct until the episode airs and we see it ourselves. I think for the sake of accuracy, if not for the sake of people who would like to remain spoiler-free, we should not be writing summaries for unaired episodes.
However, if people are going to be doing this, they will need to cite their source for the information on the episode, since it is not yet common knowledge (i.e. you can't get that information from watching what has been released of the show). Upcoming plot points (such as those gleaned from sides) are subject to change and prone to inaccuracy, and are therefore subject to challenge and in need of a cite. —simpatico talk 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be careful with upcoming episode summaries. We should be citing official sources, not spoiler websites. Also, paraphrasing is not plagiarism, we just have to be careful to not copy. - Peregrine Fisher 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just needs to be sourced. If not sourced, should be tagged with {{cn}}. There are reliable sources for future episodes out there, like TV Guide. Also, inaccuracy isn't so much an issue... Wiki strives for verifiability, not accuracy. - Debuskjt 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writers/directors on this page[edit]

Can we please put back the writer/director information? I'm perfectly aware that it's on the individual episode pages, but the entire point of adding it in here as well was to have that information at a glance and to be able to use the browser search to find, for example, all episodes written by Eric Kripke or directed by Kim Manners. The X-Files episode page includes the writers and directors, and I've found it extremely useful more than once. Waterofthemoon 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion, especially now that there are no individual episode articles except All Hell Breaks Loose. I want to know who wrote what. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes[edit]

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ned Scott 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • The result is to redirect all to the list. TTN 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now, I will tell you something that you probably dont want to hear. I am 100% against the merging of episodes. I will draw your attention to The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. These episodes were abundant in information, but before yu gave us the chance, you snatched away our information! I, myself, will not stand for it! and no more angry e-mails! Funfair15 had enough to deal with! (Liberator14 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I object. Please use the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect per TTN. No out-of-universe notability asserted to justify the retention of any of these articles, which completely fail the consensus standard laid out at WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed up All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) a bit. I think redirecting is a bad idea because TV Squad has reviews for all the episodes, and the DVDs come with a number of features we can use (commentary and making ofs). Buddy TV also has a lot of info that we can use. - Peregrine Fisher 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but we've already established at WP:RS that TV Squad's reviews are not always that beneficial beyond "this is a great episode" (which wouldn't fit WP:NPOV's fairness of tone), nor is 1 review much for showing notability. The "Making ofs", unless they are for individual episodes, usually encompass making the whole show, and are probably better for the main article (though that isn't to say that they couldn't focus on a specific episode, or give you these and those about random episodes). I don't trust the reliability of production information from Buddy TV or TV Squad, as they come across like IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN and Josiah Rowe, I have read and understood your comments - thank you. But while I applaud your desire to establish best practice standards, I question the necessity in this case. At the heart of it, this is a TV show, a fictional piece of work whose Wiki contributors are its fans who enjoy seeing their own 2 cents worth displayed in a widely read cyberspace forum. You may argue that this is the wrong forum to do so but where is the harm in maintaining the current status? While the quality of the contributions may vary from article to article, the show-based facts and commentaries are true and good-natured. I may not be conversant in Wiki standards but I like to think that Wiki was created so that everyone can have a say, as long as what they say are factually accurate and doesn't injure anyone. I believe in the basic principle of Wiki which is - use logic. And my own logic here is that I would support a merging if we were discussing articles on the Kyoto Protocol and there were divergent threads. I would also support you if there is evidence that these individual articles were occupying bandwidth that could have been allocated to a cause such as eradicating poverty. But that's not the case here, and at the end of the day, Wiki is another public forum albeit one with slightly more consistent standards than many others. Please redirect your commendable efforts to articles that might mislead and cause real harm. Thplink 06:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - these are all mere plot summary and are not notable. I'd like to note note that I actually look at the articles and type something unique in my comments on talk pages; I see above several long pastes of "arguments" made elsewhere. FYI, I really found the "references" of Asylum (Supernatural) amusing. Seems people are speaking different languages on these issues. --Jack Merridew 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to interested editors[edit]

This is a boilerplate bit of advice to editors of television episode articles which have come under Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review.

There is fairly widespread consensus that not all television episodes are sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own in Wikipedia. In the interest of fairness, the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review process has been established, to determine whether it's possible to establish out-of-universe importance and real-world context for television episode articles. For example, after uncontroversial discussion here, articles on individual episodes of The Simple Life were turned into redirects to List of The Simple Life episodes.

If you're interested in keeping episode articles, the key thing is to find reliable sources discussing individual episodes. Sources which may help establish notability for these episodes include reviews in newspapers, discussion in specialist magazines, and detailed episode guides. (Some of my fellow editors feel that episode guides aren't sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability, but I disagree, especially for professionally published episode guides.) The key thing for improvement of these articles is to include some real-world content (ratings are a good start) and information beyond plot summaries and cast lists. If there are any books published about this series, see if the production or impact of individual episodes are discussed, and add that information to the episode articles. If someone used sources like these books on a handful of these episode articles, to indicate that the episodes of this series have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that any episode of the series could have encyclopedic coverage, I'd support leaving the other articles as they are, because the potential would have been demonstrated. I hope that interested editors will take up this challenge, and improve the articles so that they won't be redirected.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trivia[edit]

A lot of the articles about specific articles have trivia sections. The information in the trivia sections should be incorporated into the article and not remain their own separate section. I'm posting this here as I think it would be more productive to do this than to go episode by episode and place the trivia tag. Freak104 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Issue[edit]

I don't really understand what is going on with the whole merging thing, but PLEASE don't merge the episodes with the list page! And is this where I should be saying this, or is there another place? (Wikirocks2 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You should probably put your response in the section above where people are talking about it. Hewinsj 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why cant i access the whole plot synopsis of the episodes by clicking on them anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfujack (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Hell Breaks Loose[edit]

A user believes that this version of All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)‎ asserts enough notability to stand on its own. It has one production note and trivial reviews. That is not notability. TTN 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the conversation made redirecting episode pages with notbility established the way to go? - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The episode has not established notability. It is not just about having reviews or production notes. They must be non-trivial, and they must actually take up a chunk of space. TTN 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article meets this. Multiple articles entirely devoted to the episode. Not sure how it could be any clearer. - Peregrine Fisher 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", not "any sort of coverage one can dig up". There was also question of the reliability of one of the source up above. TTN 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digging up sources is now bad? I googled for reviews and found them. Read about TV Squad at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 6#TV Squad as a reliable source. Bignole didn't like some reviews he read, but it is still reliable. You used to be pretty happy with WP's guidelines when they support your position. Be reasonable and abide by them when they don't. - Peregrine Fisher 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it needs to be significant. Just digging up a couple of minor reviews doesn't cut it (no matter how reliable they are). Completely forgetting reliability and all that, the current reviews and production notes do not hold the page. TTN 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain using quotes from WP policy and guideline pages. - Peregrine Fisher 00:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those cases where discussion just goes back and forth when citing wording (interpretation can be annoying). I have asked for comments from the WP:EPISODE talk page. TTN 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "Brett Love of TV Squad liked that instead of just focusing on another case, part 1 of "All Hell Breaks Loose" had "weight and importance that a good finale should have."[3] In regards to part 2, he felt that although he knew Sam wouldn't stay dead from part 1, the show handled Sam's coming back well. He felt Ona Grauer was "delightful" as the cross roads demon; describing her as a "supernatural used-car salesman."" -- Everything in there is unusable, except for the characterization of Grauer as a "supernatural used-car salesman". The bit about handling Sam's coming back has nothing to do with the episode in an analysis eye, it's some fanish opinion. It's like saying "Roger Ebert liked Mr. Smith." The question should be, why did he like him. There needs to be anaylsis, not just "i like this episode". The other review needs a lot of work, as it isn't written well. Do we get into the fact that the plots are about 10 times larger than they need to be. I get you're cramming two episode plots into one, but it should be written as one story and trimmed significantly. I don't see a lot of reason to keep, because the reception section is weak in that information that is usable, and the one production note...if you can write up the entire production into one sentence, then you don't have a need to even put it in its own section. You could easily just make it a footnote on the list of episodes page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What page talks about "fannish opinion"? A review states the reviewer's opinion. If a review says "X like Y," that's the most important info from a review. It's doesn't contradict NPOV, since it's stated who likes Y. Basically, I'm hearing two things. "The discussion goes back and forth." Yeah, one direction is stating how this article meats WP:N based on our guidelines, the other direction is stating that they don't, without any evidence to support that position. The other thing is calling a review "fannish," which is shorthand for you don't like it, unless there's some guideline I don't know about which says that a reviewer liking some aspect of some media isn't something we include. Neither has any basis in our guidelines or policies. Again, please fraim this debate in terms of our rules. I guess I'll just say it, our guidelines don't support any of your arguments, so please abide by them, or try to change them from the top down. - 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)
The reception section would be fine for a start if it was for an episode that actually established its notability. Also, the depth of the plot summary is not justified by secondary information (or rather the lack thereof). There are no production details, there is almost no analysis. Having said that, I'd point out that this episode is pretty new and was not given enough time to develop; it's also the season finale which may have more notability than average episodes. But since plot summaries exist to provide context for analysis (and not the other way around), the plot should at least be trimmed a lot, or the LoC is sufficient. The article can be recreated when the situation changes, when more secondary third-party sources and possibly DVD material is provided for production information.– sgeureka t•c 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peregrine, it doesn't have any context. It's simply "I liked this episode." Ok, what does that have to do with analyzing the episode and explaining why you liked it. If someone said, "It's the greatest episode ever," that could still be a NPOV issue. The reason is that, just because it can be verified doesn't mean that expressing it in such a manner is being NPOV. Also, where's the negative criticism? Fairness of tone, you need to present both sides, and it needs to be more than just "I liked it," "I hated it." Our guidelines do, because you haven't provided anything that establishes notability. We covered TV Squad on the talk page of WP:RS, and it was explained to you by me, and other editors, that most of those reviews do not meet the professional quality that is asked of them, and that most of them have absolutely no analytical information about the episodes. When you write a review section, you should be describing the key components, not saying you liked them just because you're a fan of the show. That's being biased, and it means THEY are not being neutral.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Saying the episode is the greatest ever would not be NPOV, saying so and so thought it what the greatest ever does. None of the review by RSs were unfavorable, so that takes care of proportianality and fairness of tone. We can't make up negative reception, that would violate NPOV, if we find none, then we just add nothing, representing the views fairly. As far as calling reviews from a RS fannish, or speculating on their quality, this is not for us to do. We summarize what reliable sources have said about our article's subject, that's it. Imagine some controversial subject, where an editor removes RSs supporting one position, saying they're poorly written. This would be a great weapon for violaing NPOV, so obviously it would be unnaceptable. We determine whether sources are reliable, then we summarize them fairly, no more, no less. To do otherwise allows editor opinions to direct the content of articles, instead of relying on RSs. - Peregrine Fisher 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. First, you cannot say "none of the reviews", because you have 2 reviews. You're saying that there are only two reviews for this episode? That screams that there isn't a lot of notability going on here. We also use information that has context. Sorry, but the TV Squad review has about as much context as saying "Green is a color". Thanks for the clarification. Per the discussion on WP:RS, it was kind of agreed that only the reviews that actually analyzed the shows would meet our criteria for inclusion. I read no anaylsis in that TV Squad review. You might as well go to some fan forum and pull out the "I liked it" comments and use those, because that is what it is equivalent to. The review section is supposed to have analysis, not be a collection of "i like it", "I don't like it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide me a link that says "it was kind of agreed that only the reviews that actually analyzed the shows would meet our criteria for inclusion." - Peregrine Fisher 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already provided a link to the discussion on TV Squad. I think it was clear that Jack didn't like the source at all, and I told you, which you admitted that "some reviews are better than others", that unless there is something more than " i like the episode", then the reviews were useless. The whole point of the discussion on WP:RS for TV Squad was you were asking if they were reliable. I believe I consistently told you that a lot of their reviews have nothing in them except for a lot of "this was a good episode" commentary. Sorry, but some random blogger for TV Squad saying "it was a good episode" means almost nothing. They are not a notable critic, so their opinion on what they like is equivalent to a forum or blog site, which you know how those are treated in Wiki already. That is why I said they need to have substance, and be more than just an "I like it." WP:RS even states, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and originality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work." Of what authority do these reviewers have? They don't appear to write reviews for any major news organization or media house. The give in that scenario we were discussing was that if they actually analyzed the episode then it was worth using. That is why, "...Supernatural did a brave thing in wrapping up the main storyline, unlike shows such as Lost where the story is allowed to become more and more convoluted. They felt this double episode was innovative, and that "everything with the Winchester brothers is constantly changing and getting better" and "He felt Ona Grauer was "delightful" as the cross roads demon; describing her as a "supernatural used-car salesman," are about the only useful bits out of that reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I said some reviews were better than others, it was a general statement about TV Squad in particular, and reviews in general. It almost sounds as if you'd like individual reviews run by you for your stamp of approval, regardless of the source. You're saying they're not a notable critic. Notability is something we apply to articles, not sources. There's no rule that we should be able to support an article on a reviewer before we can use theyre review. The part of RS you quote doesn't support your arguments, other than showing we should be using RSs like these instead of our own opinion. As far as writing for a major news house, TV Squad is part of Time Warner. That's about as big as it gets. What's there authority? They have experience writing numerous TV reviews for one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. - Peregrine Fisher 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a subsidiary doesn't make them authoritative. Again, reviews need to be more than just "I liked this". What is there is not only poorly written, but provides no insight into the episode at all. You're the only one saying that it is fine and proves notability. A reviewer saying "i thought it was good" doesn't prove anything. First, it's one person and not representative of anything. Second, as I stated before, says nothing about the episode. It doesn't say the episode is good, because it's a simplistic opinion. We aren't here to promote television shows, so whether someone liked it is irrelevant to how they anaylized it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode links[edit]

You used to be able to click on each episode title and it would take you to a page for that episode but now you can't click them, what's the deal with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplenurple115 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to individual episode articles? You used to be able to click on them and it would take you to a link. Could you please bring it back?

Yes, there used to be useful information on guest stars or details on episode pages. The removal of this information has made Wikipedia demonstrably less useful to me. Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.19.43 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Honestly at least 50% of the time I go to Wikipedia, it's to check out an article for an episode of a TV show. Now as Wikipedia is being systematically purged of these articles (Has there been any show yet where after a 'review' it was decided to keep the pages? Even when the majority seems to support keeping the articles as is, they still go) for reasons I'm not a fan of, I find not wanting to visit Wikipedia.

Fresh Blood[edit]

At the end of the episode synopsis, it says Bela exhibits her first sign of fear. Didn't she show signs of fear when she knew she was going to get killed by the ghost in the episode before? Just pointing out an observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.167.39 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho[edit]

The scene of Sheila's death in Ep 3.06 ("Red Sky At Morning") is suspiciouly similar to the bath murder in Psycho (1960 film). Albmont (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Benders[edit]

The link on the episode 'The Benders' leads to a British comedy group, rather than the family of killers I imagine it's supposed to link to. Any chance someone can fix this, as I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a disambiguation note on that page for people looking for the Supernatural episode. --Evice (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Finale?[edit]

Is "No Rest For The Wicked" the season three finale? There's no reference for this, and it's the 16th episode for season three, which is six fewer than seasons one/two. --Stretch (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and a ref would be good. I do know that because of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike the season isn't as long as normal. If someone added that it's the season finale their probably right, but we should still find a ref. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A ref for the information that i know has been added, if some one can add a ref for other information, it can be readded. Rau's Speak Page 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

The source for the ratings needs to be updated, the current ref has no information on the shows airings. Rau's Speak Page 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual ratings appear to be deeper in the web site. Look at this search. I think they only let you go back so far though. I've looked for historical nielsen ratings data and I think because it's copyrighted or something it's really hard to find old data. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But if they only go back so far, then the information has become unsourced. Rau's Speak Page 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting issue. I don't know much about this source in particular but for example most newspaper articles are pulled from the web after a few weeks. Nielsen only lets you see the last week. This may be reliable. This may help to. I'm not sure if your looking for cites or just want to remove the ones that are there. If you're just looking to remove them, go ahead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to avoid removing the information. Rau's Speak Page 17:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Time Is On My Side" inconsistency[edit]

It is revealed that Bela is to be collected by a demon after a ten year period of grace elapses - but that happens at midnight by Pennsylvania time, which is the small hours of the morning in the U.K. where she incurred the obligation as a child. We are shown her succumbing to a demonic approach in the daytime. Even if the contract lined up with midnight, it would be GMT. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.80.53 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was "To the day" not "To the hour", it could be simply that they wait ten years and come for you on the first midnight after ten years. Either way, it's hardly notable and should not be included in the article. Rau's Speak Page 10:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's ten years then they come at midnight. On "Crossroads Blues" I'm pretty sure it shows the guy making the deal during the day, then the hellhounds come at night. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season Four[edit]

What is the source for that? IMDB and TV.com are not reliable. Both use unnamed sources or fan-given info. Rau's Speak Page 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the source is for the episode/description, but if you go http://www.supernatural.tv/ and scroll down a little, they have part of a article from The CW with the offical Season 4 premire date. They also have the "Lazorus Rising" description somewhere, but its not a good source. Zombified22 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it led me to TVGuide.com which is reliable. Rau's Speak Page 21:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I check that website every week or so, they always have information on the show. Zombified22 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guides Messed Up[edit]

The season 4 guide is messed up. Looking at it and you can just tell. Also the 2nd episode listed is "Calm Before the Storm" and that episode is actually going to be the fourth episode. Source for that is here: http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/08/scoop-the-super.html Zombified22 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're wrong. The fourth episode is "In the Beginning" according to your source. But other than that, good info. Rau's Speak Page 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the summary doesn't explain who Castiel is, and also seems to be under the impression that Azazel hasn't been oblierated. It looks fake to me.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its a fake, numerous sources have mentioned Dean escaping, the psychic, Bobby, etc. but I haven't found anything for Castiel or Azazel parts should be removed. Haroldandkumar12 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Castiel is in the sides, as well as in a casting report. The sides show Pamela trying to summon Azazel's spirit. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? Disturbedfan24 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template the list[edit]

I'd like to open a discussion to template the list. Similar to LOST and Avatar: The Last Airbender. It makes editing these articles easier and allows for consistency between them. *SIGN* 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would really rather we didnt change it to like those episodes. The brief overview of each episode is helpful in finding the correct episode if you dont know the name of it, also the design lay out at the moment is in keeping with many other popular shows on the wiki such as greys anatomy. Personally I think the lost, CSI etc... models lack enough information to actually make them useful to the user. -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Legend[edit]

Is there a reason that the Supernatural Legend information is listed for seasons 1-2 but not for 3-4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.210.46 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? *SIGN* 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Angel Is a Douche Bag[edit]

I found two refrences saying thats the title for te Jan. 22 episode, but I cant add it to the guide (not sure how). Im also not completelly sure their reliable but I'd say.

  1. 1 http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/11/casting-scoops.html (Obviousally read under the Supernatural part of the article)
  1. 2 http://www.buddytv.com/articles/supernatural/supernatural-grading-the-first-24823.aspx (Read under the section about "Are You There God, It's Me Dead Winchester?") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.106.155 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title keeps getting changed to "Ace Up My Sleeve" and I have no clue as to why. That has never been the title of the 4.12 episode. It has been reported in many official sources that "Criss Angel is a Douche Bag" is the official title. It has also been explained by Jensen Ackles himself that "douche bag" has been cleared by standards and practices, so that's why the Supernatural crew decided to use it in an episode title. I linked a reference that includes a video that was made my the Supernatural Editing Team that shows the title of the episode as "Criss Angel is a Douche bag" so it it doesn't get much more official than that.69.205.198.230 (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Ratings[edit]

Okay, this is just getting tiresome. Episode 4.09's final rating was 2.94 (down from it's fast national 3.91 number). Episode 4.10's final rating was 3.34 (down from it's fast national 4.03 number). It seems that a few people don't seem to understand that the number that comes out at noon the day after the episode airs is not the final number. It is the fast national number. The final number comes out later that day. 4.09 was preempted in New York, CW's #1 market and that's why the drop was so large. 4.10 was preempted in Pittsburgh so that's why that number dropped so much. Final numbers take the preemptions into account. Here is absolute proof of these numbers. 4.09's 2.94 rating (http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111808_03) and 4.10's 3.34 rating (http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112508_05). Scroll down and you'll see the ratings for all CW shows that week. There is no way to dispute it. So please, please stop changing it. You're putting up false information.

The ratings need to reflect the final numbers, which are posted over at pifeedback.com each Friday. The fast national numbers are posted around noon and then the final numbers are posted around 4:00-5:00 the same day. This site is completely reliable and has been for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.147.10 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forums generally are not considered to be reliable sources. Ωphois 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The forum is run by Marc Berman, the senior television editor at MediaWeek . He gets the ratings straight from Nielsen each day and chooses to post them on his message board so people can comment. It's completely reliable. Most of the numbers on here for season five are incorrect, so I fixed them...but you changed it back. Marc Berman is legit, check out his bio at media week's website [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.147.10 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Format[edit]

Could we please change the page format back to what it used to be? This new format is extremely unhelpful and somewhat pointless. Also the claim that it follows the pattern of "most other popular shows" is flawed, for example please see the episode lists on: Heroes, Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice, Reaper, My Name is Earl, House etc.... -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what happened to that extremely helpful column that showed the legend/supernatural being featured in the episode? For example I might not know the title of the episode "Yellow Fever", but on the older model I could have easily found it by searching for the "ghost sickness", plus the older model would have also linked me to the Wikipedia article Ghost sickness. Again it cannot be argued it was taken out to follow the pattern of "most popular shows" since List of House episodes still contains a section for the final diagnosis and links to the article containing the condition featured.--Bernalj90 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Bern on this, as this has not been resolved I have taken it to further to editor consultation according the dispute resolution guidelines. -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour On Season 1[edit]

The olive colour for season 1 was really ugly so i switched most of it to a violet but i can't figure out how to change the colour on the main season list page so i left it. Will someone who is more familular with this change it to #8D38C9. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.222.83 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection[edit]

I ask for semi protection to this article because there is a continous vandalism from IP adresses Ularevalo98 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a task force as well doing that --I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 03:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs)

Original Airdate - future episodes[edit]

1: Season five has, at this time, three original airdates listed. I think this should be changed as it's presenting this information as fact whereas it can't possibly be because these airings haven't yet happened. I think the column header should be change to something more accurate such as 'Proposed' or 'Scheduled' airdate.

2: I'm not sure that 'airdate' is actually a word. Should it not be two words 'air date'? I can't find a reliable source for the word 'airdate'. Dgen (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think you should not merge the list page to the seasons because its more easier to read and find information like this.

what i think you need to do is to remove the lists from each season and instad someone needs to write the plot of the intire season to each season. or add plot to a list with no informetion about each episode,instad only general informetion like number name of episode,director,writer and dateJustig (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plots[edit]

Plots only go on season pages. NewYorkCity101 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which episode did Jensen Ackles lip synch to that 70's hit?[edit]

He did a terrific job lip synching to, and I can't remember the song, while playing the air guitar.

^^^^ Calvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.16.184 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4: "Yellow Fever" Ωphois 01:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewer Count References -- too many footnotes?[edit]

Is it really necessary to footnote each individual episode's viewer count (especially considering that most of the footnotes refer to pages on the same website) when, we can have one footnote per season (as seen for season 3) instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowgax (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If such reference would exist please provide a link, for now there is no such reference (that I know of), so that would not be possible. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writer' credit: "story" and "teleplay"[edit]

Refer to the below example:

№ # Title Directed by Written by Original air date Production
code 		U.S. viewers
(million)
12218"Frontierland"Guy BeeStory by: Andrew Dabb & Daniel Loflin & Jackson Stewart
Teleplay by: Andrew Dabb & Daniel Loflin		April 22, 2011 (2011-04-22)3X60671.90
Original format.
12218"Frontierland"Guy BeeJackson Stewart (story)
Andrew Dabb & Daniel Loflin (story & teleplay)		April 22, 2011 (2011-04-22)3X60671.90
More compact format. In more involved lists of writers the header wraps to fewer lines.


Some episodes have multiple writers listed, sometimes differentiating them by "story" and "teleplay". For example ep 122 ( S6E18), "Frontierland", had:

Story by: Andrew Dabb & Daniel

Loflin & Jackson Stewart
Teleplay by: Andrew Dabb & Daniel

Loflin

Which wrapped inelegantly to 4 lines as above (on my monitor at least).

I made this more compact using the form:

Andrew Dabb & Daniel Loflin

(story & teleplay)

Jackson Stewart (story)

Which wrapped to 3 lines.

(Of course, if you have a large widescreen monitor, you'll see less wrapping.)

I can't see any downside to this, it is exactly the same information, presented a bit more compactly which makes a difference in the confines of a table. After I revised this article as above the only response I received over the next few days was a comment that it made the table inconsistent with other seasons, so I made the same adjustments to all seasons. Yet I'm sure some will take offence. If so, please consider the above and discuss here before reverting. Barsoomian (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping to three lines is just as inelegant as four. And besides, not everyone has the same monitor as you. On mine, for instance, it wrapped to a clean, efficient two either way. This is the same crap we went through on the Game of Thrones page. This is a near universal formatting consensus across Wikipedia. You're going to be fought on pretty much any page you try this on. There is no point railing against something that everyone else agrees works, has been in effect for years (as far as I can remember) and is basically everywhere on the site. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your last revert is just plain disruptive, especially with an edit summary like "Better format, see Talk", which is clearly in disagreement. This is again the common format, just like SchrutedIt08 said, why you insist on your format is beyond me, I have no wrapping at all, and from your code it does not seem to be the way it is formulated that causes it but the fact you add {{Nowrap}} to your format. Additionally your edits are inconsistent, some have "teleplay and story" the others "story and teleplay" and others have "story & teleplay", again flying against consistency. This seems to be again some kind of hate against what you previously called "double dipping", what will you do if the case is "Story: A & B, Teleplay:B & C"? Will you change that to "A (story), B (teleplay and story), C (teleplay)", you'll have more lines then. Or will you have B double? Xeworlebi (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that there is a "universal format consenus" I'm bucking: where is this documented? So Wikipedia is already perfect and we can all just stop trying to improve it. Complaining about my edit summaries is rich after your dismissive automated reverts. Why are your reverts not disruptive? You see no wrapping? Do you have a 40" monitor? I've been told elsewhere to be sensitive to people using phones to access Wikipedia, now you tell me we should format for cinematic screens? Anyway, believe it or not, I'm not making edits solely to tick you off. You don't have to "hate" to make text more concise. (Though prolixity and needless repetition does irk me.) I'm trying to make the tables more compact, while still containing exactly the same information, and that is a real benefit in a multi-column layout, no matter how gigantic your monitor may be. I'll take your point about inconsistent ordering, and fix it. You seem to be to be attacking my character and trivialising my concerns rather than addressing the substance of the edits. I'm sure you don't actually mean to, so try to AGF and not just revert everything I do on sight. Barsoomian (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"what will you do if the case is "Story: A & B, Teleplay:B & C"? Will you change that to "A (story), B (teleplay and story), C (teleplay)", you'll have more lines then. Or will you have B double?" If it arose, probably "A & B (story) , B & C (teleplay)" would be the best option. I don't have a "hate" against listing a name twice if the alternative is more clumsy. You are welcome to suggest an alternative. Barsoomian (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made a change and it was rejected, just redo-ing it (multiple times) is disruptive; especially with summaries that are blatantly POV, such as "better format", even tough another user already said on this talk page it wasn't; restoring the status quo is not. This seems to boil down to one thing, which is you don't recognize universal format consensus. I could link you again to all the other FA lists using this format, but you already saw them. Actually one of them was this episode list, I won't say it because you'll think I ABF, but it's suspicious at best. Good you took the point about inconsistency, now take it one step further and revert your edits so these articles are again consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. If you really want to know I have a 20" screen and my browser isn't even full screen, and wrapping doesn't occur until the table is smaller than 1000px, on a Phone it will wrap no-matter what, just the table headers wrap on such small screen. But that doesn't actually matter, there's will be a problem for some, and your solution doesn't solve it for them, trying to is futile, I'm sure someone is reading wikipedia on a stamp sized screen. You're going against established formatting because you like it better that way. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Your argument is "We do it this way so comply or else?" Your revert summaries are pretty damn POV. The only person who rejected my change was you. One other person pointed out an inconsistency with other seasons, so I then made them the same style, though most of the others didnt have the blowouts of season 6. I'm not going to concede when you haven't given one reason to do so other than your insistence you have the authority to rule on this without bothering to cite any policy or guideline. You could wait a while and see if anyone else feels as strongly as you about preferring a more verbose format that is worse for some and better for no one Barsoomian (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see any problem with the verbose format on your 20" monitor. Nice for you. Do you see any problem with the format I proposed? If not, why not use a format that has some benefits for those with smaller screens, such those using laptops and netbooks? What is actually wrong with it? It has exactly the same information in fewer words. I can't see why this is even an issue. Barsoomian (talk)
I, too, prefer the original format. Ωphois 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Can you please explain your response? Barsoomian (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a computer screen is small and wraps the text (as shown in your example above), then the "(story and teleplay)" will get shifted to the middle. This does not look visually-pleasing at all. At least with the original format, you can easily see where things begin and end. Ωphois 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your problem. The labels "story and teleplay" are just as obvious whether they precede or follow the names. But since you've already reverted my work, it seems further discussion is surplus to requirements here. For the record, the two formats are now at the top of this section. Barsoomian (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 10 Premiere Date[edit]

The reference that has been used (here) to support a start date of October 7, 2014 for the tenth season doesn't include any information about the actual start date. I assume that this is just a mistake, but another source should be used which confirms the date. G.Light (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

throughoust?[edit]

Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, but you're perfectly capable of making that correction yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Supernatural episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Supernatural episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Supernatural episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Series Overview[edit]

I have a question. Why did the series date got deleted for season 15? The series finale date was May 18, 2020. Is it because of the coronavirus? The CW might still keep the series finale date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.27.25 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of the coronavirus pandemic, they were unable to complete production of the last 2 episodes so it is high unlikely that it will end on that date anymore, unless they can resume production within a month. However, we should keep the date until we are told otherwise by The CW (they've already made some scheduling changes to The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow so I'm sure they will do the same with SPN soon). - Brojam (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top 101 and Worst 100 episodes from Variety[edit]

Variety published two lists:

Probably could be useful for some critical commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Supernatural_episodes&oldid=1203649176"