Talk:Supernatural season 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSupernatural season 1 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starSupernatural season 1 is the main article in the Supernatural (season 1) series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2009Articles for deletionKept
October 1, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
October 17, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 22, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
September 14, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Suggestions[edit]

  1. Do we need the two subsections of Music? No need for distinction between score and rock songs...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ophois (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How about putting a quote from the MANIA interview about the music?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ophois (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could the Reception section also be expanded a bit? A quote like in Writing would be nice too...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I can't really find any more interviews that critique the first season. Anything else that I can find just relates to the pilot. Ophois (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Isn't there any information about how the DVD's sales did?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ophois (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could u specify "cumulatively"? I mean till when?
    Does the change help? Ophois (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the DVDs are still selling so you can't say cumulatively. You have to specify a date, right?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, got it now....needed to concentrate a bit, it's 1:35 AM here...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do we need the table spread on the DVD specs? It seems a bit excessive. The section already breaks down the basic special features that come with the boxset; I'm not sure we need a whole graphic to break it down any further.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Ophois (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it because it shows the different release dates, gives an overview of the features and the different languages the dvd is released in... The FA reviewers can decide on that. I suggest just leaving it till someone from over there objects.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may like it, but it's impracticable. First, we aren't here to try and sell a product, as much of those details about the boxset specs are irrelevant to us. Second, the dates can all (and should be all) mentioned in the prose information before hand, with sources attached. After that, everything else is in prose already. There is no need to duplicate what you've already said. That would be like listing out all of the episode titles and airdates, and then creating a table that does it all over again. One is redundant to the other. In this case, the table is less appropriate to the prose that comes before it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the prose holds that information then there is no need for the table, as it would be redundant...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The whole Writing section is about influences, so why do u have an influences section? You could name it "Influences by popular culture" or anything better.
    Done.Ophois (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Ophois (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why is the quote in Music on the left? If it looks better that way you could say so...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all the other quotes/images are on the right, so it looks weird to me. I thought I'd mix it up with one on the left. Ophois (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Writing could have another quote in the beginning. I don't know, but I like quotes :)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ophois (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Add an introductory sentence before "Tanner Stransky of Entertainment Weekly " saying if the season garnered favorable review and why the pilot is so much reviewed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's reviewed so much because it's the first episode the series. Ophois (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikilink Zap2it, People Weekly, Slant Magazine, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series and 58th Primetime Emmy Awards, Golden Reel Award and many more Awards, Publishers, categories and names that should have wikilinks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)
    Done. Ophois (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to wikilink armed forces... but wikilink more things like Come to Daddy Christopher Lennertz Jay Gruska and things that are special or not known by every single person... watchout of Wikipedia:Overlinking--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ophois (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nomination process is usually long, I'm gonna go ahead and nominate it for FA. Ophois (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you done anything with that "Cast" section yet?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, as anything that would be in it would be included on the main series or character article, anyways. Ophois (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, the DVD cover image that you uploaded for the page failed to meet wiki policy for some reason. I don't really understand how the image policies work, so do you mind looking over the stuff for the DVD cover and the boat image? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it failed? I don't see anything on the image indicated that it failed the policy. I added the 10 criteria rationale for the boat image for you, and uploaded a smaller resolution (you need to keep it close to 300px, for some reason that's the magic number for image size...obviously if you have a widescreen shot then it needs to be 300px high, and vice versa if it's an upright show). Other than that, I'll try and read over it and do any grammar cleanups I can, but I haven't watched the show (and I'd really like to) so I don't want to spoil myself too much. I'd put in a request at WP:TV and the CopyEditors WikiProject to see if some other people could also come do some c/eing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the DVD cover image failed. One of the FAN wrote that it failed in the nomination section. Ophois (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/questions from Bignole[edit]

  • "Though they were uncertain at exactly what direction to take the character, Meg was intended to be an antagonist for the Winchesters throughout her story arc." - This seems unclear. What were they uncertain about? It seems that they had a clear direction for the character by making her an antagonist. This needs to be fleshed out more.
Her background and storyline, from my understanding. They knew they wanted her to be a bad guy, but didn't know exactly what to do with her at first. Ophois (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be expanded up, otherwise, it's contradictory to say "they were uncertain, but intended for her to be an antagonist".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her being an antagonist is not an "exact" direction for the character. Ophois (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's only two directions, good and bad. They might not know a specific backstory for her, but they clearly had the direction of making her an antagonist from the start. To say they were uncertain about her direction and follow it up with "intended to be" is contradictory. If they aren't clear about what they couldn't figure out with her, then that part needs to be dropped because it's an open question on the page without an answer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than one type of direction. Good/evil, nice/mean, serious/witty, etc. Being an antagonist is a general direction, but there's more aspects to the character than just that. Ophois (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example with Lois Lane in Smallville. She is a love interest for Clark in all Superman media, but the direction used in Smallville is quite different from other versions. Ophois (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, unless we know what they are talking about, it's confusing. What did they say specifically? If they said they didn't know what characteristics to give her, then we should say that. But you cannot be vague when you say they were unsure, and then in the same sentence follow it up with what they intended. They cannot be both without specifically identifying what they were trying to figure out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book says, "We knew that it was going to be some sort of arc. We didn't really have a definitive direction that we were gonna go in, we just kind of knew that we were going to do something that was definitely against the boys—a power that they have to fight. When I got to Vancouver, we sorted that out over time while I was there." Ophois (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they say something else, even that's confusing. I cannot tell if they are saying they didn't know where they wanted to take Meg, or where they wanted to take the season one villain itself. It should probably just be dropped completely until better sense can be made of it, because as it stands not it opens a new question and doesn't provide a concrete answer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is in reference to the character of Meg. Ophois (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still makes no sense when you're reading both it, and the season 1 page. You cannot say, "we didn't know where to take the character, but we intended for her to be an antagonist", because you aren't explaining what you mean be "take the character". Do they mean they didn't know what type of personality to give her, how evil to make her, physical characteristics, how long she's last on the show, etc. It's too vague to be of any real use, because it just leaves you wondering what they were even talking about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Ophois (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...having her target specific people..." - Do we know exactly who Bloody Mary targets?
People who secretly felt guilt for the deaths of others. Ophois (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then we should add that so the reader knows. I'm not sure if it's in the plot section or not, but it's ok to add that clarification to the sentence - "having her target people who felt guilty for the deaths of others". In addition, is that just anyone who felt guilty about "anyone's" death, or is there a more specific reason for it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling responsible for someone's death. The main character is targeted because she broke up with her boyfriend after he said he would kill himself if she did, and he ended up committing suicide. Ophois (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh..see, we need to add that because it provides the necessary context for the reader to understand the big difference that created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also added in aspects of a poltergeist by having him attached to the conflicting emotions of one of the female characters." - Is this a regular character, or a one episode character?
Guest character. Ophois (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably say that (e.g., "...emotions of the guest star's character"). Do we know what was so special about this one character? Was it just a random connection, or was there something deeper?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her crucifix necklace was his melted hook. Ophois (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha...we should make sure that's in there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For their version of the legend of a scarecrow coming to life, the writers chose to incorporate elements from the Vanir of Norse mythology, in an effort to avoid repeating elements that others had used." - Do we know what they took from Vanir, and do we know what repetitive elements they were trying to avoid?
Pretty much the whole aspect is used. Scarecrow-like things were used by Vanirs to take physical form to communicate or take their sacrifices, which is what is depicted in the episode. As stated in the original page version, the writers were trying to avoid having another ghost villain. Ophois (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it really shouldn't be "elements from", but flat out "used the Vanir...". As for the repetitive thing, that was my bad. I misread the sentence. Had I read it correctly, I wouldn't have removed it, or asked the question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simpsons references in something wicked[edit]

Brockway ogdenville North Haverbrook are all mentioned this is a direct reference to the simpsons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdenville#Towns didnt know if this was worth mentioning or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.205.146 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Supernatural season 1/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

#Needs expansions in the production and cast sections.
  1. In the cast it needs: How the characters developed and why these actors were chosen for the specific role.
  2. The production section's subsections need expansions, you are detailing 22 episodes... Info about writing, mythology, filming locations and music of key episodes needs adding. Were there any visual effects used in the episodes? Special filming techniques of key episodes... Comprehensiveness means all the info available and accessible about the season should be in the article.

Last edited at 22:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

FA criteria[edit]

Plot summary has been cleanup tagged since 2017. Has this been resolved? If not, may need featured article reassessment. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azazel's name[edit]

Azazel's name is mentioned a dozen times in the summaries of episodes 20, 21, and 22 (plus in the cast), although his name isn't revealed until nearly the end of season 3. It's not ThomasKnowsThings (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I hit enter too soon.
I meant, "It's not hugely significant on the plot, but is it still wise to leave it in the season 1 page?". ThomasKnowsThings (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supernatural_season_1&oldid=1216322474"