This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JKSarang (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 8 November 2009 (→Change: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:31, 8 November 2009 by JKSarang (talk | contribs) (→Change: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
Supernatural (American TV series) is currently a Theatre, film, and drama good article nominee. Nominated by Ophois (talk) at 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
|
 | Television B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
66 Seals
Just a minor point, the Angels laid siege to hell in an attempt to break Dean out after the Demons started torturing him but before Dean started torturing others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.138.102 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Cultural Impact
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the show will have a long term cultural influence on western television not unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel which is funny considering the series itself is a formula made up of assorted cultural influences!Twobells (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Find a source. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
]A Source Twobells (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- That article is about how the series has been influenced by western culture, not the other way around. However, it has some interesting tidbits, so some can be incorporated throughout the article. Ophois (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ratings
OK, I'm trying to find refs, and I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Season_ratings for help. It has some useful info, but it doesn't match our table. I just changed the viewers in millions (I hope its right, and not just 18-49 or something), and the other columns may need to be changed if we want to use the suggested refs. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we should adapt our table to fit the info.Ophois (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- We also need to find references for all the explained ratings information below the ratings box. Ophois (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shit. I didn't even notice that. This thing is going to need like a hundred refs. I'll keep looking for some, but if you want to do the same, what I recommend is look at the Smallville article. It was done by the user at WPTV, and if you look at the refs, it gives you an idea of where to find that kind of info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm working on the DVD section, but will try and get to it when I can. However, if we can't find references for the info, it doesn't matter that much. A lot can be trimmed. The Lost article (a featured article) only has a paragraph explaining the ratings for all five seasons. Ophois (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably where we're going with it. It's too much work, for info that doesn't matter that much. We could cut and paste it onto the season pages in case anyone ever wants to use it. I'm gonna focus on the table, which is problematic enough. Different sites are calculating the rank in different ways, for instance. I'll figure something out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the series' rank provided on the ratings list? Ophois (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- The rank is in that last ref, but I think they're calculating it differently. Like american idol gets more than one spot. I'd like to figure it out before I add it. Otherwise it will look weird as they go from around 130 to around 180.
- Isn't the series' rank provided on the ratings list? Ophois (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably where we're going with it. It's too much work, for info that doesn't matter that much. We could cut and paste it onto the season pages in case anyone ever wants to use it. I'm gonna focus on the table, which is problematic enough. Different sites are calculating the rank in different ways, for instance. I'll figure something out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm working on the DVD section, but will try and get to it when I can. However, if we can't find references for the info, it doesn't matter that much. A lot can be trimmed. The Lost article (a featured article) only has a paragraph explaining the ratings for all five seasons. Ophois (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shit. I didn't even notice that. This thing is going to need like a hundred refs. I'll keep looking for some, but if you want to do the same, what I recommend is look at the Smallville article. It was done by the user at WPTV, and if you look at the refs, it gives you an idea of where to find that kind of info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some refs I need to look at later. Don't have time now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- This one may be useful, too. Ophois (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jackpot Ophois (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- This works a bit better for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know if you have it or not: Season 2. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- For individual season 4 episodes (such as season highs and lows), this might work. Ophois (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Bignole. I was having a devil of a time finding it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Season 1, but it's missing the season premiere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think it's still better, since it's comparing apples to apples. Now the rank won't be jumping all over the place. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Season 1, but it's missing the season premiere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Bignole. I was having a devil of a time finding it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- For individual season 4 episodes (such as season highs and lows), this might work. Ophois (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know if you have it or not: Season 2. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- This works a bit better for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved from article
- We may want some of this later, if we can find refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the last link that I found in the section above has this stuff in it, but not positive. Ophois (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Season One
When it first aired on September 13, 2005, Supernatural rated higher than 2003's One Tree Hill premiere in adults 18–34, adults 18–49 and total viewers (5.69 million). Supernatural attained the time period's highest adult 18–49 (2.5) rating for the WB in two years. The episode was #2 in its time period among persons 12–34 (2.5), men 18–34 (2.2) and men 12–34 (2.1), achieving gains over the time period season premiere of One Tree Hill in 2004. Supernatural improved over the WB's hit series among adults 18–34 (2.6, +4%), men 18–34 (2.2, +120%), adults 18–49 (2.5, +19%) and men 18–49 (2.1, +110%) as well as men 12–34 (2.1, +91%) and total viewers (5.69 million, +15%). On October 11, 2005, Supernatural scored its best ratings yet in persons 12–34 (2.6/7), women 18–34 (3.1/8), women 18–49 (2.9/7) and women 12–34 (3.4/9). The series also scored its best ratings yet in teens (3.0/9) and female teens (4.4/14). Supernatural also attracted its second largest audience to date (5.5 million), adults 18–34 (2.5/7), adults 18–49 (2.4/6) and men 18–49 (1.9/5). On January 31, 2006, the drama series achieved all-time ratings highs for the series in adults 18–34 (2.6/7), women 18–34 (3.3/8) adults 18–49 (2.6/6) as well as women 18–49 (3.1/7) and men 18–49 (2.1/5), households (3.8/6) and total viewers (5.82 million). On March 30, the show was moved from Tuesday to Thursday and suffered a ratings decline which many thought was due to the lead-in (from Gilmore Girls to Smallville) and competition (the series aired against CSI: Crime Scene Investigation). On May 4, 2006, the first season finale achieved its best rating after the timeslot move and scored 3.99 million viewers and an estimated 3.0/5 households ratings.
Season Two
The CW schedule was officially released on Thursday, May 18, 2006, confirming Supernatural's place in the program line-up, where it still airs on Thursdays, in the same timeslot, with the same lead-in, Smallville, and aired against Grey's Anatomy and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Supernatural was the only new series from The WB's 2005–06 season that was renewed for a second season by The CW. The second season premiere aired on September 28, 2006 and earned an estimated 2.7/4 rating, out-performing 2005's premiere of Everwood Thursday at 9PM on The WB by 46% in adults 18–34 (1.9/5), 111% in men 18–34 (1.9/6), 19% in women 18–34 (1.9/4), 31% in adults 18–49 (1.7/4), 60% in men 18–49 (1.6/4) and 11% in viewers (3.9 million). On October 26, 2006, the show matched its season best in adults 18–49 (1.7/4) and women 18–49 (1.8/5), and held 90% of "Smallville's" women 18–34 (1.8/5 v. 2.0/6) audience and 100% of its women 18–49 (1.8/4 v. 1.8/5) audience and in total viewers (3.65 million and 2.8/4 households). On March 15, 2007, with guest-star Tricia Helfer (Battlestar Galactica), the show averaged its third largest audience of the season, earning 2.3/4 and 3.5 million in total viewers. The second season finale on May 11, 2007, averaged the worst ratings ever in adults 18–49 (1.2/3) and in total viewers (2.72 million).
Season Three
The third season premiere aired on October 4, 2007, average only 2.97 million viewers and 2.0/3 households, 1.2/3 in adults 18–49 and 1.2/3 in persons 18–34. The special episode aired on November 1, 2007, ranked the best ratings for the third season in total vievers (3.24 million and 2.0/3 households), adults 18–49 (1.3/3) and persons 18–34 (1.4/4). That week, Supernatural was the third most-watched show on the CW and tie with a fresh episode of America's Next Top Model. On December 13, 2007, the CW aired the second special episode of the season and average a 2.0/3 rating in total viewers and 1.3/3 in persons 18–34. It was the fourth most-watched show on the CW that week. On January 31, 2008, after a one-month hiatus and with its first episode aired against Lost, it scored 2.94 million viewers and 1.8/3 household, 1.3/3 in adults 18–49 and 1.2/3 in adults 18–34. That week it was the third most watched show on the CW. On February 7, 2008, it ranked the lowest ratings in 3 years, and averaged only 2.68 million viewers, 1.1/3 in adults 18–49 and adults 18–34. Despite this, it was the fourth most-watched show of the week on the CW. On February 21, 2008, a 2-hour full night event of the series, averaged 2.90 million viewers from 8–10 pm. The fresh episode aired at 9pm, scored 3.23 million viewers; Supernatural rose to its second largest audience of the season, and best among adults 18–34 (1.4/4 rating), women 18–34 (1.4/4) and men 18–34 (1.5/4). It was the third most watched show overall, and the most-watched scripted drama show on the CW that week. On April 24, 2008, after a long post-strike hiatus, Supernatural had its lowest ratings in three years with only 2.217.000 viewers and 0.9/2 in adults 18–34 and it was the eighth most-watched show on the CW after all drama shows and reality shows such as America's Next Top Model, Girlicious and WWE Friday Night SmackDown. The season finale on May 15, 2008 pulled 3 million viewers and it was the 2nd most popular script drama show of the network.
Season Four
The fourth season premiere aired on September 18, 2008, averaging its highest rating ever since its debut on The CW Network with 3.96 million viewers, a 33% surge over the season three premiere and a 1.7/5 in adults 18–49, up 42% from one year earlier. On October 16, 2008, the show was watched by 3.06 million viewers, making the lowest rating for the season. On October 30, 2008, the show climbed to its best performance in adults 18–34 (1.4/4), adults 18–49 (1.5/4) and total viewers (3.6mil) since its season premiere on September 18, 2008.
Season Five
The fifth season premiere aired on September 10th, 2009 at it's regular time slot of 9:00pm EST just behind The Vampire Diaries.
Stars
Since we're trying to fix the article up to meet good/featured status, how should we handle the starring section in the infobox? Should Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan be included, despite their relatively small role? I had previously wanted to include them, but another user kept removing it, and I eventually gave up on it. Ophois (talk)
- To be perfectly honest, I think that only Jared and Jensen should be listed in the infobox. They are really the only 2 main characters. All the other characters just seem to pop up here and there for a while and then die or vanish. As far as Misha, I know he's going to be credited on screen in some episodes this season, but he won't be in every episode like Jared and Jensen. And even the episodes he is in, he will still most likely only be in a supporting role. Take the season premier as an example. He just sort of popped in towards the end of the episode for a couple minutes and then vanished again. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that crossing the line of original research / personal opinon though? If they were credited as stars, even only once, then they should be included. It's not, I believe, about who has the most screentime or who are the main characters, it's about who is, has been or will be credited as starring on the show. (See for example, the inclusion of Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro as stars on the Lost (TV Series) article. They only appeared in 6 episodes and most casual fans of the show probably don't even remember them, but that's not the point. Anybody else feels this way? --LeoChris (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly wouldn't want this article's infobox to look like Lost's, FA or not, that things "starring" section is a mess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, there are 2 ways to determine who should be listed as stars of the series without getting into the original research problem. The first, which is my preference, is to include only the characters that have been credited as stars on screen for the entire series, which would mean just Jared and Jensen. The second way is to include every character that has been credited on screen as a star in any single episode. Since I don't have all the season DVDs to look at, I'm not exactly sure how many stars that would make. 5 maybe? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we just do the two. That's easy enough, with no OR. OR or not, Lost is a bit different with its "stars". I remember "Rodrigo Santoro" and the other, and I think they were actually stars of their episodes, or close to it. Lost will make someone the star of an episode, then they'll kill them. With Supernatural, no actors have had a larger role in any episodes than Jensen and Padalecki (sp?). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, there are 2 ways to determine who should be listed as stars of the series without getting into the original research problem. The first, which is my preference, is to include only the characters that have been credited as stars on screen for the entire series, which would mean just Jared and Jensen. The second way is to include every character that has been credited on screen as a star in any single episode. Since I don't have all the season DVDs to look at, I'm not exactly sure how many stars that would make. 5 maybe? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly wouldn't want this article's infobox to look like Lost's, FA or not, that things "starring" section is a mess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that crossing the line of original research / personal opinon though? If they were credited as stars, even only once, then they should be included. It's not, I believe, about who has the most screentime or who are the main characters, it's about who is, has been or will be credited as starring on the show. (See for example, the inclusion of Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro as stars on the Lost (TV Series) article. They only appeared in 6 episodes and most casual fans of the show probably don't even remember them, but that's not the point. Anybody else feels this way? --LeoChris (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think only Jared and Jensen should be listed, regardless if Misha, Katie and Lauara were listed as stars. I think we should just note that Misha, Katie and Lauara were stars on the season pages. I think thats enough. Xena325 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Are all the references reliable?
You did a great job on the other SN articles, so I imagine you're refs are reliable once again. But, when I look at some of the ref URLs, they seem sketchy. How is the research going? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which ones seem sketchy to you? Ophois (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. I thought some of the blogs and the twitter one looked funky, but as I look closer, I think they're OK. Do you use the refTools gadget? It will help you format those refs whenever you get around to it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's refTools? Ophois (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The companion books finally arrived, and have a ton of great info. In my opinion, the "Concept and creation" section is now complete, if you wanna look it over. Ophois (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. I thought some of the blogs and the twitter one looked funky, but as I look closer, I think they're OK. Do you use the refTools gadget? It will help you format those refs whenever you get around to it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Saw the edit notice in the external links section. I wanted to propose Supernatural on TVGuide.com as a helpful link. See here: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/supernatural/192272 It contains recaps, cast info, episode descriptions and data, and more. Tubesurfer (talk)
The link in the first paragraph supposed to go to Robert Singer producer connects to Robert Singer New Jersey politician. If someone fixes this and puts here how they fixed it I'll register an account and fix the next situation I find that is like that. Thnx.174.71.95.31 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Change
Which is preferred Edit 1 or Edit 2 --JKSarang 06:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- They are both still title cards just with more appeal, like inserting in the characters or subject of the TV Series. --JKSarang 06:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs)
- No they aren't. One is a piece of fan art, and the other is a title card. We don't promote other people's work here. The reason that promotional posters are generally preferred over title cards is that when you're dealing with the series as a whole the title card rarely changes, whereas a promotional poster is generally for one specific moment. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Bignole. Fanart like that shouldn't be used, and the other promo is just too massive for the infobox. Ophois (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- No they aren't. One is a piece of fan art, and the other is a title card. We don't promote other people's work here. The reason that promotional posters are generally preferred over title cards is that when you're dealing with the series as a whole the title card rarely changes, whereas a promotional poster is generally for one specific moment. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aright??? I am still trying to understand what's the big deal. First, if you hadn't said it was fan art no one else would have known nor cared, because it's still more eye catching. Second, I am no promoting my work because I did not label it. No labels = Free Image. Third, "title cards is that when you're dealing with the series as a whole the title card rarely changes, whereas a promotional poster is generally for one specific moment" Do you honestly think when a member/viewer looks at the poster they are going to think "Oh look it's a poster only for a specific moment." Come on... they what to see the hot studs/characters that star in the TV show. A poster can tell you so much in an instant in comparison to just a Title of a card/image. --JKSarang 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs)
- so we decided to stick with original work. So it between 1 and Edit 2 ::Ah...sorry to tell you this but that is actually a promotional photo. I never edited that. I found it here 1. Here is something else similar to it 2 And professionals did photoshop all that blood and the title into the title card. JKSarang (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
- Ophois agrees with this one. "I understand that, and after seeing the latest option you gave for Supernatural, I support changing the image to this." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Flashpoint Shines for CBS, Supernatural's Strong Debut". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved 2008-09-19.
- http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/31/smallville-and-supernatural-on-the-rise/7337