Talk:Ark of the Covenant

"Though it has not appeared on the show". Important words, there. Until such time as the Ark has in fact appeared on the show, I think the most it rates on this wiki is a note on the Angelic Weapons page that the Ark may exist in showverse, and if it does, judging by Castiel's reaction it's one of the weapons. —EllieMurasaki 22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Gabriel's Horn of Truth to see it is in the same boat and has a page of its own. The page is fine and very informative, and partisan wrangling over nothing is not needed on this page. I suggest you move on and refrain from stirring up tensions. Lucifer1987 00:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized the Horn had its own page. Thank you for informing me. Until the Horn and the Ark have each appeared on the show, I don't think either of them rates a page of its own. Happy now? —EllieMurasaki 00:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And obviously others think differently. Someone else made the Horn page. Lucifer1987 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously if you say it's so, I'm compelled to believe it's so without bothering to check canon, or in this case the page history, to find out whether it actually is so.

Huh. You know what they say about stopped clocks. —EllieMurasaki 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While I find EllieMurasaki's pointless rambling highly amusing, I suggest he/she make better use of their time actually doing something constructive rather than wasting everyone else's time making a nuisance out of him/herself. Said user has been proven wrong on more than one occasion, therefore has little credibility. It's time to be moving on to more important matters. Lucifer1987 05:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So glad I'm entertaining you. Entertaining you is self-evidently a constructive use of my time. I'm watching the most recent ep and updating the wiki page for same; what productive things are you doing? Oh, and we still don't need this page or the Horn page until we have some evidence to support "these are real" rather than "Castiel thinks these are real". Castiel, after all, has also been proven wrong before. —EllieMurasaki 05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash: nobody has asked your opinion in the matter and nobody seems to care what you think. You just saw on the other page that you are in the minority here, as others see a use for the pages and Cas has indicated they are real. You really make a joke of yourself and it is no surprise how laughable your arguments continue to get. First you cannot bring yourself to the very obvious truth that Lucifer's Cage is in Hell, now here you are again stirring up trouble over nothing just hoping to pick a fight. I suggest you do something useful and quit pursuing wild goose chases over nothing. Lucifer1987 16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! This particular message is for EllieMurasaki and Lucifer1987:

This assumption may a false accusation, but you two are constantly arguing with one another on topics concerning Supernatural..

For the most part the users of the Wiki Community all strive to encompass Canon in all articles through documentation and by other means.

Which is WHY I don't want Lucifer's cage misidentified as being the same hell where Dean spent a summer, and which is WHY I don't want pages for angelic weapons that people think exist until we know for sure said weapons do exist. Because there is lots and lots of canon to indicate that Lucifer's cage and the torture hole are not the same place, and because it is not (yet) canon that the Ark and the Horn both exist and are angelic weapons. Not my fault Lucifer1987 disagrees with me. —EllieMurasaki 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks concerning content. If you have a query as to the relevance of the entry, it is fine to put it on the discussion page or email me to ask for a decision on it. I have no problem with this entry as it adheres to canon. --Missyjack 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Except half this entry is the Ark in Hebrew myth and the other half is Cas thinks it's real, and we have no way of knowing whether Cas knows it's real, thinks it's real, or thought it was real because Sam is generally trustworthy and stopped thinking it's real when Sam said he couldn't believe Cas fell for that. The Horn entry is no better. Until we have more than Hebrew and Christian myth and Cas thinking they're real to go on, I don't think either the Ark or the Horn deserve pages of their own. —EllieMurasaki 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And I say again, the Horn's page is the same way, it has been there for a while, and you said nothing until I added the Ark on the same grounds as the Horn. And once again, nobody really cares if you think the pages are necessary or not it would seem. I certainly don't. Case closed. Lucifer1987 03:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shockingly enough, I don't keep track of every single edit to the wiki. I did not know the Horn page was there until you pointed it out; now that I do know it is there, I object to it on the same grounds that I object to the Ark page and on the same grounds that I would object to an Athena page, and on the same grounds that I would have objected to a skinwalker page until recently: there's lore out the eyeballs on the subject but the subject has not appeared in canon. (Unless you have a convincing argument that Athena is the silent blonde in 5.19. But it'd have to be a real convincing argument, since her nametag looks more like it says Iris or Isis.)

And you certainly do care, as proven by the way you keep talking about it. —EllieMurasaki 04:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin decision is that the page is fine as it stands. It complies with canon, and given it was mentioned in an episode, users may be looking for information on the topic (such as whetehr it has been mentioned before) so i think the page is useful. Any further discussion on the matter will result in a tmeporary ban from the Wiki. --Missyjack 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)