User:Wikiauthenticity/Donald Braswell

Smallville: Hometown of Superman

I want to add this link http://www.geocities.com/smallvillefan902 Its a very good web site. Its well researched and a better web site in my opinion than they official web site. Blacklisting this link is NOT what wiki is supposed to be about. Please research the site properly and then add it back!!!!!--Modelmotion 06:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't following Wiki's external links guideline. If any fansite is to be used, it should be 1 fansite and that fansite should add information that isn't going to already be found on Wikipedia. We have that site, it's [www.kryptonsite.com Kryptonsite]. We use them because the webmaster, Craig Burn, works alongside WB making Smallville Season Companion books, and other such things, and manages to get interviews with the cast and crew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to which part of the guidelines it does not meet? I find the site well organized and much more informative than any other Smallville TV site.--Modelmotion 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's some personal guy/gal's webpage? It's not even a fansite so much as a fanpage. Any information there is covered here, and external links should not be websites that deliver the same information, just with a glossy cover. Under "Links to normally be avoided" that would be #1. Geocites is a website for people to make their own webpages, not actual websites. It's not an official site, and when you write about fiction, fansites should be limited. Kryptonsite, though a fansite, is actually connected to Smallville, as their webmaster works on the show's companion books, and since you can't just go about making these books without permission (copyright problems), it kind of gives him precendence as the "official fansite". Also, Wiki isn't a repository of links. Meaning, we can't just go throwing any ol' link out there because someone likes it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that wiki is not intended to be a depository for random fan links. However to describe the site in question as simply a fan page is totally inaccurate. It may be on geocities but if you explore the site you will find 48 pages filled with guides to various aspects of Smallville. This information is presented in an organised fashion and is clearly different from anything else on Smallville on the internet. I think this alone justifies the site as a valid external link for a Smallville wiki page.--Modelmotion 07:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a fan page. Webpages don't have to be restricted to just 1 page. By webpage I mean it shares it's webaddress with other users, the only distingquishing mark is the part that says "smallvillefan...". Are YOU the owner of this page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not the owner of the site in question. Further I do not see how the URL is relevant to the content of a web site. Clearly the web site has a lot of well organized and relevant information. It seems to me that that is what should be considered.--Modelmotion 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What's on there, that's is relevant to this article, that isn't in the article or would not be in the article should it reach FA status?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, its the way that the information is organized that makes it a useful complement to wiki and hence should be included. If you doubt me, please check out the site yourself before simply deleting the link. If you can provide a valid reason for it not being included then please express it.--Modelmotion 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the site is that, while it is an honest endeavor to provide accurate and unbiased information to the reader, it is not quite achiveing that goal. I did go to the site, and looked at all the links and so forth, and found more than one misspelling/incorrect word usage (Impenitrability, which besides being misspelled isn't a word; a better word to use would have been invulnerability). As well, I did find some point-of-view language that is not neutral, and the episodes were not very inclusive. The images are quite likely not fair use, and could be pulled at any time. Lastly, it is a Geocities webpage, which means it is a person's sole effort to create a fansite. Kryptonsite is an effort that someone paid for the right to build a website, ensuring the content and diligence to provide accurate, timely and appropriate information. The Geocities site provides no such guarantee, implied or otherwise. For that reason, I don't think it can remain as a link. The article must stand the test of time, and those Geocities sites surviving that test are very few and far in between. I hope that explains matters more. Arcayne 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia it is a word: Impenetrability --Modelmotion 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's more of physics jargon than actual word. What's recognized as english, and what are terminologies used by other fields of study don't always coincide. Hell, my personal Microsoft WORD believes it to be synonymous with "mysterious", not indestructable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to use foul language!--Modelmotion 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are being serious or not, because most people include some hint if they are joking. If you are serious, I'm curious as to what you thought was "foul language"? If you were joking, you gotta give a "lol" or a ";)" or something to let us know, it's only text on our ends. If you are referring to my "hell", then that isn't foul language. It's another way of saying, "on another side". Remember, Wikipedia isn't censored, and I wasn't making a personal attack.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "H___" was totally inappropriate. And, no, I am not laughing. This is a serious discussion about a site that I think has useful content.--Modelmotion 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we are getting off track here. Modelmotion, I am sure that Bignole did not mean to disrupt your delicate sensibilities. However, if you are going to edit in the open environment presented by Wikipedia, you are going to have to develop a thicker skin. All of us have heard and/or used much, much worse. I was in the Marines, so I know I have. Learn to let it go.

As for the 'inpenetrability' vs. 'invulnerability' issue; please take the time to read the definitions politely presented to you before arguing blindly onward. Even more importantly, take the time to read your own wikilinked definiton. If you had taken the time to read it, you would have seen - as any person without a desperate need for a thesaurus would - that the word doesn't fit Clark's abilities. Period.

Now that we've dispensed with that particular issue, I think we are done with the website issue. If you are the author for the website, speak up now; you've certainly led me to think that you have a vested interest in having that particular link included. It isn't really that hard to do an IP trace for the website and you. This is the part where assuming good faith doesn't excuse poor behavior. Bignole has been extremely patient with you (much more so than a great many other editors would have been), so I think your very best course of action is to apologize and move on to something worth discussing. Sorry for the extra helping of harsh, but we all do this for free; arguing for arguments' sake is just a waste of time. I think we're done here.Arcayne 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended, but again, Wikipedia is not censored. I didn't say anything wrong. If you don't like the word, then you can choose to ignore it. It wasn't like I was cussing up a storm, and there was nothing "inappropriate" about my using "that word". It's a word, get over it. The only thing serious about this discussion is two other editors informing you that GeoCities is not an acceptable external link. We've told you why, and you're only reasoning is "I think it's informative". Well, everything on that site is stolen from either Kryptonsite, Devoted To Smallville, Smallville Wikia, or Wikipedia itself. There is nothing there that isn't either here, or on other site that is already linked here. Since Wikipedia is not a repository of links, there needs to be something special about this webpage for it to warrant inclusion as an external link. We can't just go including every webpage by Dick, Jane and Carol just because they make it look pretty and organize information from other sites. What if someone comes along and takes this "smallvillefan's" geocities page, and makes their own. They copy everything that is on his page, and since he doesn't own that stuff (seeing as he/she took it from other sites, most obviously the images), rewrites it to sound more professional, and changes the formatting, are we supposed to include their webpage as well. I mean, obviously they would have "an informative, well organized" page, just like this individual. All of their information will be just like what he's got, only better organized, and written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

Good job on the article - its well on the way to being ready for good or featured article status. I've assessed it on behalf of wikiproject television. I've rated it as B class as I feel it covers most of the required information but needs some cleanup.

The info about Aquaman pilot is too detailed for the lead and should be down with the "Chloe Chronicles" only as it never aired.

You've got links in the headers for the seasons - a no no according to the manual of style.

The characters section could easily be converted into true prose instead of a bulleted list.--Opark 77 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of the links in headers problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "too details for the lead"? There's one sentence for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 4 episode, Commencement

I read that this episode took up a 90 minute time slot in the US. Was this episode really long, or was there a whole lot of ads (over 40 minutes of them) added in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.83.3 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Help Us

Please help us find reliable sources for everything that has an "original research" tag next to it. Some tags are not dismissing the factual basis of the event (e.g. Terrence Stamp being Zod and Jor-El) but that it was the writer's intent to draw that allusion. We need sources that say the writers, creators, etc, intended for this to be an allusion to something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Allusions to the franchise

There are a number of allusions and themes which relate to the Superman franchise in many ways, outside of the obvious references to the Superman name, colors or costume. One of the most obvious of these is that Clark is almost always seen wearing combinations of red, yellow and blue, an allusion of his costume to come. In addition, Clark is frequently told by other characters he looks good in either blue or red. Clark's surroundings maintain a similar theme; the Kent farm has objects which colors are either red, yellow or blue. For example, their house is yellow, the barn is red and the truck is blue.

In addition to the Kent Farm, in seasons one through to four, Smallville High School represents many of these allusions as well. The school mascot, which is a crow, wears a red cape, with a crest on its chest that has the letter S (for Smallville). Also, two of Superman's colors—red and yellow—are abundant in the school. As well as the references to the Superman character, the series makes numerous references to other Superman lore and media. It should also be noted that the Superman films are referenced through the cast, as Annette O'Toole (who plays Clark's mother) played the role of Lana Lang in Superman III in 1983 and Terence Stamp (who voices Clark's biological father, Jor-El) played General Zod in both Superman and Superman II.

GA review

Good work definitely. But I would like in-line episode citations for the plot section and the 'see also' section destroyed, with the Kryptonian crystals/Kryptonians as 'main articles' for that section and the timeline a 'see also' for the plot. Alientraveller 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I took care of everything. I tried not to bog down the plot section with 5 citations at the end of 1 sentence that happens to sum up an entire season arc. Do you think that we should use the 1 section plot that was suggested before, or keep it as 6 subsections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good, and keep improving as you wish. Alientraveller 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Smallville pages

I recntly tried to create a special page under the name Lois Lane (Smallville) and was planning to do so with others as most of the characters are really different from the comics version but it was removed before I really had the time to turn it into something good. I think it could be worth it since Chloe and Lionel have their own pages. Any thoughts? Siemgi

Chloe and Lionel have their own page because they are not part of the comic universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But I still find it weird that Chloe has complete page about the Smallville version and Clark has much less, while he is the main character.Siemgi

I can't help you. Chloe and Lionel should really be regulated to a list of smallville characters page, because neither is notable enough to have their own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger

There is a proposed merger going on at Smallville season 1. It's in regards to the episode articles. Though I'd let everyone know here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Casting vs Cast and Characters

I'm thinking that it may be good to merge these two sections into one. Because it seems redundant to have a section on casting and then later have a section that vaguely talks about their characters in an "out-of-universe" way, but doesn't go into detail. Anyone?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seasonly villians

I have noticed that a new villian has been used as the primary as the primary antaginous since season 4. In season four it was Jason Teague and the witch versions of Lana, Lois, and Cloe, in season 5 it was Braniac, and in season 6 it was Lex and the phantoms. Does anyone else think this deserves inclusion?

Jason wasn't a villain till the last couple episodes. Either way, it's all personal observation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed most of the fourth season, and ya personal observation has no place in this article.

Smallville episodes sections

Has yet to be Fix can anyone fix it Supermike

The Wikia links are not going back into the headers. I told you, it is against the guidelines  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

well that stupid reason not to have them, so what the point of even going to the page now. mean its not Right just because a few can't read it the rest are screw mean why not just get rid of the Whole thing. Nobody going to go back there now if they can't read about the episode so I now guess I will get rid of the episode section since well It's Pointless. Supermike

Ok, seriously, what part of "THE LINKS ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE" is that difficult? There's a nice little section that reads "External links", in that section is a link to Smallville Wikia. If you are on this page, it goes to the general Smallville Wikia page. If you are on Season 4's page, then it goes to Smallville Season 4 Wikia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

O have to agree with Supermike here How come The other show Get Hyperlinks in their episodes sections but smallville doesn't. and these so call "External Links" led No where So Im with supermike Put the Hyperlink episodes back close down the site.

Unfortunately, it's hard to communicate with "two" people that don't register. I can't tell if you are the same person or not. Regardless, it's the way things are, and if you want to point me to other pages that have them I'll be glad to inform them of the proper way to link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you can accepted the fact that your wrong [{Supermike\supermike}]

Unlikely, since Wikipedia guidelines are in my favor. So, you can deal with it, go to the external links and then navigate Wikia yourself, or don't use them at all. I don't really care. What I care about is the articles themselves and them meeting the requirements of Wikipedia. You don't have too much to worry about because all of the season pages are about to be completely reformatted anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Then what the point of even have a smallville Wikipedia page why can't we just click on the page link and read Travil etc etc But I guess It would make people want to come to the site These is Bull

If you want trivia, go to IMDb.com, because this is an encyclopedia. And sign in, or are you not signing in because your account has almost been blocked for vandalizing pages. I saw your talk page Supermike.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't attack supermike and So I was right you are trying to take Wikipedia off the internet why us are you destroying these profiles

Look all I'm asking is for the pages to go back to Normal Supermike

I'm not even going to carry on this discussion. It is going no where. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So Im screw out of reading about my favorite show because some stupid moron hate Hyper links Supermike

No, you're screwed out of reading about your favorite episodes because you are too lazy to type in the name of your episode over on Smallville Wikia. What I find funny is that it's only costing you 1 extra step to get where you want to go, but you'd rather bitch and moan because the manual of style governing headers is different than what you would like them to be. I'm sorry, but get over it. I thought they were useful too, but what's "useful" isn't always what's best. There's a link at the bottom of every season page, which goes to every Smallville Wikia season page. Hell, I just visited "Season 2"'s Wikia page, and you don't even have to type anything in. Once you are on the season 2 page you can simply scroll down the entire list of season 2 episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did type in the name of the episode over on Smallville Wikia it brought me Nothing look everyone like the hyperlink in the episode title ALL of the only show have them from Superman TAS to Scrubs Supermike

What shows? You keep saying that but have yet to provide me with a link. I told you that if you click the season you want (e.g. Smallville (season 1)#External links click this <--) there is a list of every episode on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[[1]] click this <--) supermike

Please don't replace my edits. Those goes to individual episode articles here, not on Wikia. The only articles we have on here are for the first two seasons, which is about to change anyway. The other links that were there from season 3 - 6, were all going to Wikia, not to Wikipedia. As for ones that are here, most are not notable... please read Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes for a current discussion on why those aren't going to last very long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So wait you can bitch about me replace your edit but I can't reads about individual episode so is Wikipedia a communism site? supermike

First, hold your tongue, you're becoming very uncivil. Second, it wasn't like you corrected a typo, you replaced something I said. Third, I just gave you two more links to read. How about actually reading them. Last, I'm not continuing this conversation any longer. It's been explained to you clearly and you just don't want to accept it. I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than debate the same tireless thing over and over again. BTW, please don't manually sign your name, because you're doing it all wrong. There is a "User:" in from of "Supermike". Thus it should read "User:Supermike". Just hit the tilde key (~) 4 times and call it a day, which you might want to sign in when you do because otherwise we'll just get the IP address you happen to be using today.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

wow have to make personal attacks because you know Im right and your wrong supermike

External links

We should tidy up the External links section, it seems to be a bit long right and some stuff probably is not needed. What is everyone elses view? Davey4 06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd cut the "Review" one, because it isn't a professional critic. The interview with Kane should be on the season 6 page. Don't need a link to here the Remy Zero song. Smallville Dedication...don't know what that is, that could probably go. Probably don't need Smallville DVD, i think most people know how to use Amazon, or their local entertainment store. The "Smallville tie-ins" is actually just a big list of Superman related books, and doesn't look like a very professional site.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

they are not hurting anyone so i say keep them mean what the point of putting stuff up if you're just gonna take it back down supermike

Wikipedia is not a repository of links.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Some citations...for use (yeah, header says that). Bignole 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jess Battis (Winter 2006). "The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville". Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Mostly about the series, some bits about specific episodes. Might be useful.

• Jess Battis (Winter 2006). "Smallville and New Media mythmaking". Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - more from this guy.

Character (Smallville)

We really need pages for the characters. The articles are mostly on the comic book characters. Smallville has been on for 6 seasons, with the 7th comming up. I feel they should have an article of their plot on smallville. Eg. Clark Kent (Smallville). Lois needs one the most as she only has a short paragraph on Lois Lane and on Lois Lane (Smallville) which has been deleted she had alot of info. I know this has been posted before. Im sure we can have "Main Article: Lois Lane (Smallville)" in the short sections on the overall characters page. Russell (Talk) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lois Lane shouldn't have her own article for Smallville. Not unless there is sufficient out-of-universe information to warrant a split from the main article. The same goes for everyone else. Character article are not biographies, as the characters are fictional. Look at Superman or Jabba the Hutt.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think every character should have a page of their own, and by that I mean the character from the show, not the character in general (separate from the same character from the comic books). I know characters are fictional, but just look at all the other hit shows, every character has a big page of their own, with complete history. I was really surprised Smallville didn't have those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.17.52 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone else is doing it (wrongly I might add) does not mean everyone else should follow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is that wrong? I think it's great way to look over a character's history as it's often quite different from the movie or the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.12.148 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't divide fictional characters up by each incarnation unless there is a good read (like the size of the original article). Per WP:WAF, we aren't writing fictional biographies about these characters...correction, we should not be writing fictional biographies--they tend to turn into that when they are ungoverned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should. This article tells me nothing about any of the characters, nothing of their history or the main events in their life. It's poor to say the least. So if I wanna find out more I have to look elsewhere, outside Wikipedia. I don't think that's a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.9.57 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are character pages where character pages need to be. Jason and Whitney's entire season on the show can be summarized in a couple of sentences. Chloe and Lionel have their own article. The Kents have their own article, and Clark, Lana, and Lex have their own article. Happy reading to ya.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Another suggestion, watch the show. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bignole's right, Wikipedia is not a plot summary. The characters have their own pages at Smallville wiki. There is no point in replicating those pages here, that site exists for a reason. Paul730 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird Redirect.

Why does "Warrior Angel" redirect toward here? Superman's never been depicted as such?

Because I don't think Warrior Angel is a real comic, only something part of the Smallville universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge characters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result - Whitney and Jason were merged to this article. Chloe and Lionel were given the oppurtunity to clean up and expand the real world content, as these two characters show the best chance of accomplishing this goal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the merging of Chloe Sullivan, Lionel Luthor, Whitney Fordman, and Jason Teague to this article. All clearly fail WP:FICT and WP:WAF, even WP:V and WP:RS. The main article contains more OOU information on these characters than their actual articles do. The actual articles seem to be copies of their Wikia counterparts. Let the fictional biographies exist there, as they do not have a place on Wikipedia. We can just as easily put a link in the name of "Chloe, Lionel, etc" to their Wikia articles as we can to their articles here. Only on Wikia, they won't have to worry about conforming to WAF, FICT, V, or RS...which from what I've searched for...would be quite hard to do since none have received significant coverage in outside reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are their Wikia pages: Lionel Luthor, Whitney Fordman, Chloe Sullivan, and Jason Teague.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing these fictional character articles, I agree that these fictional characters do not have sufficient real-world context to establish full-fledged encyclopedic articles about them. I think that per WP:SS, following this potential merger, the fictional character article can be re-created with abundant out-of-universe real-world context down the road. Smallville Wikia seems like a great place to cover all the details of the characters within the universe, and especially in light of that, Wikipedia should instead strive to provide information about how fictional characters like these are relevant in the real world. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the character of Chloe Sullivan is significant enough to warrant a separate article. Granted, what is there right now doesn't cut it, but she does represent a new and major character in the "Superman" mythology. Instead of merging, the article should be rewritten to focus on the out-of-universe aspects. (The same may be true for Lionel Luthor, given the significant role the character plays in the series. The other two are definitely suitable for merging, though.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but just like with episodes, without significant coverage outside the source material, it shouldn't have its own article. Those two have the best chance, but right now, 10 times nothing is still nothing; and nothing is what those two articles show in OOU information. There's more in the main article then there is on those two articles, and none of it warrants the detail in IU information that those articles are giving.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my stance here. If it can happen, great, I just want the best quality Smallville articles possible. I don't plan on calling for a "close merge" a week from now or something. As far as I'm concerned, those articles have at least a month to clean their act up and satisfy all the appropriate MOSs, Guidelines, etc. I've got my hands full with the Smallville (season 2) work-up I'm going to be doing here in a bit, so more power to the other articles if they can get up to snuff. But, I assume that if none of the pages have even started coming close to those requirements for their existence, in at least a month's time, then I don't see a reason why there should be any further objection to their merging and transwiking. Unless we are hottly debating this thing a month from now, which I highly doubt since there are probably about as many active editors on these pages as I have fingers on my right hand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument for merging. At least two of these characters seem significant enough. and the show seems significant enough after six seasons, to justify the character articles. More significantly, the Superman mythos is immensely complicated, and articles for major characters like Chloe and Lionel seems a lot better than just sublimating them to a TV show article. In fact, I think it's time for Clark Kent (Smallville), Lana Lang (Smallville) and Lex Luthor (Smallville) to join join these articles, though I don't claim to know enough about the show to write them.--Mike Selinker 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If they seem so significant, then they should have secondary sources asserting their notability. Just because they are prominent in a television show does not necessarily mean they have to have their own article. These pages look like exact copies of their Wikia articles, except just a little shorter. Clark Kent and Superman have articles. But you don't see Clark Kent (Superman) and Superman (Superman) for articles on the Christopher Reeve films, which are by far more prominent than Smallville. Wiki isn't one gian plot summary, and that is what these articles are. They fail WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:RS. Being apart from the mythology means this, they are not that notable. If people are not writing about them outside of the primary source material, then they should be part of a larger article until that time comes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Lost's characters have been on the show for 3 years at best and all the main cast has their own article. For Smallville Chloe has been there for 6 years, soon 7, same goes for Lionel. Merging that would be illogical or then almost every charcater from every series should be merged, which is a nonsense! Siemgi (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people vandalize pages, but we do not allow that. Just because other articles are in bad shape does not mean we should continue the trend. As has been noted, there are only two out of those 4 that have any reason for staying and potential to satisfy all guidelines and policies, and that is Chloe and Lionel. Whitney and Jason are secondary characters, even if they were part of the main cast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We should have a voting here; I say we keep the individual pages. Why ? Because it's a matter of public interest, Smallville is an important part of the Superman universe: we have comics, we have movies old and new, and here comes the series. Merging these articles (which have enough relevant information to deserve their own page ) will result in a giant page, the only way to avoid that is to strip most of the info on the characters and, thus, removing a lot of essential information, not only from the series perspective, but from the general Superman "story". Like it or not, this series was wrote in a way to match the main life of Superman, a beginning, a start, and we all know that "stories" must have: a beginning: background settings, the way the characters evolved; the main part: Superman's adult life; and the end. We should not remove content that is relevant just because someone thinks it's not important, it's like asking grandma what she thinks about the internet; she'll say "it's stupid, a waste of time" when she doesn't know what she's talking about, it's a matter of opinion, etc. Or because it wasn't professionally written, well then, in that case we/or someone with writing skills should improve it. Honestly, our goal should be to add information to Wikipedia, not spending precious resources thinking on how to delete it. --Mihai123 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Merge Proposals have discussions. Here's the problem. All, that's every single one, fail WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and a couple others. Clean them up, or merge them to where their mentioning does not fail those policies and guidelines. Simple as that. We do not create articles on Wikipedia simply because something is important to a fictional world. Well, we do, but we are not supposed to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for your favorite television character to have some fictional biography written about them. Go to Wikia if you want that. I'm here cleaning up the Smallville articles, so do not lecture me on what's important to them. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Clean up the articles if you don't want them to be merged. P.S. Just to let you know, none of these characters are round the world known. None of them are Superman, so you cannot say "oh, they are so important" and people just go "yeah, I know...fix when you can". These characters are regulated to this series. Find the sources that show they have had coverage outside of the show, or go to a different Wiki if you want to read about them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Discussions" - that means "you" doing whatever you want and if someone challenges you, you tell them to .... off, without even considering their opinion. "Verifiability" - we are talking about fiction here, you can't verify it; it never happened. "Reliable sources" - this is a TV series; what are we supposed to post ? Torrent and Youtube links to make sure that the information is completely accurate ?! "No original research" - how are we supposed to post the history of characters if not by using the episodes in which they appeared, even if we copy/paste from a site with a free license, that's still O.R by the site owner, this even applies to official sites, for ex. a seaso review made by a someone who works there: still his original resarch. "Notability" - the question here is how can you or anyone else for that matter know how popular a show is ? These things are better suited to be discussed with a larger crowd; with one or two opinions the result will obviously be biased towards the person who can "scream" the loudest. none of these characters are round the world known - again how can one person know how well known are characters around the world, do you travel a lot and spend a few years in countries around the world to learn what's well known or nt, I'm asking for references: polls, statistics around the world, etc. Face it; this is just your hunch, your "original research". I bet if you'd try this on a very high traffic show such as Stargate Atlantis the reverts won't stop coming. When a number of people disagree with you, you should try to be nice and listen to them, not just through them in the garbage. Please keep things professional and remember: the goal here is "to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs" If you think something is two detailed you should think hard before deleting things. Did I miss anything ? Have nice day and sorry if I was a bit aggressive. It's the truth.

I haven't taken any action against these articles. If I had, you'd know it. Secondly, if you think that because something is fiction that you cannot write about in a manner that isn't some fictional biography then I beg you to step away please, and go read Jabba the Hutt, Jason Voorhees, Troy McClure or Jack Sparrow. How about Superman or Batman. Wow, it seems so hard to accomplish that policy of verifiability and reliable sources. Obviously you have not read WP:WAF, as it clearly states that we do not write biographies for fictional characters. You want a biography, try and different Wiki. You should also read the notability guideline, because you've obviously misunderstood it. No where does it say "something must be popular". It says "significant coverage from secondary sources". You also might want to read original research a little better, because it explains what it is quite clearly. As for the "Stargate" crowd you mentioned, I could care less about them. If people cannot comprehend the policies and guidelines that dictate what we put on Wikipedia, that isn't my fault, and I do not believe we should bend the rules for their lack of understanding. Please review the character articles I listed above. Note the differences. Be aware that I'm not asking for these articles to be perfect, I'm saying that they still have to abide by all the rules and regulations on this encyclopedia, and they must assert notability to warrant a separation on their own. Simply being in a popular show does not warrant an entire article about a fictional character. What warrants an article is coverage from people who are not connected to the show, and their reviews of these characters. Note the out-of-universe content in the links I provide. Note the lack of any OOU content in the articles being proposed for merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously understood me wrong; my main gripe is that you jumped the gun with your suggestion to merge(and obviously remove content)instead of "article needs work" announcements. Other than the Lionel one the rest are considered in great condition. Honestly, this is like talking to a wall. You obviously made up your mind and you see a post in a talk page just a formality or something courteous instead of actually looking for opinions on the improvement of the article/wiki. There's no use for me to waste any more time here. --Mihai123 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Great shape?" LMAO, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Who considers them in great condition? You? They are full of original research and plagued with huge plots summaries. In case you didn't know That much plot is not acceptable. This merge proposal is a clear "this article needs work" annoucement. If they didn't need a massive amount of work, then I would not have proposed them for merger. I do not see any sign that they can stably hold their own articles and fulfill all the necessary guidelines and policies, that is why I proposed them for merger. Because I do not see the chance for them to fulfill the criteria necessary, and no one has attempted to show me otherwise. All I see is "it's a popular show, they have to have their own articles." That is not a reason to have an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant great shape = no announcements, but you can take it as you please.--Mihai123 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• A review yields no OOU context or content as suggested by policy (WAF, FICT, etc..); no compelling reason why these should be exceptional to the policy; a merge is hence clearly the best course of action per Bignole's original point suggestion. Eusebeus 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are enough references in Pilot (Smalliville) to establish notability for a few of the characters right now. Also doing a quick google search comes up with articles about Lois and Chloe. There not great articles, but the show is on hiatus right now. Also some interviews at [2] might be useful. Like most of the info we need for TV articles, the info is stuck behind a lexisnexis wall. If WP could ever work something out with them, it would be easy to source them all. - Peregrine Fisher 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough in Pilot for what? Casting info? That's covered in both the pilot and one this page. There is no reason to repeat the same information 3 times. If there was other OOU information there, sure. There could be a reason to repeat it if the article was already developed and you were just making sure you covered your bases in comprehensiveness. But, there's no reason to have another page that duplicates information and there's nothing else on the page OOU. Nothing in either of those two sources that says "hey, we can write an article about these characters." First, Lois has an article. Second, the one on Chloe is really about Allison Mack and her directorial debut, so that makes that source moot. What is there about Chloe is basic "who is this character on the show" information, and again, something already on this page and every other page for the series. What you are providing is information about the upcoming season, not about the characters themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support merging these pages. The topic (Smallville) has been established as notable and merging them only serves to add limits. Matthew 07:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Add limits to what? That argument against merging makes no sense. The characters do not have enough OOU information to warrant separation, and since wikipedia is not about plot summaries, they should not be separated simply because someone wants to write everything that happens to a character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Limits, as in page length. And I disagree that they don't have enough OOU information, looking at Lionel's article I see it tells me he's played by John Glover. That's plenty. Matthew 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article's actual size is less than 30kb, so I think we're just fine there. As for plenty of OOU information. I cannot help but laugh at the fact that you think simply having an actor's name is enough OOU information for a fictional article. I think you may be better off at TV.com; they don't have the rigid guidelines that we have here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• The references on the named articles are an utter joke. If we actually followed policy and removed all the unreferenced material, we'd be left with stubs of two or three sentences each, perfect for a small section in this article. If and only if there are reliable, published secondary sources that specifically discuss a character should there be a seperate article. Related p&g are WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:RS. —AldeBaer 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest merging Whitney and Jason but giving Chloe and Lionel more time. The former two were single season characters with arguably secondary roles while the latter are major characters throughout the run of the show. Chloe, at least, has also appeared in other media. Sourcing remains a problem, but I suspect that at least a few marginal sources can be found to support independent articles. Eluchil404 04:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and boldly merged Jason and Whitney. I didn't copy much content since much of it ran afoul of WP:N or WP:OR. I'll keep an eye out for sources for Chloe and Lionel to see if they can be salvaged. Eluchil404 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Whitney and Jason were the two obvious ones to merge. I'm fine with leaving Chloe and Lionel for now. I'll try and go through and clean up all the plot information into a more summarized version per the guidelines when I have a chance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I read in a magazine some commentary about Chloe's position as a role-reversal of the traditional female sidekick, which cited feminist film theories and made comparisons with Lois Lane. I didn't buy it. Can't remember it. And I've read something online somewhere about her being a possible Veronica Mars inspiration. Regardless, can't use what we can't find. But Lionel Luthor (or rather "Lex Luthor's dad" has appeared in Superman comics just like, say Sam Lane, although only recently has he been John Glover incarnate). When Chloe is introduced to the comics, the article can start to take better shape. For example, the plot section can be condensed into a couple paragraphs for her television appearances. Since I can't think of anything to do for Jack Harkness at the moment, maybe I'll try... fixing up the Chloe article. Bignole, since it's a "superhero" article - is a powers and abilities section a yay or a nay? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lex's father" has always kind of been in the backdrop, and nothing like John Glover's appearance on the show. For Chloe, she has not "powers" that have been identified (yet...I'm sure they will tackle that this season with the emergence of her being a "meteor freak"). I would put "abilities" as a characterization, as she has pretty good computer hacking abilities...but it's all OR without sources talking about it. We cannot quantify her abilities simply being saying "oh, she did this in episode X," because that has no relevance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merge on Lionel or Chloe. Keep in mind that these are not just TV characters you are talking about here. These are more specifically Superman characters and should be treated like other Superman characters. To an entire generation of people new to the Superman mythos, Lionel and Chloe are just as important as Lois, Jimmy and Lana. Some may argue even more important given the limited time Lois and Jimmy have had on the show. -- 69.182.86.58 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm contesting, but Chloe was created for the show, she isn't originally part of the comics and the name "Lionel Luthor" isn't either. Lex has always had a father, but he was the background at times, and it was Lex who killed his parents (instead of Lionel who killed his parents in the show). At the moment, Lionel and Chloe are restricted to just the show. And there is no verifiable proof that the "some" contesting the importance of the two characters is "significant".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to weigh in on this. Whitney and Jason should be merged into an article of men who Lana has gotten killed, true, but Chloe and Lionel should at least be given a chance. If you think the articles on them would need extensive clean-up to be even halfway decent, do so and then see if they stand on their own. They might not, but at least give them the chance. Oh, how the Lionel article reads like incredibly bad descriptive prose. (Probably someone MUSHing too much.) But in terms of the series itself, Lionel is at the base of a lot of plots, in the early seasons at least. I haven't really watched the latest ones, but I imagine he's taken more of a backseat role to Lex at this point. He's tied up in the very history of the series, and as a minor section in another article, it just wouldn't expound his importance to the series enough. No one cares that his eyes would be covered in Kryptonian characters whenever he channeled Jor-Els' messages, but it is worth noting that he helped the Kents adopt Clark. I say edit and see what happens. But yeah, Lana's boyfriends can fuck off and die again for all I care. Howa0082 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said I was going to leave them alone for the time being and see if I could clean them up when I got the chance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I must've missed that, then. Sorry. I guess I'll return your dog, now. Howa0082 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

Source question

I was going to put a source in for the bit about Eric Johnson returning for two cameos, and instead of using the episodes themselves, I was going to try and find an outside source. Most places just like "Smallville" and leave it at that, but Eric Johnson Web actually lists the two cameos he did. I'm curious what people think of using this as the source. It seems to be the place most other sources point you toward when you want information on Johnson, but I think it's an unofficial website, not that that necessarily makes a difference. Anyone want to share their thoughts?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Olsen as additional cast

I believe that Jimmy Olsen should be added in the additional cast section. He has been part of the show for one season now, and he is going to be a main character next season. Jason Teague was a main character for only one season, and he's there, so why shouldn't Jimmy Olsen? (Wikirocks2 09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Jensen Ackles was actually part of the main cast. Aaron Ashmore is not. I have not seen any reliable sources saying he is a regular cast member now. From the interview Erica Durance gave at the ComicCon, it seems as though he is merely coming back for a few more episodes like he did last season. That makes him still a recurring character. The Sheriff was in a crap load of episodes, but she wasn't a regular cast member, she was still a guest star.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well below it does say that he is...but I don't know if this "reliable" enough for you.

http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/Season_7 (Wikirocks2 08:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

That would be like citing ourselves. Wikia is a sister site, run by fans.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Someone added Jimmy and Kara! Thanks to whoever did that [I'm guessing Bignole]. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirocks2 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, when a reliable source came along--in this case that source was the show itself, which added Ashmore and Vandervoort to the opening titles, indicating they are considered series regulars. Before then, nothing was stating that, especially not that Vandervoort inclusion (though, given the fact that she is going to probably be in 80-90% of the episodes, I don't think you could call that "recurring"..lol).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Recurring" haha......Bignole....you really crack me up!!! :D (Wikirocks2 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Cast

...Well I was just wondering if you [everyone] think it would be better to change the cast subheadings from "original cast" and "additional cast," to "main/current cast" and "former cast." This would be clearer in showing the current main characters of the show. The "former cast" would represent all the past "main" characters. Look forward to the feedback! (Wikirocks2 10:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

You'd always be swapping names if the show lasts another season or two (not likely). I prefer listing who was originally part of the show, and who came afterward. People can read who left and when the left.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't focusing on the current characters in the show kind of quality as recentism? I think it should stay the way it is; just because somebody's currently in the show doesn't make them more important than those who aren't. Paul730 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was coming back to say just that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they could all be together. They could be listed by credit order, by compinding the seasons cast lists, and if two are in the same place go by a-z.

Before the credit positions changed Tom Welling as Clark Kent Kristin Kreuk as Lana Lang Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor Jensen Ackles as Jason Teague Erica Durance as Lois Lane Eric Johnson as Whitney Fordman Sam Jones III as Pete Ross Allison Mack as Chloe Sullivan Aaron Ashmore as Jimmy Olsen Laura Vandervoort as Kara Kent John Glover as Lionel Luthor Annette O'Toole as Martha Kent John Schneider as Jonathan Kent

After Lex/Lana and Chloe/Lois were changed Tom Welling as Clark Kent Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor Kristin Kreuk as Lana Lang Jensen Ackles as Jason Teague Eric Johnson as Whitney Fordman Sam Jones III as Pete Ross Allison Mack as Chloe Sullivan Erica Durance as Lois Lane Aaron Ashmore as Jimmy Olsen Laura Vandervoort as Kara Kent John Glover as Lionel Luthor Annette O'Toole as Martha Kent John Schneider as Jonathan Kent

Many shows credit like this, but it is fine how it is Russell User talk:Russell29 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First, the order they are in gives rise to recentism again, you're putting preference to those on the show, instead of to those that started the show. Look at E.R., they've gone through dozens of people. Following this example you'd be constantly changing the layout. It should be first come first serve mentality. There is nothing wrong with the layout as it is. People are focusing on the here and now instead of on the history of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kara

Should Kara's character description be changed to be the same as the others. Like instead of the info that is written could you say [e.g.] "Kara is Clark's cousin from Krypton. She has most of Clark's powers, including a few he doesn't have at the moment. She is first introduced in Bizarro when...." etc.

That was just an example, but something life that would be better than what there is now. (Wikirocks2 07:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

What do you mean? The info you just mentioned is already there. Please explain exactly what you think should be changed and why. Paul730 06:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough. The description of Kara is different from the rest when it goes "According to Gough and Millar, she...." and "It was officially announced on July 11, 2007..." I think it should be reworded so it blends in better with the rest of the character descriptions. Some info on her personality and when she was introduced would be good too. (Wikirocks2 07:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Some of the other characters have out-of-universe development information as well. You could mention her first appearance, but drawing your own conclusions about her personality would probably be considered original research unless you had a source to back it up.  Paul  730 08:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of Seasons

I've noticed sice the new seaon began the number of seasons keep changing. I looked at other sites and noticed it is in fact on season 7. I thought about changing it but noticed next to number of seasons it said already produced. I think however it should be changed to the season it is currently on like all the other show on Wikipedia, such as Desperate Housewives, House M.D., Heroes, Ugly Betty, and others that I am forgetting. It also makes sense because even if the season did end at this very second, you would still count the episodes that aired as another season. It would not be part of the sixth season. It would be the seventh season with less episodes then the other seasons. If a dvd came out after only 10 episodes were aired the dvd would still say season 7. This is much like Tru Calling. It was cancelled mid-way through its seacond season. When the dvd came out it was called season 2, not season 1.5. I hope this was helpful in trying to figure out what season it was on, instead of switching it back and forth.

I was talking about this with Bignole before, and I made some of these points myself. The question seems to be, do we put the number of completed seasons only, or the include the season currently in production. I can see how putting "6" seasons could be misleading, since season 7 is currently airing. On the other hand, we only include the number of episodes which have actually aired in the infobox, not the number of episodes which have been produced. Personally, I think that we should put "7" seasons, since these episodes are marketed as "season 7" episodes, and the season undeniably exists, even if it is not complete. I believe Bignole started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Television to try and reach a concensus, but there doesn't seem to be much response so far.  Paul  730 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is based on the definition for "seasons" on the infobox template. It says "number of seasons produced". To me, that means the number that they have completed. If the season ended tomorrow, then come tomorrow they would have completed seven season. Right now, they have completed 6 seasons. And, I based my personal interpretation of "seasons produced" from the idea that Wikipedia is not a current events website. The idea of Wikipedia is to provide the most reliable sources possible for the information we write about, and being the "first to publish" something is not a goal. Since Wikipedia isn't about keeping up with current events, my opinion is that it isn't about keeping up with what a show "currently" is doing, but what a show has "already" done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that writing 7 season would be better. I agree with Paul, and with all that he said. There are 7 seasons so far, even if season 7 is incomplete (Wikirocks2 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

But why would it be better?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a current events site, and that we should be looking to make articles as timeless as possible, with no unnecessary emphasis on recent events. However, just because something is ongoing or incomplete does not mean we should not include it. We have articles for films not yet released. If the infobox says "No. of seasons produced", perhaps we could at least mention that season 7 is currently airing? It seems odd to ignore it. (And I know we're not ignoring it, since there's a whole article on s7 and info about it in this article, but you know what I mean.)  Paul  730 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying ignore it, we have a season 7 article, so we obviously are not ignoring it.(<--wrote before I finished reading) We also mention Jimmy and Kara on the page, clearly identifying that they are series regulars for season seven. But, it's like writing an overview for something not completed yet. Sure, we could write up an overview based on the events that have occurred so far, but that would be misleading as there are 15 more episodes left in the season, so trying to summarize a season based on 5 episodes would be hard. I don't see why the lead's first paragraph, where it says "season seven officially premiered on Sept. 27" isn't enough to show that they are "currently" in a seventh season. I don't think people pay that much attention to an infobox that they are going to ignore the first paragraph of the lead. Do you think it should read "6 (completed)" instead, to be less confusing?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should avoid summarizing incomplete seasons, they can always be rewritten/tidied up after it is complete. As for the infobox, I think putting "6 (completed)" would be much clearer.  Paul  730 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But summarizing incomplete seasons ends up creating paragraphs that basically turn into "this week on Smallville..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to put the number of seasons it is currently in, and next to it say in production. this way vewiers won't be confused or angry when they notice that one of their favorite shows is not as current as the other shows on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zallus (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Why would they be confused or angry? If you said there were 6 completed seasons, that isn't confusing. Even more so then the first paragraph clearly indicates that the show is currently filming its seventh season. What other pages do isn't an actual reason, especially if one pages perpetuated an incorrect assessment of the infobox template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Anyone who works in the industry would use "7". The simple fact is, there are produced episodes that are part of a seventh season, so "6" is incorrect. ("Seasons produced" is different from "seasons completed".) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "produced" is past tense, and a whole season has not been produced. "Seasons produced" is also different from "Currently producing season seven". If they had produced the entire season seven before it aired, that would technically be seven seasons produced, because they'd only have to air them they wouldn't have to film them any longer. They are working on completing their seventh seasons, but it isn't done. Whether it finishes in December, because of the writer's strike, or in May as usual, it is when they are finished that you say a full season was "produced"--past tense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment My two cents - simply amend the info box to reflect six completed seasons and that it is currently within its 7th. e.g

• No. of seasons produced: 6 complete
• Current season: 7

Something along those lines - also avoid having the number of episodes listed as its tedious to continually update the number. Wisdom89 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've been voted off the island.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America Strike

Does anyone know what impact the strike will have on Smallville? (Wikirocks2 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

In an article sense, don't know. It would be good to have a source talking about it though. At the moment, I believe episodes up to at least "Blue" have been written, and only the writers strike on Monday. So, those episode--if they haven't been filmed already--will still get made. They may have written more than that. It's something to look out for, because for all we know Gough and Millar could have had the writers working earlier than normal in an effort to get more scripts finished to prepare for their strike. The directors and actors won't strike for months--not until after the show normally ends...I think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gough and Millar released a statement that said they wrote scripts up to episode 15. They said if the the strike isn't resolved by then, episode 15 will end in a cliffhanger, like all previous finales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zallus (talk • contribs) 11:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it covered at Smallville (season 7), because there didn't seem to be an appropriate place to put it here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks guys! (Wikirocks2 05:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Music in Smallville

I was surprised not to find an actual list of the music featured in Smallville. I'm assuming the two CDs released don't contain all songs featured, so it might be interesting to either start a separate page on this, or integrate it into the respective season pages. -- MiG 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured music lists are generally unencyclopedic. See "Things to avoid" at WP:EPISODE. It holds no relevance to say "song X played during scene Y". Unless there is a specific reason for the song being played, it's simply trivia. I do plan on expanding the section to include discussion on Mark Snow's score, and I believe I have something that briefly describes the sound editors' work cutting featured songs into the show--though I'm not sure of the last one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, albeit that "last one" you mentioned would probably be interesting. I can't quite describe it properly, but those popular songs inserted seem to be a lot more in place storywise than in most television series. -- MiG (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Milton Fine

I noticed that Bignole reverted an edit by someone changing the comic version of Fine to the Eradicator. I just wanted to say that on Eradicator's page it says that Eradicator was Fine. Is this is a mistake? Just wanted to ask. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes. Gough and Millar have called him Brainiac. Even the show calls the character both "BrainInterActiveConstruct", and then later on simply "Brainiac". I don't think I've ever heard the name "Eradicator" on the show, or from the creators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I deleted the statement on the Eradicator page. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Season 7

Now that we are [well] into season 7, should we write a short season summary along all the others. I know the season hasn't finished yet, but writing a short summary would be good. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Since this season is being cut short, and I cannot think of a steady plot arc (other than Lana being all psycho and stalking Lex), I think we should hash out a summary on the talk page first--trying to find some of the key things to discuss the major plot points of the season. I think another would be Chloe coming to terms with her powers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Bignole, I know we don't always agree on stuff, but I think the best person to do this is you. You practically own the page, and you are doing a good job of it. I know I don't have the authority to say that "the task of writing the summary is going to Bignole" but that's just what I think. Whatever you think is best. Oh yea, and the whole psycho stalker Lana....that really cracked me up! :D :D :D (  Wikirocks  06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, but I don't want to "own" the page, that's why I suggested we work it out together here to find out what we each think is relevant to summarizing the entire season...without getting any OR in the summary. I say we first start listing some things we think have become important to the season as a whole. The first things that come to my mind would be the introduction of Kara, Lana's "resurrection" and subsequent stalking of Lex, and Chloe's battle to hide her new secret.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Um....ok, I totally agree. I guess there isn't much more to say that is very significant to the plot. What about Lois and Julian, and the whole Julian thing itself? (  Wikirocks  13:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, and probably Lois getting a job at the Daily Planet, since that is pretty important to her character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we covered everything. (  Wikirocks  10:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Something like:

Season seven introduces Clark's biological cousin, Kara as a main character of the series. Her storyline focuses on Clark teaching her to blend in to society, controlling her powers, and learning to cope with the destruction of Krypton. Her trust in her father inadvertantly causes her to betray Clark. Lana, after faking her own death, begins stalking Lex in order to find incriminating evidence against him. Chloe, who learns she has kryptonite-induced abilities, struggles to keep her power a secret from those around her. Lex's younger brother Julian, who was believed to have been killed in his crib when Lex was a young boy, becomes the new editor of the Daily Planet under the assumed name Grant Gabriel. "Grant" subsequently hires Lois as a new reporter, based on some of the stories she wrote for The Inquisitor, with the two beginning a romantic relationship afterward.

How's that? Do you think we need something else, or need to fix the wording better?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's good, but still not quite there yet. The part about Julian seems a bit spoilerish, and I know the policy on spoilers, but instead we could say: "New editor of the Daily Planet, Gabriel Grant, hires Lois as a new reporter, based on some of the stories she wrote for The Inquisitor, and starts a romantic relationship with her. A relationship is discovered between Grant and Lex Luthor, with things not being all that they seem." I don't know...something like that. (  Wikirocks  12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

We cannot write it like a teaser. The only option is to leave it out, and that would be censoring the spoiler.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean; and it's better to have it there than not to have it at all. But I don't think you need to specifically mention everything, e.g. the cloning and the fact that Grant is Lex's brother. But that is just my opinion, and if you think it is necessary, then put it in. (  Wikirocks  13:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

I was thinking the same thing at work. We can cut the "clone" part, and just leave it as it was..that it's Julian Luthor. I'm tweaked the summary a bit more. What do you think now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like it. I think we're finished[...until someone else finds something wrong with it]. (  Wikirocks  02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Ok, I'll put that in the overview section....  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Series Overview

...I think it's going to come to a point that the entire overview section is going to have to be condense to more of a "series" overview (as the title says) than the "each season overview" that we have now--for space sake, since we are at 60kb (30kb of readable prose) and the page is much more OOU information that can be expanded upon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't really get it, but I agree that it has to be condensed later on.  Wikirocks  04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and with the "series overview" section, shouldn't we change it to "season overwiews", or at least just for now?  Wikirocks  04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it seem more logical to keep it the way it is - as such the section is subdivided by seasons, which comprises the entire series. It's really semantics, but doesn't it really warrant a change? Bignole, I seem to recall in the past that the season descriptions were a lot trimmer than they are now. Besides, detailed information could be found in the main season articles. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that it would still have season links, just be more tightly woven together---possibly not in chronological order. One can talk about Clark's adjustment to all his powers in the same sentence, and not repeat the same line, sub a new power, over and over again. We don't have to always say "Lex and Clark's relationship gets worse this season", as we can say it once in context to the history of the series. There's a lot of things that could be tweaked and tightened so that the whole section is trimmed, without losing any information--just cutting the wordiness down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but I think it would be better to leave it until the show finishes. For now, I think we should change the subheading from "series overview" to "season overviews" because that is what it is really doing right now. Later, when we condense the overview, we can change the subheading back to "series overview" because then it will truly be one. Why do you have to disagree??? (  Wikirocks  13:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't disagree with changing the name, I think that would be a very smart thing to do; I also agree on waiting till the series is completely over to condense everything into a summary of the entire show. For one, it would save us having to integrate new information later one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK the "why do you have to disagree" thing was kinda a joke....kinda. Anyways it's good to see that you do agree. Are you going to change it? Oh yeah, I changed the subheading in this talk page as the topic has changed. I don't know if I was supposed to do that, but I thought it would be approriate. (  WikiRocks  02:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Chloe's knowledge of Clark's secret

Perhaps it's not as important to the plot as some of the other story arcs, but I'm wondering why there is no mention of the various supporting characters' knowledge of Clark's secret, and their status of that knowledge throughout the series' run. For example, Pete Ross learns of Clark's secret before he is written out of the series in Season 3.

I believe it was a major turning point when Chloe was finally introduced to Clark's secret (Season 6?). IMO it changes the dynamic of the story. The same can be said for Lana, although to a lesser extent since her memory of Clark's secret has been erased more than once.

At any rate, I think it would be useful to indicate within each season overview, the status of which characters actually knew Clark's true identity as well as his developing superpowers. Pacific1982 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is already too long to be mentioning every time someone learns his secret. I've already got plans to trim that overview section as is, and limit the character section to one line descriptions of their fictional selves so that the real world information (i.e. the casting info) will have precidence on this page. We have a Characters of Smallville page, and each character that learns his section (main character) is mentioned on that page. As for applying importance to it. Without a source describing such a thing, it would be original research for us to imply importance when there is or isn't any there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

Apparently, an edit believes it is "living in the past" to have the cast sections broken up into "Original cast" and "Additional cast", as seen in this version of the page. Instead, "living in the present" means we create a "Current", "Recurring", and "Former" list, moving actors in and out of the list as they come and go from the show; as seen in this version of the page. The problem is that it gives rise to recentism to play favorites with characters who were just recently introduced into the show, as opposed to those characters who were present for the majority but only recently left. Wikipedia is built on the history of topics, not the most recent events. The original version of the page was "up to date", in that it list who was new to the show, and when and how the characters entered and exited. Secondly, there have been no "recurring" regular characters. Once a regular character left the show, they didn't return.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bignole, recentism is a common, albeit erroneous, motivation for editing articles, especially articles covering media or popular culture. It's forgivable, and the user might not be familiar with obscure policy as he believes content disputes or disagreements constitute a form of vandalism. WP:BITE might apply. However, the user needs to respond here. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also agree with Bignole, as I've encountered this problem on several other pages as well. Articles should reflect the series as a whole, rather than "in the moment". --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I probably did "bite the newcomer" some with my summaries, and I apologize for that behavior. Unfortunately, it isn't the first time that Bleek has made these edits (originally, it was back in November 2007), and (s)he and I discussed this back then as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though you are right, I like the other version better. I have argued about this in the past, I believe, and I know that I'm wrong. Just throwing my opinion in. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that we should change to a current cast,additional cast, and a former cast for members that have beem killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMJMEM (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this. This gives undue weight to the recent status of the show; this is not how Wikipedia is run. Wikipedia is based on historical facts, not current events. Who started the show is more important than some character that might "currently" be on the show for just one season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please see WP:RECENT. Basically, articles should be written with the idea "Will this be relevant in 10 years?" in the contributor's head. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

but i've looked at the other tv pages like [Supernatural (TV series)|Supernatural (TV series)]] and they have thier cast listeed as main cast. for instance loise lane is more important that johnathan kent. we shold also list how long the cast members have been on the show.this page is about the tv show not the comic book.CMJMEM (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because other people ignore the guidelines does not mean that everyone should. You're right, this is about the show and not the comic book and in the show Jonathan Kent was there from the beginning. He was also there for 5 seasons, where as Lois has only been a regular character for the past 2 seasons. The cast sections already list when someone leaves the show, but they are placed in the order in which they arrived, not in which they currently reside. You'd be saying that at one point Jason Teague was more important than Pete Ross. You'll be saying that come season 8, those two new seasons regulars will be more important than Lex Luthor or Lana (who were on the show for 7 seasons). You're establishing some form of importance based solely on the fact that they are "currently" a series regular. Laura Vandervoort is a current series regular and she wasn't in every episode of the show, nor did she have a significant role each time she was present. Wikipedia is based on historical facts, and historically the show had 8 series regulars. We should not be ignoring how the show started simply because it has changed. You'd be changing page layouts for articles constantly if that was the cast. How many new cast members as E.R. gone through in its dozen + seasons? You cannot play favorites with the "current" roster. It's undue weight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

okCMJMEM (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's produced in Canada, why is the U.S. the country of origin?

???

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's filmed in Canada and the United States. Also, the studio that produces it is an American studio.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names

It is sometimes called Smallville: Superman the Early Years over here in the UK. As for Smallville Beginnings, that is according to many websites such as Warner Video (and same as first one). here

If you want google searches here and here Simply south (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Google searches are not verification of anything. Exactly where in the Warner Video link do they call the show "Smallville Beginnings"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Agreed, google searches are quite tenuous sometimes, at times their work for notability, but in regards to this situation, the page should reflect the official title of the show (which is American), and also how it's referred to colloquially and commonly, which is Smallville. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I don't really have a problem listing any alternate titles, if they are official alternate titles, not titles that have been used in other locations more often than "Smallville" is used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK i was not sure about Smallville beginnings as i have never heard it being called that, it just turned up. Here is an official source for "Smallville: Superman the Early Years". here (from OFCOM). It is broadcast on Channel 4. Simply south (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my problem with that, Channel 4's own webpage for Smallville doesn't list the "Superman the Early Years" title. So, for me to assume that it is regularly referred to as such, given that Channel 4's own page contradicts that OFCOM listing, we'd probably need some reliable media houses that either use that title, or at least acknowledge that title as a legitimate alternative to just simply Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even IMDb, which I can't stand and wouldn't cite to save my life, suggests that "Superman the Early Years" was only a promotional title, and not the title the show is aired under (which is typically what "alternate title" would suggest). ABC Family promoted Smallville as "Smallville Beginnings", but when they aired the show it was aired as simply "Smallville". I think that how a network chooses to promote a show doesn't have any bearing on the actual title of the show itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how helpful this is, but the TV book TV Choice lists it as Smallville: Superman the Early Years. Don't know how we would cite that though.  Paul  730 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be mentioned under an alternative names title. Come to think of it, i remember seeing it as "Smallville: Superman the Early Years" in listing but on screen title was just "Smallville". Simply south (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) - To Paul, that was kind of my point. It seems places like OFCOM and TV Choice (which is probably equivalent to TV Guide), are listing the show based on the promotional material, but the channels that actually air the show (Channel 4, A-Channel, CW) all still list the show as simply Smallville. Like I said, ABC Family promotes Smallville (promoted, because I don't think they air the re-runs any longer) as Smallville Beginnings, I know that for sure, because I remember watching the promos for the show. But when it came time for them to air the show, they listed it as simply "Smallville". If anything, I would say that this type of "alternate titles", would be something more appropriate for the a release section (or Reception section, since we don't have a "Release" section), where we identify that the show was promoted with alternate titles. I don't think we can legitimately say that the alt titles were truly different names for the show overseas, or even here in the US, just simply different promotional tools used to identify the show. I'm thinking just above the ratings table (though I wish we had seasonal ratings from other countries, as then it would add more to the section).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smallville (U.S. Ratings)

I have redirected the "article" Smallville (U.S. Ratings) here. For one thing, it does not make any sense as a stand-alone article. Moreover, the table of ratings per year is already in this article. The only difference was the additional tables for the week-by-week ratings of the last two seasons. That information might be of interest if it showed some easily identifiable pattern but as you can see by checking out the tables, it does not. The ratings decrease as the season goes on, just like it does for 90% of TV series and the rest of the variations are well within the margin of error of ratings. In any case, without commentary on the ratings, that slab of data is just that: a slab of data (see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Pichpich (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't even know the page existed. Had I, I would have done what you did. It was the same thing with the Smallville DVD Releases page. Heck, if you looked at the source for the last two seasons, you wouldn't be able to verify the ratings for all those episodes. The source they used doesn't have "pages", but a rotating news reel, so the information itself is gone from the page after a day or so.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Millar and Hough, Smallville's Showrunners, Are Leaving

Krypton Site has an open letter from the show runners to fans announcing their intention to leave the show. This is a major development: Millar and Hough Open Letter Wasn't sure within the context of the Smallville article where to include this information. Thoughts? Do we create a 'breaking news' section at the top of the page? Tubesurfer (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got a source from SuperHeroHype.com (not the best source, but considered better than a fansite). I'm been struggling with how to incorporate that information into the article when we don't really have a section where it would be relevant. It's certainly something that will appear in the Season 8 article, but we're a ways off from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)

Should we create a new crew section, and put it there? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An entire section for a single statement? Not really. I've added it to the Develoment section, as that's the closest thing we have to an appropriate section without creating one with a single statement in it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide Smallville Link

I work for TV Guide, and was wondering what the group thought of including TV Guide's Smallville page in the external links section: TV Guide's Smallville Page. Please visit and review and let me know if you feel it fits the External Links criteria.

Thanks - Tubesurfer (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe we use TV Guide as a source, and we generally don't list "sources" in the External Links section when we already have them linked in the "References" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

TV guide should not be used asa source. A source is something offical. TV Guide is no different then any other magazine.

Allison Mack and season 8

What you have is not offical. I would not say that until we hear something from Allison, Tabby(the girl who runs and updates Allison's sites) or The CW. What you have is something from The Ausiello report and Ausiello has already been wrong 3 times on the subject of Allison being in season 8 alone. I would not fully trust what he reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still a reporter for TV Guide, whether he is right or wrong. TV Guide has editorial oversight over what he reports.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet when he was wrong all of those times before TV Guide did nothing about them. So I doubt it. Plus I thought wikipedia was not alowd to post something like that till it was offical. There has still been no offical word from Allison or The CW. It should not be up there till it is 100% fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the policy on verifiability. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. If a reliable source (see WP:RS for a definition of reliable) reports something, it doesn't matter if it is false.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia will report something that is false. That seems like a great thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We cannot verify that it is false! Haha.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't verify it is true either so that is a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

Just a question, why hasn't this article been "featured" yet? It's a "good" article already, and I don't see anything holding it back. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Gossip

If the news about Kristin Kreuk's leaving can be adequately sourced, of course we should include it. However the current version of the story is sourced to this self-described gossip site. Gossip and rumor are not reliable. I've removed this twice. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated above "Please read the policy on verifiability. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. If a reliable source (see WP:RS for a definition of reliable) reports something, it doesn't matter if it is false." Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've told you in the edit summary, being a "gossip" site doesn't mean they are spreading rumors, and if they are then they usually say "this is a rumor". E! Online is part of E! Entertainment, which is the largest entertainment news organization we have - It's like what ESPN is for sports. Just because you don't like the source doesn't make it any less reliable. They are a news organization that has editorial oversight, which is the criteria for being a reliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a gossip site. Just because you read something on the web doesn't mean it's verifiable or reliably sourced. Just because it's part of ESPN or E! doesn't mean it isn't spreading unreliable tittle-tattle and rumor. Please stop adding useless tripe to this encyclopedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have at least two editors here who disagree with you. Your only argument is that "they are a gossip site", and not that they fail Wikipedia's own criteria for what a reliable source is. They don't, by the way, because they have editorial oversight. All information is hearsay. Unless you personally hear Gough say something, or Kreuk say something, it will always be hearsay. Please read WP:RS and WP:V, because you are obviously missing the point there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I might interject, I was looking at the actual citation, and it doesn't say that Kristen Kreuk is leaving the show. It says their characters are. Granted, this might seem to be semantics, as Rosenbaum's departure appears to be accurate. Without a better citation from a credible source - and no, I don't really consider the Gossip Chick on E! to be that splendidly reliable of a source - we shouldn't comment on Kreuk's departure. If she is not returning, the studio will say so in no uncertain terms in due time, if they haven't already done so elsewhere. There is no rush to add this info before we have rock-solid references. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

She's a reporter, just like Mike Ausseillo (sp), and no one ever seems to have a problem with that guy. If Kristin's character is leaving, then she is leaving as well, especially since everyone else seems to be reporting the same thing and the fact that she wasn't listed on the CWs cast listings for season eight. Now, if someone wants to find an even better source, that's cool, but that doesn't detract from the fact that E! Online still fits the criteria of reliable sources, which is simply one that has editorial oversight and a history of accuracy. Show me a history of inaccuracy (not "oh look, I found a time when she was wrong"...guess what, they do change episodes at the last minute and season seven had a ton of changes because of the writer's strike), and where this particular reporter lacks editorial oversight and I will gladly remove the source myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like this one, then choose from the others that are reporting the same thing. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

I think I've humored you fellas long enough. Since you don't like E! Online, read through those and pick your favorite and then be bold and replace the existing information with the appropriate info in the citation template. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok one thing Krisin is coming back for season 8 anyway. Also you say noone has any problems with Mike Ausiello yet I complained about wikipedia saying that Allison has resigned when he is the only one reporting it. Now if other people where reporting it and not citing Mike then I would have no problem. But any info we have gotten is only from Mike Ausiello. The man has been wrong 3 times on Allison already. When it comes to that they should not include him for this atleast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Anon, I don't recall anyone reporting that Allison was resigning. I remember that it was reported that she was still in negotiations, and that they were not sure if she was coming back. She didn't get a new contract until about less than a week ago. I don't know what you are actually talking about. Could you provide some links?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

UMM hello. If she has a new contract that would mean she resigned wouldn't it. You guys wrote on wikipedia that she has s new contract when only one person is reporting it and we have yet to hear word from anyone who truly does know which would be Allison or The CW. There should be nothing on Allison being part of Season 8 till that is a proven point. Wikipedia really needs to get better mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you meant resigned, as in "resignation". After that, the source is a reporter, who has editorial oversight, and is considered reliable. Please read the policy on verifiability and reliable sources. I will not restate this again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How is he reliable if he has been wrong three times on the matter. Why do you always look over that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What was he wrong about? Reliability is a "history of accuracy", not the simple fact that he's been wrong recently. So, show me links to articles he has written that were wrong. As far as Mack is concerned, the only thing I have seen him report is that she used Michael leaving to get a larger contract, and that Warner Brothers agreed to a better contract. Anything else reported on Mack has simply stated that there was trouble with her contract negotiations and that they were not sure if she was coming back at all. That is not a definitive "she quit" or "she was fired", that's simply explaining the conflict over her contract.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He was wrong at first by saying Allison was signed on from the begining. Then he said she was in negitionation. Then he said it was going bad and only had 48 hours. Then all of the sudden a few days later she has resigned. He plays to peoples emotions it is as easy as that. I can not show you links because when he is caught he changes his articals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, without something to verify there's nothing to talk about. I've allowed this discussion to drag on far enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Well wikipedia is really going by something with no proof besides a guy saying something that is not offical. Don't you think if it where 100% true Allison or The CW would have said something by now. When the rumors of Michael not returning where going around it was Michael himself who admitted to not coming back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Special effects

Where can one find sources which discuss the special effects in the series?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The companion novels, the DVD commentary (season two has a brief thing on the effects for the powers..just haven't watched it yet to see if it's any good), and I believe Erik gave me a couple things from American Cinematographer (magazine) that had some brief mentionings on Entity FX, nothing real major.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that incorporating some more information on the SFX and the increasing budget, studio changes(?), comparative sophistication of the technoology perhaps(?), and possible downshift (Season 7) might go towards improving what is a great article. We already have effects touched on with relation to the fact that it has won an award, but perhaps no mention of it being a SFX-heavy series by nature.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Short of rehashing what is already in the season article, I haven't come across a lot of stuff that chronicles the changes of the SFX (look, budget, etc) over the course of the show. I think that would be really great to have, but I just haven't seen it in print. It may be out there, but it'll take some time to dig it out. I know Erik is really good about finding that stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

why is the interwikies hidden ???

why is that ??--Ezzex (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The 7th season addition broke the table. I undid it. Probably shouldn't add anyway, until there's an actual release date. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge all character lists

I'm proposing that we merge all of the List of Smallville character pages into a single page, maybe titled Characters of Smallville or Smallville characters. I've already begun construction on the new layout, which also includes the potential to create articles for Clark and Lex (I have sandboxes for both of them as well, but they are bare at the moment, the creation of those will depend on what secondary information I can find about them).

Anyway, the reason for the proposal is because if you look at the LOC pages they are riddled with characters that have appeared only once, or maybe appeared several times but only in the background. These characters don't need to be mentioned beyond the plot description in the season articles or any individual episode articles they may appear in. For instance, we don't need to list every freak of the week, because they were only important for one episode and probably covered well enough in their respective episode descriptions.

You'll notice that my proposed page also includes the main cast (with Lex and Clark having their IU information trimmed if I can successfully create a separate article for each). I feel that we need a place that can cover both IU info and real world info, as their respective sections as "Other media for Character X" seem to do nothing but provide a huge description of their every move. Not to mention that it would be good to have a place to discuss the characters that was actually for the Smallville articles, and not some off-shoot from the comic character's article. I'm discussing the merger here because I couldn't do it at the title I think would be appropriate (since it doesn't exist) and I wanted a higher trafficked area than the LOC pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I realize the page isn't finished (sources need to be provide, real world information provided--though the Dr. Virgil Swann section is completed so check that out and see what you think, and other clean up issues), but I wanted to get the ball rolling on this proposed merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for the individual season character pages. I am fully behind the merger proposal. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree! I consider this as great step to create a good article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bignole has my support for any Smallville on Wikipedia-related decision. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, I've been considering this for Degrassi: The Next Generation, but perhaps some characters are notable enough to warrant their own articles if they have been discussed by reliable sources, and a brief overview on a list of characters can serve as a kind of intro to that article. I find Pauline Fowler a great example of a character article. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. V-train (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: per WP:SS it is a good idea if you include main cast in a list (even if they have articles of their own). This is a good idea, and will lead to a comprehensive article. G.A.S 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bignole, you are the Smallville expert on wikipedia. If you believe the necessary information can be presented in only one list, you have my support (although I think you are already running into size limitations, and that you may still end up with two lists in the end). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is about 57kb of readable prose, but you have to remember that Clark and Lex have a huge amount of IU information (and I'm hoping that I can find real world information to justify an article on each of those characters, which would in turn trim down all that IU information). Everyone else is pretty much limited in IU information. I still have to trim the Jor-El IU information, as well as the IU information for Brainiac, and Oliver. Mostly, it's a lot of needless details and wordy sentence structure. I generally work under the "put everything you can think and then trim it back later" model. Frankly, I'm still debating on whether people like Principal Kwan and Aunt Nell really need to be mentioned, because they were generally background characters who never really had any important storylines in the series. Kwan had a freak-of-the-week episode that was semi-important, but nothing the description in the season page doesn't already cover. It's still in the working phase and I'm sure I'll find that there is no real world information and the character did nothing for 6 episodes but pop on the screen and say a couple lines and then pop off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can treat Aunt Nell like I treated Genevieve Teague, and simply merge her into Lana's section (ala Genevieve being merged into Jason's section). Nell's storyline basically affected Lana anyway. Kwan...he's basically a one episode character who just happened to appear in the background of several episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I say leave Aunt Nell in the article. Although I hardly remember her doing anything, she was in a few eps. Kwan, well I don't rememeber him at all. He's not really notable but if there is enough real-world content out there, I see nothing wrong with leaving him in as well. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see they're gone from the page. Didn't really need them anyways. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Kwan was removed outright, because he literally did nothing until "Crush", and even then he was a small blip that gets killed. Nell was merged into Lana's section, so you can see some info on here in there. There wasn't much going on for her character, even with OOU information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the right thing to do. Are you going to make the page anytime soon? I think it's stable enough as it is. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When I'm comfortable with the Clark, Lex, and Lana pages. Actually, it will probably be when I'm comfortable with their entries on the list page, because I've got to trim back some info on them. I've already got Clark's trimmed back on the list page (you can check my user page for the individual sandboxes for Clark, Lex and Lana).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Clark, Lex, and Lana pages, and honestly they're really good! They are probably much better than most fictional character pages out there and I do not see any reason why they shouldn't be created. Sure, they could ues a bit more work, but they can be improved while they are actual pages. I say create the CK, LL and LL pages, create the main character page and merge all the guest star pages now. I see no reason to wait. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to wait to create the CK, LL, and LL pages till they are at least organized better. They can be cleaned and filled further later (as you stated). The only thing the LOC page is missing is some more info on Durance, Ashmore and Vandervoort then it will be fine enough to go ahead and move into the mainspace. I'm thinking probably come Monday, since most of the work is on my work computer. What about the title. Is there an agreement on the name of the article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Durance, Ashmore and Vandervoort need a bit of work. I would love to help, but I am really busy (with exams) and I guess you have all the info on your work computer. I like "Characters of Smallville" better, because its like the "Characters of Lost" page, but either that or "Smallville Characers" is fine. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "Characters of Smallville" Russell [ Talk ] 12:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The merge has occurred. It can all be found at Characters of Smallville now. That page still needs cleanup, and some expansion, but the basic jist is all there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is the female mystery villian in up coming season???

The shows reps already informed doomday and a unknown female character with super strength will be the main villians next season, so any idea who the girl is suspose to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.215.110 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD Releases

Just curious why somebody deleted my information in the DVD releases section regarding hi-def releases. If smallville is being released on high-def formats, isn't it important to note it? --DarthUltima (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because those are still "DVDs" and they're all basically released at the same time as the regular seasons anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

However, this is an archive of data. I guess ultimately my reason for debating this is that something important is happening with Smallville and the Smallville Wikipedia page has decided to ignore it's existance entirely.--DarthUltima (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an "archive of data", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Mentioned the basic release dates of the DVDs suffices in what we need to mention. There is nothing "special" about HD and Blu-Ray other than the quality of the show, mentioning every single variation of a single piece of media becomes indiscriminate in its listing. The most important piece is the point when it was first released. Hell, mentioning them at all is questionable, because it doesn't lend to the strength of the article and Wikipedia isn't here to promote products.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think that the DVD releases shoudn't even be mentioned then? --DarthUltima (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if they need to be mentioned, then the basic release date is fine. We aren't here to chronicle all the different versions of DVDs that were released and when.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But its not promoting the products any more than mentioning the DVD releases are, is it? So whats the harm in simply saying "Hey, these are out there too."? If you are mentioning the DVD releases I just see no reason not to mention the hi-def releases, particularly because Blu-Ray will (someday) be the standard optical format. --DarthUltima (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just another form. Wikipedia is not written for the "someday" article, it's written for the historical data. There's nothing special about 2 of the seasons being released in a higher quality format. They didn't change anything about the disc, only the quality is upgraded. We don't list every time an older generation movie is re-released with each succeeding audio quality: "Casablanca was released in Dolby 5.1 Digital on July 15, 2008".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Season eight

Here's some good info about the eighth season. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)