Talk:Chloe Sullivan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clean-up

This page needs updating. Chloe now knows Clark's secret .. 209.89.183.89 23:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

the "The Luthor Arc, Journalism, and Clark's secret" needs lots of cleanup... 68.162.249.250 22:53, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

Also, Chloe visiting him in the Loft was not Clarks First Kiss, he kissed her in season one in the episode where those two men have powers to persuade people. Mark Orahoske 07:16, July 30, 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Anyway, Chloe and Clark did first kiss in the loft, though the viewer never sees it. Clark tells Lana in the episode Obscura that when Chloe moved to Smallville, Clark was assigned to show her around school. Then she came over to visit him at his loft, and kissed him on the lips without warning to get it "out of the way" so they could then be friends. Debuskjt 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please slow down the number of edits? Do them all at once on your Sandbox page and revise it there, making only a few edits to the article at a time. We're currently averaging ~30 edits a day to this article, which makes it nearly impossible to keep up. Debuskjt 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Tip of the day/May 26, 2006. Debuskjt 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Breakout of Sections

I think the Luthor Arc, Journalism, and Clark's Secret should all be separate sections and they should be cut down drastically. They are three separate topics, and because they are lumped together the article is turning into an episode-by-episode summary of everything that has ever happened to Chloe on the show.

That's not really the purpose of a Wiki article, and I think this article is growing too long and too detailed. Debuskjt 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chloe Chronicles information should really be broken out and migrated over to Chloe Chronicles. The information is more pertinent there, since the information in them spans more than just Chloe's character development. As long as no one disagrees, once this article slows down I'll start migrating information and redirect users to the Chloe Chronicles page within this article. Debuskjt 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I migrated that information over, and it can now be expanded (I'd suggest rearrangement and expansion into episodic summaries, since the Chloe Chronicles are so small). Done some general clean-up of this article, too. Still needs citations of all the Chlois stuff or that section will need to be removed. Debuskjt 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are the citations used for the Chlois section valid for wikipedia purposes? Online fan petitions and fan sites that encourage a certain viewpoint would raise questions about the neutrality of this section. Actual facts and events should be the basis of the Chloe article. The Chlois theory implies that the current Lois is not the legitimate Lois. That's POV, and not a unanimous one. Wikipedia should not become a forum for every theory and speculation because there would not be consensus on what is considered evidence and what is not. SCrews 05:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kryptonsite

The images that say "Kryptonsite" should be replaced with images that don't say it. - Peregrinefisher 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We have permission to use Kryptonsite pictures. Modifying the images to remove that copyright image would be a violation of copyright. Bignole 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Peregrinefisher that if a suitable alternative exists without the Kryptonsite image it should be used. And from a pedantic standpoint, I don't think they can copyright screenshots, since the image itself is actually owned by Warnes Bros. - Debuskjt 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If there needs to be any copyright recognition, it should recognize Warner Bros. and/or DC Comics, who would actually own the rights to the image and character -- and not Kryptonsite. SCrews 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chloe Theory

The Chloe Theory is a relatively unsupported and very inconclusive section in this article. It's only evidence is a simple anagram explination and common use of the letter "L". In the Superman series, the use of the letter "L" are thematic and obvious choices included in the names of many of the characters (Lois Lane, Lionel Luthor, Lex Luthor, Lana Lang). The additional evidence, a quote from Smallville's co-creater only notes that it was intentional to have numerous L's in Chloe's name. Nothing to support a Chloe to Lois shift as it is true of the creaters to have L as a maintained theme in the introduction of new characters.

In an encyclopedic article it is important that speculation does not overcome the facts. Lois Lane and Chloe Sullivan are currently two indepentant and co-existing people in the Superman series of Smallville. Clark Kent is aware of both their presence and has an established relationship with each. Chloe and Lois are related (cousins). Both are interested in reporting and write at The Torch. Until those barriers are broken in the series, they remain of different identities and different people. Mkdw 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As a theory, it is based on few facts and plenty of speculation. Lois' arrival in Season Four should be taken as proof that Lois and Chloe are two separate characters, whose only connection is by blood: they are cousins. Putting the Chlois theory in wikipedia does not give this theory any more credence than it had in the cyberverse, where its purported evidence is tenuous. Wikipedia should not become a place to promote or advance such theories by giving them the appearance of credibility. Lois Lane's existence as a separate character since Season Four is a fact and there has been no evidence on the show to suggest that she is anything but Lois Lane. SCrews 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend it be removed and a new section about the thematic use of names and effects in fanfair be written in place.Mkdw 05:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The section about the opposition of this section in the artle was deleted by Debuskjt. I have restored the article for several reasons. It's a legitimate section that has evidence of its argument in the external links as well as the table on the bottom of the list. It is an original research article. The argument is legitimate in the article as it shows the opposition. Opposition to the theory comes up in other speculation so Debuskjt is false to delete certain sections of the opposition in WP:NPOV. Theories have no references to relate. Public support on the discussion of this article is in favour.

Theories, particularly, MUST cite references from notable sources. The whole section should be deleted. There is no such thing as an original research article on Wiki. Original research is not allowed. Period. Ever. That's why the Chlois theory article was deleted in the first place. And non-proper nouns should never be capitalized in heading titles, per Wiki guidelines. - Debuskjt 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a hypocritical statement to your first edits in the section, Debuskjt. You're campaigning to delete the entire section when in the edit in question, you only edited the section. You removed the oppositional portion of the 'Chloe Theory' rather than removing the whole section. Please refer to your edits on the removal of 'alliteration of names as a theme' and still preserved the rest of the section. No other additions pertaining to references and citation were noted or changed.

I agree that the section should be cut. There are some fans - who cannot assume the consensus of most viewers - that purport to present the speculation of Chlois as more than speculation, but supported by evidence they deem as factual. They are assigning weight to the alleged evidence that supports this theory. The Chloe article should be biographical in nature and avoid theorizing on Chloe's fate. The rule against original research on wikipedia is cause enough to remove the section. SCrews 13:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And your POV accusation is bizarre, since I'm the one who nominated the separate Chlois Theory article for deletion for POV, OR, and non-notability.

The Chlois theory, based on its logic, would imply that the current Lois Lane is not the real Lois -- but a doppelganger whom Chloe will replace in the future. The theory's premise supposes that the current Lois Lane's "illegitimate" claim to the identity is more than an opinion. It would need to become a fact for the theory to fulfil itself. There is no televised evidence that Lois Lane is not the real Lois Lane: it is a POV of some fans and hence, not neutral. SCrews 05:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the Chlois theory's POV that is in question, since it presumes that the current Lois Lane is a pretender that should be replaced. The Chlois fansite page cannot be regarded as a legitimate citation since its purpose is to promote the POV that only Chloe can be the real Lois, and that Lois Lane - who the creators intended to be Lois Lane - isn't the real Lois Lane. SCrews 13:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this section should be deleted. In the episode that aired on October 5, 2006, we see Lois becoming interested in writing and reporting after the incident with the Kents' barn door. While she doesn't write for the Daily Planet yet, it's clear that in the future she will become the Lois Lane that we know and Chloe will not replace her. Bitethesilverbullet 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

spoiler alert - season 6 finale

death

surely it's unlikely she'll return, with lois getting a job at the planet next season apparently?

-The Actress has said she is coming back on the video interview posted here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.62.81 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other media

Unless there's conclusive evidence from a reputable source that the blonde named "Chloe Sullivan" in the Stardock videogame is based on the Chloe Sullivan in Smallville it cannot be included here. To interpret as such as WP:OR, explicitly forbidden here. Also, message board claims by fan are explicitly forbidden by policy by WP:RS. Also, External links are not citations, which is necessary by WP:CITE because Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, per WP:VERIFY. Saying they are the same thing effectively accuses the game manufacturer of possible copyright violations, since Chloe Sullivan is an original creation owned by DC Comics. That's a pretty serious claim. - Debuskjt 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this:

• The name is the same
• The appearance seems to be similar, although the one stylized image given could match a lot of other people
• The character has a 10/10 score in "media bias", a measure of the media's friendliness towards them, as well as in comeliness and stamina, and has high ratings in integrity, intelligence and charisma

I certainly think it is reasonable to say that fans have made the assumption that the characters are related. It is quite likely that the programmers were having a little fun when they put that character in - they are one of a few characters who do not appear to be well-known politicians in real life. However, to the best of my knowledge the game makes no specific reference to Smallville in relation to the character, nor is any character background given that might infringe on anyone's copyright. GreenReaper 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And how does that not fall within the bounds of WP:OR? Wikipedia aims for verifiability, not accuracy. Verifiability requires reputable sources. Since the game doesn't make the claim that they're related, and the game's creators haven't made that claim, you can't assume they're related here because of Wiki policy. Google for "'The Political Machine' 'Chloe Sullivan' Smallville". Most of the entries are unsourced copies of Wikipedia; the rest are users asking if they're related.

Let me make it very clear. My issue isn't whether or not that character is or isn't based on Chloe Sullivan from Smallville. I don't care. If it truly is, it would be good information to have in the article. However, that claim has to be sourced reliably. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. - Debuskjt 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever say or imply that it wasn't original research? My main point was that there was nothing in the game showing that it was definitely intended to be the same character. I was arguing for you, not against you. GreenReaper 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just snappy after last nights reverting. - Debuskjt 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At the time the game was made, the character was not owned by DC comics. As well, it's obvious that the charcters are meqant to be the same by common sense. Type Chloe Sullivan into any search engine, and tell me, just how many results will coem up as anyone other than the Smallville character. The name is a unique name, and it could only have come from from the characters being one and the same. OR policy does not rule out common sense.- TheGreenFaerae

TheGreenFaerae is right. The buyout of the character only occured recently. The use of the name, in combination with the facial recognition feature, including simlar hardo and smile, is proof enough. According to the standards you are attempting to hold this page to, a character named Clark Kent would not be able to be proven that a link would exist between the game character and the comic book character. When a name is unique enough and famous enough, having the same name is sufficent evidence that two characters are indeed the same. For another example of this in action, in the movie Runaway Jury there was a juror who was a gothic woman named Lydia Deets. Observers easily noticed this as a tribute to the Beetlejuice character. Appearance and having a similar, uncommon, famous name is more than sufficent evidence to prove relation. To put it simply, if a casual observer recognzes at first glance that the characters are the same, it is obvious that they are the same. And, FYI Debuskjt, reverting of obivously valid information on mere technicalities classifies as bullying under Wikipedia policy, and can result in disciplinary action. TheSonofSerenity 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not bullying, and the same argument works in reverse. TheGreenFaerae is pushing for an obvious bias for that game without a reputable source over Wiki policy without attempting to address acknowledged concerns about Wiki policy violations. - Debuskjt 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The character was owned by The WB before it was owned by DC Comics. A blonde named Chloe isn't uncommon, and the last name Sullivan is very common. That alone isn't enough to make that kind of leap here. Even if they're related, there's no reliable source. Revert warring is also not vandalism. Classifying it as such is a violation of WP:GF. If done again, I will file a Wikiquette. Now, specifically, Wiki says these things that your edit is violating:

• "Articles may not contain... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." - Stating that a blonde named Chloe Sullivan in a video game must be the Chloe from Smallville without a reliable source is analysis and synthesis of published data. WP:NOR
• "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." WP:RS - Since your only source is fan speculation on a message board, it's not reliable. And without a reliable source...
• "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." WP:CITE

Together, that puts your assertion in violation of all three Wiki content policies. Your edit is also badly written, per WP:AWT. "Most players have assumed" is obvious Weasel Word, and gives it bias in violation of WP:NPOV. We cannot ignore these policies. Until these issues are addressed, I don't see why it's pertinent to allow. And you have yet to defend it here against Wiki policy. - Debuskjt 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i jsut foudn a website that scans U.S. census records for names, and out of the United States population (~300 million people), there are just nine people with the name Chloe Sullivan, ie m,atching first and last names. And I'm willing to be that none of them look anything like Allison Mack. The anme Chloe might not be uncommon, and the name Sullivan might not be uncommon, but in combination, the full anem of Chloe Sullivan, the name is very unique, and any reference to the name with a face that looks anything close to Allisdon Mack, quite obviously has to be a homage. I never said it was nto a copyright violation. If you will ntoe, i said it is nto apparant if it was authorized or not. there is no evidence saying permission was or was nto given to use the character. And since she would have to be the only playable character not linked to someone famous for it to not be her, Simple common sense is a reliable enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenFaerae (talk • contribs)

I understand that, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize data. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. I'm not arguing against your deductive logic. I'm trying to tell you that such an argument in a Wiki article is clearly in violation of Wiki's No Original Research policy, and therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia unless it is sourced reliably. No Original Research is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. We don't set forth new arguments here. You need a game magazine review, statement from the game publisher or creator--something within the bounds of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources before it can be included. Your common sense is not verifiable. Encyclopedia's must be fact checked. I'm not sure what part of that you aren't understanding. - Debuskjt 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. So how is this unnaceptabl, again?

You just posted it yourself: "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." That policy is there to allow the inclusions of websites like TV.com or celebrity gossip in say... TV Guide... as sources. And "the best material" is qualified with "when a substantial body of material is available." There is no substantial body of material here. Once again, not sure where you're confused here. The exclusion of bulletin boards as reliable sources is explicitly listed twice: once in generality, once in reference to popular culture and fiction articles. - Debuskjt 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

but the snapshot is nto excluded. The snjapshot is sufficent evidence for this situation, with my reasoning.

Interpreting the snapshot of a cartoon blonde as the Chloe Sullivan from Smallville is Original Research. It's the "unpublished analysis... of published... data." It's prohibited by Wikipedia policy. - Debuskjt 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

and anylasis do nto have to be from reliable sources with regards to works of fiction or popular culture, as is the case with this fictional character.

Analysis has to come from outside of Wikipedia. It has to be sourced. It cannot be solely the editor's opinion, ever, and it can not be backed up by posts to bulletin boards, ever. Especially ones that never definitively even conclude that the Chloe Sullivan from the game is indeed Chloe Sullivan from Smallville. You cannot post an image of a stylized cartoon and say, "It looks like her." in a Wiki article. This has been explained to you multiple times and point by point citations of policy have been given to you. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive collection of information, despite what you may think, I'm done discussing this until after mediation, as you are willfully going in circles to push your POV on this article. You've been given more than enough time to find something reliable on the issue, and the truth of the matter is that you can't. And I know, because before I removed your edit *I* looked myself. - Debuskjt 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he's confusing "In Other Media" with "References in Other Media" -- e.g. there's a difference between Superman in Superman: The Animated Series which is "In Other Media" and a parody of Superman such as Captain Hero appearing in Drawn Together which is an example "References in Other Media". The Chloe character in the game, if anything, is a parody/reference. DonQuixote 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That is probably part of the issue. But even then, the best we could say is that "A fan site thinks the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine may be a reference to Chloe Sullivan from Smallville.[2]" And while that wording/citation would be infinitely better than what's in the article now, it's still pretty bad weasel word, and shaky in regards to reliable sources. I just don't see anything when Googling for "'Political Machine' Smallville Chloe" that really stands up to Wiki policy, since it's all blog-style fan sites and web forums. We would be letting the content in the article to appease a niche POV, and four pages of web hits isn't exactly WP:NOTABLE. - Debuskjt 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i didnt relaize there was a difference between references in other media and in other media. I wholeheartedly agree that it should only be a reference in other media. But to deny that it is a reference is pure idiocy, and the continual denial of this fact is nothing more than bullying on Debuskjt's part. It is notable by proxy. The game, wyhile not a major release, or a major sales hit, was released by Stardock, a subsidiary of UbiSoft. the game itself is notable. The reference is obviously true. Why would you need a notable or reliable reference for a atstement like a clear sky is blue.

I think that if it is not clearly intended as a direct reference from a good, published source, then we should simply state that there is a character with that name in the game and leave it at that. This is unquestionably true. Whether or not the character is meant to is uncertain, and so we shouldn't suggest that it is or that it is not. People will draw the appropriate conclusion - that it might be a spoof. I have updated the text and replaced the picture with a direct screenshot. GreenReaper 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

works for me. Nic screenshot byh the way. I couldn't figure out hwo to do a screenshot, so thats why i used my camera. I'm nto sure spoof is the word, as it is nto a parody, but that's jsut semantics. Good job. -the Green Faerae

Your analogy is entirely false. The sky is blue is a fact. You can look up at the sky and see it. Stating that a blonde cartoon character named Chloe Sullivan is the same Chloe Sullivan (or even a reference to her) in Smallville is an opinion, and a non-notable one until a reputable source actually puts it forth. Don't conflate fact with your opinion, please. And without a direct statement from Stardock, there's no way you can ever know it isn't coincidence. Not only that, but it's a liability, as stated earlier. You are basically suggesting that Stardock used the intellectual property of The WB/DC Comics without permission. Do you realize what kind of situation that can put Wiki in? The fact that you treat this so flippantly suggests that you don't. And the game is notable, yes. That's why it has an article. Not sure how that means it should be mentioned in this one. The opinion that the Chloe Sullivan's are related is not necessarily notable. And the current phrasing, while a good attempt by GreenReaper to bring some peace to this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, so I plan to pursue this discussion through mediation or an RfC if that fails. Finally, accusing me of bullying is a violation of WP:GF. I've already warned you once against it. You really, really need to take the time to familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you make accusations. - Debuskjt 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The ame WP:GF policy you yourself are in violation of? And to say there is no way they could have any connection whatsoever is like saying the sky could not be blue. There is no NPOV violation. Especially not after GreenReaper revised it. You may disagrere wioth my assumption that they are the same is one thing. Your refusal to accept any rteference at all is bullying. That is not a persoanl attack, it is simkple fact. Pleae note that you are the onyl one who seems to be unable to accept any sort of reference at all. You want to file any sort of grieveance, go ahead. I am trying to be cooperative. I don't mind my words being changed, or the way the reference is persented. But this is obviously the same character at best, and at worst a spoof. To hide the fact that the possibility exists is itself a NPOV violation, and it entails the emotion of facts. And you want to knwo why I callk you a bully? Because you fit the definition of a Wikipedia bully. Anything you disapprove of must go. This article is you personal pet, and god forbid somebosdy else try to work on it. The major thing is you are unwilling to compromise. I would follow that WP:GF link you put in place to the humor page WP:BF. While humorous, it describes well what a violator of GF policies are. If you want me to stop calloing you a bully, stop acting like one. You don't have to admit I'm right, but at least be willing to meet me halfway.TheGreenFaerae 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can do this point by point...

1. How is this article my pet project? The vast majority of its current form was written by User:Johnnyfog without objection from me. I was only tangentially involved in the row over the Chlois Theory, and only then because I objected to certain edits that (surprise) didn't meet Wiki policy on original research.
2. You made no edits to your original edit after I pointed out policy issues, though I stopped reversions to mediate. I don't see that as a willingness to compromise. You have yet to even acknowledge that there are problems with policy. However, you have now called me a bully, a vandal, controlling, and accused me of deliberately attempting to hinder any development to this page. Am I not to take those as personal attacks?
3. I have repeatedly stated that my issue isn't with the logic you use to argue that they are related. My problem is that we currently have no way to state that which isn't a violation of Wiki policy and isn't a legal liability.
   1. Herein lies the issue with GreenReaper's edit. It presents the facts about the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine and asks the reader to make up their mind. And it's sourced through the photograph, all of which is fine. The problem, though, is having it in a section called "Possible spoofs" (or even in this article), still suggests that it is a reference, not a coincidence (this is called weasel word), with no evidence to support it, based on an editor's analysis of the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine. That is original research (though it obviously wasn't his intent).

So fix it. I don't particularly like it, either. What should it be? GreenReaper 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Other uses of the name Chloe Sullivan" that doesn't attempt to present any claim about a relationship? - Debuskjt 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another option is a disambig at the top of the page, like {{Otheruses4|the character Chloe Sullivan from [[Smallville (TV series)|Smallville]]|the blonde, female character by the same name in ''The Political Machine''|The Political Machine}} - Debuskjt 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I like the first better than the second, which would suggest to me that the character was not the same. Anyone else have any ideas? GreenReaper 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. For the record, I do think Stardock based their character on Smallville's Chloe Sullivan. That is my personal opinion; without any way to prove it definitively.
2. You have yet to put forth an alternate source (much less one that meets Wiki standards on reliability), so I don't see where I failed to accept any source at all. I made several suggestions of sources that would work if you could find them. What other source are you suggesting we use? Or are you still claiming a bulletin board is reliable despite is explicit exclusion as a reliable source twice in WP:RS and that a screenshot is a reliable source for your analysis?
3. I being the only other editor vocally pointing out policy violations in your edit doesn't amount to much. No one besides you is vocally contesting that it isn't, but I never saw you stop reverting the article to gain consensus before adding contested material back to the article. - Debuskjt 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

aslo your charge that shoudl the charcaters be the same, a copyright violation ahs taken place is assumption. There is nothign saying WB did not give permission for the character to be used. It is entirely possible that WB did license the character as a form of publicity. Also, it could fall under parody laws which protect against potential copyright violations in the name of parody. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Parodies are protected as seperate from the Spource Material in which they parody. it is the reason films like Scary Movie can exist. Yuo should study a bit of case law.

Didn't you claim that this wasn't a parody, since the presentation of Chloe Sullivan in the game isn't satirical? TPM also doesn't acknowledge the IP of WB/DC Comics, so it isn't licensed. - Debuskjt 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adn you want an RfC form, here you go: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debuskjt

You can see my response there. - Debuskjt 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I'm tired of repeating myself. You know what you're doing is wrong. You know you're being a bully. Now I apologize for the mislabelled vandal remark. You weren't being a vandal, and I am sorry. But you are being a bully, that much is plain and sijmple. I am willing to compromise in that I'm willing to accept an edit similar to GreenReaper's. Your refusal to admit the possibility and accept it as an addition is where you are unwilling to compromise. But you know what. The facts are here, flat out and simple. I've filed the appropriate forms, so I'll let the powers that be decide. You know what you're doing is wrong, and I'll leave it at that. I hav3e better things to do than keep reiterating common sense arguments for somone who seems to lack it.

Debuskjt, maybe you should cool off fom it for a bit. You seem to be taking this a little personally, like having it is offensive to you. The page seems ine to me, and your argument against the use of possible spoofs, that it "suggests" something you find wrong, is your own interpretation, the same thing you have been condemning TheGreenFaerae for. While I would not agree with his original version, the use of Possible Spoofs as a replacement term works perfectly. The other stats of the character -low experinece, high comeliness, intelligence, and charisma, all seem to describe the Smallville character. It is quite obvious that it is a probable reference. Possile Spoof works better, hough, as NPOV avoidance. Personally, I think you should follow GreenReaper's advice on the RfC page and back off a bit. TheGreenFaerae should do the same. Leave it to the other editors to fix it if they agree that it is a bad addition. That's the beauty part of Wiki. If an addition is bad, it is not the job of a single editor to fix it. I would suggest that the both of you stop editing the aticle, remove your involvement, and leave it to other editors like GreenReaper, who have no personal investment.TheSonofSerenity 22:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? At this point I'm willig to accept that, if Debuskjt is. My main problem with it is he seems to be the only one fighting it. So I would be mroe than willing to lose my editing privelages if it would mean Debuskjt would stop his vendetta as well. I am willing to put it in thwe hands of other editors, if Debuskjjt is willign to do the same. TheGreenFaerae

Chloe and Lois's name

Chloe never officially used the name Lois Lane because the article is wrote was never published. Max Taylor was killed before the article went to print, so the name never got to be used by Chloe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.228.59 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

User:MMSullivan has pointed out[3] this page, which contains a quote by Allison Mack about her character's use of the pseudonym, so I have reverted the reversion of those edits. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But Allison is wrong. If you watch the episode Delete it clearly shows that the article never got published hence she never wrote under the name. The producers of the show forget stuff all the time and I am pretty sure the actors do too. Rewatch DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.122.151 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 April 2007

The Actress who play the character of Chloe Sullivan

would know better than anyone!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.158.119 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 April 2007

Just like to point out that, although she didn't get to use it as her nom de plume (since it wasn't published), she did get to use it as here alias (at least one other person knew about it). DonQuixote 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A pseudonym is distinct from an allonym, which is the name of another actual person. An alias is also a pseudonym but Chloe using Lois's name wouldn't be an alias, but an allonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.228.59 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 April 2007

Yes, there is a distinction between pseudonym and allonym, but an alias is simply an assumed name--which is either. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alias DonQuixote 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So if it's still an alias even if she never got to use it, then we should keep it, I suppose... – mcy1008 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Named Lois Lane

The seemes to be no commentary on Chloe and how she reflects many of the character aspects generally attributed to the Lois Lane comic character (and other media). Although Lois has been introduced to the series, I was under the understanding that there was mention, particularly, in regards to the pseudonym and comments by either Gough or Loeb, that "there's a reason she has so many 'L's' in her name." I think it would be important to understand more of the nature of the character by further identify her relationship with the character of Lois Lane as a whole, rather than merely the Lois on Smallville. 66.109.248.114

Restructuring the article

We basically start this article afresh. It goes into too much detail and doesn't come near good article standards or fully meet the criteria of WP:WAF. We should work towards splitting this into several neat sections "Characterization" (covering personality, journalism skills, Lois-isms, etc.) "Character history" (an overview of her fictional history in the series), "Powers and abilities" (should focus on her skills until Phantom airs) and "Romantic interests".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Meteor Freak

Meteor freak is similar to being a mutant. If you look up mutants from x-men they are classified under species as Human mutant so it makes sense to classify Chloe as a Meteor Freak because that is what she is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.228.60 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

You think too much! Where is your proof that Chloe is a Meteor freak! For all we know she only has Kryptonite in her bloodstream, she is not a Mutant, she is only infected! So Chloe is Kryptonite infected "Human" !! Meteor Freak is not a species! MMSullivan 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutate, maybe.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In Progeny Moira power is that she can control other Meteor Freaks including Chloe. Al Gough, Steve Deknight and other writers of the show have stated that Chloe is a meteor freak.

Chloe is a Kryptonite infected " Human" !! "Krypto Freak" is not a Species! MMSullivan 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MMSullivan is right. Chloe is a human with meteor powers. A species has a very specific definition, people. In both DC and Marvel Comics, mutant refers specifically to a subset of people who possess powers as a result of evolution.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Diversity

The article says her character was intended to add ethnic diversity to the series, but I don't understand how she added ethnic diversity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.223.91 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an incomplete statement. Smallville (TV series)#Cast has a better explaination of how they created the character. She was intended to be ethnic, but when Allison Mack read for the part Gough and Millar liked her so much that they changed the character to be white. The same thing happened with Pete, only in the reverse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic?

Call me stupid, but how is the character of Chloe Sullivan "intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast."

Blunt: She's white, most of the cast is white. She's not really adding any ethnic diversity to the cast. I mean, she's the only blonde, but that's not really 'ethnic'. -jtp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.35 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, stupid. lol. Sorry, you said to call you that. Anyway, the person that added that did not take the complete information. The character was intended to have an ethnic background, but when Gough and Millar met Allison Mack, they liked her audition so much that they decided against their initial intentions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chloe in DC Continuity

This statement is at the top of the main page: "DC Comics had announced that they would introduce a comics version of Chloe Sullivan to the mainstream continuity of DC Comics in Superman #674 and 675 in March and April of 2008, but the plan fell through.[2]" However, when I followed the link, nothing of the sort was said in the article. In fact, here's a quote from the linked article: "Will the character of Chloe on Smallville be pulled into DC continuity? Idelson: It’s something we’re trying to do next year." (This article was from 2007.) So it sounds like it's still very likely to happen. So is the statement on the front page inaccurate, or is there another reference that indicates that the plans fell through? -- Tom H12 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the latest information I've seen about her inclusion in the DC continuity is from January 2008, so I think it's safe to say that she won't be included after all. The whole paragraph needs a rewrite though. Fishhook (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comics Characters Created in Other Media

Someone keeps adding Chloe to this list. She has yet to appear in comics however (see above for the abandoned plan for a DC Comics version). As such, she does not belong on the list, unless we are counting Smallville comics. This is tentative though as it's an adaptation of the show, rather than adapting the character into a comics publisher's canon (as with the other entries to the list). Believe me, I love Chloe but as of right now, I'm not sure that she fits within the scope of the list. Rajah1 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the category limits it to "mainstream" comics. A comic is a comic, whether it is an adaptation of the show or not. I could have sworn that those Smallville comics were like the young adult novels, which had separate stories and were not direct adaptations of any particular episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Obviously someone did think that was a restriction, but I think with such a defined addition to the category, that probably should have been talked about first, because it is clearly in response to "Chloe" appearing on the list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's toes. My point is that the Smallville comics are an adaptation of other media. As such, wouldn't they be in the same category as comics based on, say, Conan, Dracula, James Bond, Star Trek, etc.? Those don't fit within the scope of the list (if they did, it would be massive and would stray from its original concept). Until Chloe appears outside of a form of Smallville or its adaptations, I'm not sure that she fits on the list either. But I admit, it's a slippery slope since she's on a media adaptation that is itself based on a comic. Rajah1 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Meteor Power

I'm curious as to why there is no mention of the continuity error caused by Chloe being affected by kryptonite in the season 3 episode "Truth." She inhaled a krytonite laced gas and gained the ability to make people answer her truthfully. However later it is revealed that she was already a meteor freak from an early age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.9.48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What continuity error are you talking about? Where does it say that you can only have one meteor power at a time? DonQuixote (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Metahuman

Why is it that whenever I add Chloe Sullivan to the "DC Comics metahumans" category, they keep taking that off? She was listed in that category before, so why isn't she now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendoman01 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The people who keep an eye on that probably think that only characters appearing in comic books should belong in that category. Currently, she's only appeared on television and on the web. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Metahumans are people born with abilities (though they may not exhibit them until later in life). Chloe was not born with her ability, she contracted it from the meteor rocks later in life. That is why it keeps getting removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not fully true. In the comics, "metahuman" is the typical term for any superhuman, whether they were born with superpowers or got them from some freak accident or other external source. In my opinion, Chloe should technically belong in that category, especially since most other original characters in DC Comics TV shows (such as the DCAU) who are superpowered humans are listed as such, even if they haven't personally appeared in the comics themselves as of yet.

Nintendoman01 talk, 6:40, 13 November 2008

Then the definition to which the category is actually listing it should be changed, as it doesn't say that there. So, I would start a discussion on the category talk page about redefining it (don't just change it to suit your needs first). Until then...  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chloe's Middle Name

In Season 7, episode 2, of Smallville, entitled "Kara", it is mentioned that Chloe's middle name is Anne. While yes, this small piece of information is for the most part inconsequential, it is still a part of her character. Most people don't go by their middle names, but they are still a part of what forms a person's initial identity. True, Chloe is a fictional character and therefore her encyclopedic article should be treated as such, but it is a reasonable conclusion that if such information is known and verifiable, it should be included. For most character articles, if the character's full names is known, it is given. Her middle name is also included on her Smallville Wiki article. So the question stands as thus: Should Chloe Sullivan's encyclopedic article include her full name (including her middle name) or should this piece of information be considered trivial or unimportant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellascully14 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only time a character's article would include a middle name is when that character is known by that middle name. Like James T. Kirk. Otherwise, you won't find any featured character article that just includes a middle name simply because "it's known". Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it is important enough to note. Chloe's middle name is trivial. It doesn't help you better understand the character, it doesn't add anything to the article (if anything, it makes it seem like it's either something she goes by, or we're treating her article like a real life person's article). She wasn't "born" with that middle name, because she wasn't born. It's an afterthought. Technically, she married Jimmy and is theoretically known as "Chloe Olsen", but given that she's only known as "Chloe Sullivan", we don't actually change her name. This type of trivial information is best left for her Wiki page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comment "you won't find any featured character article that just includes a middle name simply because 'it's known'": Actually, there are plenty of Wikipedia character articles that do include that information. A few examples include: Bella Swan's (from Twilight) Wikipedia article, which cites her full name as Isabella Marie Cullen (even though she is rarely referred to as Isabella and her middle name is mentioned once); Dr. Temperance Brennan's (from the Kathy Reichs series) article includes her full name (even though her first name is rarely used in its full form); Clark Kent; Homer Simpson; Indiana Jones; Vito Corleone; Harry Potter (any character whose full name is known); J.R. Ewing (Dallas); and many more (I can cite more if needed).

I agree that Chloe's name shouldn't include Olsen because although she and Jimmy were married for some time, he was in the hospital for almost the entire time, so he and Chloe didn't actually get a chance to consummate that marriage. However, her middle name (although only mentioned once) is a part of her character. It may seem trivial, but it adds a certain depth to her character that makes her more realistic (even though, yes, she is fictional). The whole purpose of a fictional character is to give that character human qualities that can be compared to those of other characters and to those of the viewer/reader in order to get across some sort of message. By including Chloe's middle name, it gives Chloe a more realistic characterization, and allows her audience to relate to her on a deeper level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellascully14 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a trivial part of the character. It has no importance in understanding who she is as a character. I also said "featured article" All those articles you mentioned are ones that have not been formally reviewed with respect to our policies and guidelines. It is not Wikipedia's stance to "give a character more realistic qualities so that the audience can relate to her". Her middle name wasn't even mentioned until seven seasons into the show, and it's never been referred to since. How much more trivial can you get for character info? That's about as important as noting where her family lineage hails from. It's trivial. We don't include the fact that Lana's ancestors come from France, because it's trivial and doesn't add anything to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if it's verifiable, and it would be one word or sentence in a pretty big article, and...it would make a newbie editor (I'm assuming based on their red-linked user page) happy to include it; then include it. It's something that is trivial, but controlled more by editorial decision than RSs or NOTE or whatever. If this is a problematic user (and I'm assuming they're not), then that's another story. We need to make WP as welcoming as possible, and maybe this is a chance to make it a little more welcoming without really damaging anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand how accommodating a new editor by allowing something trivial, and that would normally be cut from articles actually solves anything. Being verifiable isn't a catch-all for information. She isn't called "Chloe Ann Sullivan". She's never been known by that name, nor is it something that's even newly attributed to her. It was a small blip in a single episode. The same thing happened with Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). She was given a surname in a video game that featured the character, but it was something add much later, and is not something the character is known by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, the reasoning for including it by BellaScully doesn't even make sense. They say that they don't think her name should be "Olsen", even though she was married for half the season, but that a middle name that was spoken once by a different character is somehow more important?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nagging thought here... and I think this comes from the either season 1 or 2... but wasn't the character refered to at some points as "Chloe M. Sullivan"?

Beyond that, I'd go with keeping it simple here - how the character is credited in the original airing of the show. Including "Ann" and/or "M" is a little bit cumbersome and off putting. - J Greb (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This "Chloe M. Sullivan"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I tried a web search and saw that. Problem is the nagging though came before the web search. It's something I've associated with the character all along. Something to do with her full title as editor of the school paper or byline credit at the Planet. - J Greb (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought this kind of info should be covered in a Full name field in the infobox. Yes, it's a slightly trivial, in-universe piece of information, but omitting part of the character's name from the article does seem remiss.  Paul  730 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But it's not her "full name", because she's had different middle names. Should we put "Chloe M. Ann Sullivan"? Buffy doesn't list "Anne", and Faith doesn't list "Lehane" for the same reasons. They're probably the biggest definition of triviality when it comes to a character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's a continuity error regarding her middle name, list both (separately) and source it to the specific episode. The Buffy articles don't do this but I think they should, I just haven't bothered changing them. You have an In-story information section in the infobox, but the character's name doesn't qualify? That seems like the first thing that should be there, IMO.  Paul  730 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Because her middle name isn't an established "fact". It changes depending on who is writing, because she's never really had one. IMO, if you have to sit there and list out each middle name and source it to some specific episode then clearly this type of information is so trivial and fannish, that it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. That's why we have Wikia, for stuff like that. Otherwise, you get into those "Jason's mask was slightly different in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter than it was in Friday the 13th Part III" territory. Given that the infobox is supposed to be used for things that are "essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" (per WP:WAF), I fail to see how a middle name that changes depending on the writer, and only ever mentioned in a single episode, fits that category. As WAF says, "Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add;" and "In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, say Chloe's middle name doesn't qualify because it's inconsisant. What about other characters, like Buffy, whose middle name is consistant and mentioned repeatedly throughout the series? Clearly, it doesn't belong in the article title or lead section because it's not their common name, but it should be mentioned somewhere as a recurring element of the character. I'm not someone who thinks articles should be bogged down by in-universe trivia, such as height, birthdates, or that uncle who was mentioned in passing once, but the character's name seems like a very basic point, especially if it's mentioned a lot.

For example, Ash Williams. Really, that article should be titled Ash (Evil Dead), because the "Williams" was revealed later, in apocryphal material. However, his full name, Ashley J. Williams is mentioned all the time in video games and comics. It's a recurring element of the character, it's even been the subject of jokes (such as when he visited a parallel world and met Ashley G. Williams). His full name is important to note somewhere, but if we can't do it in the title/lead, then the infobox is a compromise. Same with characters who use aliases, like Indiana Jones, or characters who change their names through marriage like Jean Grey (who has actually been consistantly called Jean Grey-Summers in-story since the 90s).

Yes, it's slightly trivial, but I think there's something a bit backwards about Wikipedia policy if we can write entire paragraphs of development and reception info about a character, but we can't even list their canonical name. There needs to be some compromise.  Paul  730 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For characters where that is truly a part of the character, something they are consistently listed as in some shape or form, sure, but that isn't Chloe. She isn't consistently listed as "Ann" or "M.", or anything other than "Chloe Sullivan". These middle names/initials are random, quick blip events that are never seen or heard of again. A newspaper column that lists a middle initial, or a character that just happens to say her full name instead of simply just "Ms. Sullivan" isn't really a form of publication that would be considered "consistent" - especially when it changes each time. It's just like, if Martha Kent were to show up this coming season and happen to mention that Clark's middle name is "Stewart", it isn't worth mentioning unless it becomes some staple of the character given that we've gone 8 seasons without them even mentioning a middle initial, let alone a middle name. But something that's mentioned in passing, and then dropped completely isn't worth mentioning at all, IMO. Lehane is understandable, because it's become part of the character in other media now. Indiana Jones might be kind of relevant to show that "Indiana" isn't his real name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Current State of Chloe

I noticed that this article seems to end with the first episode of season 9, and includes no other information. It suggests that Clark and Chloe are no longer friends, but they are still working together as friends... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.26.78 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then update it. Just make sure you're brief, don't include personal observations or opinions, and source the information like the rest of it is sourced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Appearances & Main DCU Appearance/Image

Hi. I'd like to discuss Bignole's revert of my edits, including Bignole's edit summary: this is relevant info that should not have been removed - don't know why you removed the summary at the start of appearances (a standard practice across character articles) images fails fair use guidelines - fixing the lead that was messed up.

Summary in Appearances section. The Lead is the summary for the article. Individual sections do not require further summaries, which are redundant, as it is largely a repeat of the Lead, one paragraph prior. The section itself contains the relevant info. It does not need a second summary right before it, when the Lead serves that purpose. This is not a "standard" practice across character articles, and any other articles that include this redundancy should be edited to remove them.

Detail regarding first mainstream DCU appearance. Salient information must be summarized in articles. There is no justification for going into excessive detail into the character background of her initially planned first mainstream DCU appearance in 2007, when those plans were aborted. It is enough to merely summarize that those plans were made, fell through, and then to follow up with her actual first appearance in 2010.

Image. Many articles on characters, including comic book characters, when extensive or developed enough, feature multiple images pertaining to characters' history and appearances in multiple media, and justifiably so. In this regard, the small image of Chloe from Action Comics #893, her first DCU mainstream appearance, is valid. In what way you do feel that this fails Fair Use guidelines, Bignole?

Superman: Secret Origin appearance. Noelemahc pointed out that a signature by a "Chloe S." appears on Pete Ross' cast in Superman: Secret Origin #1, but Bignole reverted this, saying that it was "not an appearance". This is true, but noting references made to the character prior to her first mainstream DCU appearance is certainly reasonable, and relevant to the article. I think it should be re-added.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of any interested parties. Nightscream (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just taking a quick look based on Nightscream's edits...

• Lead section: Splitting the initial paragraph makes for an awkward transition in two ways. It takes a three part nut shelling - Production, In-story history, Characterization - and muddles it. Yes, the spin-offs are part of the production information about the character, not a fully separate topic. It seems odd to split them off to a one-line paragraph. It's also stilted to start it with "Chloe Sullivan...". If the paragraph is actually needed, "The character..." would be preferable since we are talking about a story element, a thing.
• Repetition: While the lead is a summary, the information it contains will be repeated later in the article, hopefully with expansion. With the "Appearances" section, and the "Character development" and "Literature" ones for that matter, a subsection lead is a good idea for much the same reason an article lead is a good idea. "Here's the overview." followed by "Here's the details." The rub here may be that, unlike the intent with articles on comic book characters, this article jumps from the lead right to the plot summary instead of covering the nuts and bolts about the character's creation for the show, its development under the writers and actress, and so on. If that section were there, the "Appearances" "sub-lead" wouldn't feel wrong.
• Mixed tone: The limited appearances in the 10th season, while a good nugget of information, is out of step with the rest of the "Television" section. Again, this would be better in a "Production history", possibly expanded with how this affected the writers handling the season and why Mack declined to only appear in less than 1/4 of the episodes.
• Image: A couple of issues seem to crop up here... First is asking if the inclusion of the 2010, main DC universe continuity appearance ads anything to the article that cannot be conveyed by the text and with the existing photo of Mack in character. It really doesn't look like it does since it looks like Silva used Mack as a model for the character - a model that was closely adhered to. (Aside: Any referenced information about Mack having final approval on Chloe's appearance in the comics?) Most time with comic book characters the "spin-off" depictions get an image to show how the comic book visual was adapted or approached in other media. And there are a lot of those that are questionable where the animation is a close variation of the comics or the live action adaptation is of a normal person in normal close, just like the comic version. Second is a question of undue weight. IIRC, the Chloe Chronicles were animated, so why no image of that interpretation of the character? Same for the Smallville comic book version.
• Details: Frankly, if the aborted 2007 plans Busiek had are sourced, it is reasonable to include them. It would be nice to also have a sourced reason why those plans fell through. Inclusion of either though should not be predicated on "We'll add it along with the 2010 'first appearance' after that happens." What Bignole has added is a reasonable statement of what was attempted but did not see print. It is present in a real world context as it should be.

- J Greb (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just adding the fourth point about the Secret Origin reference to my post above when I encountered an edit conflict with you, JGreb, in case you want to comment on that too.

Split Lead. If you want to keep it unsplit, then I'll concede that.

Appearances. I agree that starting off the Appearances section by putting out-universe production info in the beginning would be a good idea, and arguably the bit about her five-episode limit in the last season. I implemented that, so you and BigNole, et al, let me know what you think. However, having another summary for all her appearances is redundant. JGreb, you mention having intros to the individual subsections like "Appearances" and "Literature", but the one BigNole favors at the top of Appearances includes the literature appearances, rather than simply the Television appearances that start off that section, which again, is just a redundant repeat of the Lead. In this way, her appearances in books is mentioned in the Lead, at the top of Appearances, and in the subsection on books. You don't think three summaries/intros is overkill?

Image. I don't think the image adds any less to the article than any other spinoff images, and I don't see why Silva having relied on Mack as the model (assuming this is the case) needs to be relevant. Is there some policy, guideline or consensus that indicates that such images should only be used when the look is significantly different? The inclusion of the Michael Keaton photo in the Batman article, for example, looks to me like it was included simply because it represents a significant adaptation of the character in another medium. I added the Action Comics image for the same reason. I concede I was not aware about her animated appearances, as I didn't really examine that section closely, and now that I know, I think that section could use an image from that too.

Aborted 2007 plans. I never said that the details about the aborted 2007 appearance should not be included, only that they should be summarized, since they fell making in-depth details about them less relevant, and indeed, I retained the reason why they fell through, with the passage "it was felt that the characters of Lana Lang and Lois Lane made her redundant", which condenses the passage BigNole favors, which is about nine times longer. All that for a first appearance that ended up not occurring? Nightscream (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For summaries, it's common practice in character articles to summarize briefly where a character has appeared at the start of the section when you have multiple sections of appearances that are not related. It's your opinion that it is redundant, but IMO it's no more redundant than the infobox is. Also, as for the ordering, it follows the same reasoning as episodes and films. Fictional topics need context for their OOU information. That is what the plot info does. You do not get context if it comes last. See Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers (Halloween), Jack Harkness, Homer Simpson (written from a different perspective since there are no real storylines in that show), Jabba the Hutt, Senator Palpatine, etc. Without the context then when you read about relationships development or storyline development it makes no sense because you haven't read about what happened in the show yet. Merging the casting info into the plot history of the character makes no sense either. Sense when do you read about casting a character before anything else. Now, you could separate all ancillary appearances (e.g., spin-off, literature, etc.) into a completely separate section since those don't require Allison Mack (with exception to Chloe Chronicles), and put it under "Other appearances" at the end of the article, but to me that just seems weird to sandwich the page with plot information when you can read it all together and get it over with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DCU background info is relevant because it lets us know what they planned to do and that those ideas apparently changed for her actual appearance in Jimmy Olsen. The fact that she was too much like Lana and Lois was not the reason she wasn't added, which is what you were insinuating when you removed the info that explained what they planned to do. It was the reason she was not added initially, but later the writers had developed a new background for her. The ultimate decision to not include her with the new background was never explained and you cannot create an explanation they way you did by removing information.

Images MUST follow WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, which requires critical commentary on said image. There is absolutely no critical commentary on that image (or any other image for any other section) and no justification to include it whatsoever. That was why it was removed, and why the only image we can use is one to identify her primary appearance in media (i.e. Smallville). If you can find critical commentary about any appearance, whether that be the new DC Comics appearance, the Smallville comic book appearance, etc. then that's fine. But otherwise it fails our policies on non-free images to include something just to show what it looks like. We get one basic "free pass" and that's for the infobox.

Secret Origins brief listing of "Chloe S." is not an appearance, nor was it anything more than an in-joke for the comic book. It's trivial in nature and the reason why it isn't included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I would appreciate it that if we're having a dispute and you tell me about the discussion that you don't reorder the page to your liking before I actually come to the discussion. There wasn't a consensus for any change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Appearances. Summarizing where a character has appeared in one particular medium, at the top of the section devoted to that medium, is arguably reasonable. Summarizing his/her appearances in all media, in both the Lead and then again in the next section right after that, and then mentioning each medium again in the section devoted to those media, for a total of three times, is overkill. This is not a "common practice", and the fact that you can point to other articles that you edit frequently does not illustrate this, as this is circular reasoning. Illustrating this point would be far better served if you pointed to consensus or guideline pages or articles that you do not edit, in order to illustrate it as a practice common to other editors independent of yourself. In addition, the Jack Harkness and Homer Simpson do not have such summaries. The Homer Simpson article contains a summary of his changing role on the television show only, and not secondary summary of his appearances in all other media. The Jack Harkness article contains no secondary summary at all that I could see. It remains that the paragraph you favor including at the top of the Appearances section is essentially a second Lead, one that comes right after the first one. In my opinion, this is redundant, and not good sense of organization.

As for context, it is your opinion that it cannot be provided by placing out-universe material on the character's creation at the beginning. JGreb and I have both opined that this is a good idea.

DCU background info. Sorry that I mistakenly gave the wrong reason for her appearance falling through. Redundancy was one of Busiek's considerations in the attempted adaptation, but no specific reason was given as to why it didn't happen. I merely transcribed/summarized it incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out. :-) However, I don't see where it says that the new background for her appearance in Action Comics was changed.

Image. Point taken about the criterion of critical commentary.

Secret Origins reference. I didn't say it was an appearance, and mentioned that explicitly. Is there some principle that says that references to a character are not permitted? Since you insist on including detailed material of aborted plans prior to her actual appearance, why does a reference to the character shortly prior to her actual one not merit a mention? And how do you know it was intended as an "in-joke", and not, say, an attempt to somewhat covertly establish her existence in the mainstream DCU shortly before the editorial decision to have her actually appear? Secret Origin, after all, is written by Geoff Johns, who has written a number of episodes of Smallville. Isn't "in-joke" and "trivia" just a negative characterization?

Discussion and reversion. Regarding your edit summary "there was no discussion, you cannot start a discussion by yourself and then just change things before anyone can respond", I did not "change things before anyone could respond", and if you read both the edit summary I provided in my last edit, then you saw that I was incorporating a suggestion made by JGreb here in this discussion. Yes, you had not responded yet, but suggested changes can be implemented experimentally as part of that discussion, and as I mentioned in my last post above, I expected you to respond as to whether you approved of them or not. If you prefer that we have a more extensive discussion before implementing suggestions, or using the Sandbox, then we can do that instead. No offense was intended. I apologize if it came across wrong. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points on your last item:

1. It's part and parcel of the content in question. WP:BRD and courtesy would hold that you not edit the content in question until the issues are settled on the talk page. Nothing was settled at this point. And Bignole's input, at a minimum, should have been present on the talk page before tinkering.
2. You misconstrued my comment: A "sub-lead" is useful for "Appearances" which is further broken down into 3 sub-sections. Such a "sub-lead" should not be part of one of those sub-sections.

And two other things:

1. "Trivial" tends to cover non-notable information. In-jokes or Easter eggs, in and of themselves, are not necessarily notable. If there is a secondary source that places notability on "Chloe S." in Secret Origins, it is no longer "trivia". But editor interpretation cannot justify the inclusion in the article. It may be related to the later appearance of the character. It may have been Johns, the inker, or the letterer having fun.
2. Something I missed pointing to earlier: The "Literature" sub-section looks like it could be re-worked to remove the "Lit" header and "promote" both the "Young-adult novels" and "Comic books" sub-sections to par with "Television" and "Spin-off series" (maybe renamed "Webisodes" or "Webcasts").

- J Greb (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

To Nightscream, I don't edit any of the Star Wars articles that has been my basis for character article format since I first wrote Jason Voorhees. They were the ones that listed the summarized appearance info in both the lead and the plot section. So to me, it is an established element given that those particular articles have been among the early FA fictional character articles for such mainstream characters. With regard to OOU info at the start of the appearances section, it just reads odd that you would have casting information lumped in with plot information. One details the casting of the actress and the original intentions for the character on the show, while the other is just what her general storyarcs have been over the years. They are not related, and it reads and looks odd to put them in the same section together like you had it. I'm not sure that J Greb was actually suggesting you merge the casting info in with the plot info and if he was then I'm not sure I understand his reasoning behind it.

To the DC Universe info, until someone reads the issue all we know is that Chloe is Jimmy's ex-girlfriend in the comic book. Her background isn't stated in the blurb about the issue, so maybe it will be the same...so maybe it should be tweaked to not insinuate that it's different, but in the least it shouldn't insinuate that she wasn't added simply because she was too Lana/Lois-like, given that the writers wrote a different backstory for her.

To the point about my edit summary and the discussion. I did not notice J Greb's response on the page before hand. I noticed your comment on my talk page and then when I checked the talk page history I missed J's single comment amidst all of your comment/refinements. I apologize for that misunderstanding, but stand by my argument that either way you could/should have at least waited for me to respond given that your issues were with my edits.

To J Greb, are you saying just remove the "Literature" header and leave "Young adult novels" and "Comics" as a first series subsection (ala Television and Spin-off series)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, moving them from 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 to 1.3 and 1.4 (and yes, I have the numbers on :) ).

- J Greb (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that. Their ordering was based on grouping print media and film media separately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a particular format is "established" implies that there is either a policy or guideline indicating it, or a consensus discussion. Is there any such process by which this has been decided? Again, I've edited lots of character articles over the past five and a half years, and have never noticed this until now. The other connotation of "established" may be that either that no one has pro-actively advocated the site-wide adoption of this practice, nor noticed it enough to challenge it. Since policy/guidelines on writing about fiction requires most material to be out-universe, and plot info is universe, I challenge this on the basis its creates redundancy, inconsistency, and poor organization for the following reasons:

Again, I ask, do you not think that three mentions of her various appearances--two that summarize her appearances in all media, and an individual third in sections on each of those media, is not overkill?

As for lumping casting and plot information together, I've never advocated any such thing. The material I incorporated together at the top of the Appearances section details who she was conceived and cast, and how her character was portrayed, particularly during her early appearances. That's not "plot" information, that's out-universe character information. Plot info would be mostly in-universe. Just because some plot points are mentioned, doesn't mean that that paragraph is primarily plot info.

In addition, the format of the information on her has about as much coherence to it as a 50-car LA Freeway pileup. First you have Appearances, which is mostly in-universe info on her TV appearances, then her web and literature appearances. Then you have "Portrayal", which reverts to a discussion of her Storyline, Character development and Relationships in her TV appearances, with varying proportions of in-universe to out-universe context in each subsection. Then a Reception section on Allison Mack, which belongs either in Mack's article, or incorporated, summary-style into the TV material. But if you're going to have discussion on her Storyline, Character development and Relationships, then don't you also have to go into that with respect to her web and literature appearances? This is why articles on comic book-type characters that detail various media in which the character has appeared generally focus mostly on the medium in which the character primarily appears or has appeared, with more summarized info on how that character has been adapted into various media, including differences that occur in the adaptation. You can see this in just about any well-developed article on such characters: Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. Having TV, and then Web, and then Books, and then TV Story, TV Character TV Potrayal, and TV Reception is inconsistent.

I think perhaps I did not look closely enough at this myself when attempting to experiment with what I perceived JGreb's suggestion to be, and in retrospect, I would've put the TV material together, devoting most of the article's space to that, since that's the medium in which she first and primarily appears, and then focusing on adaptations in other media. What do you think about this? Nightscream (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you rather Bignole synthesised all this information into continuous prose, discussing all of the character's various appearances as if she was a real person? Bignole has the article neatly divided to show emphasise the real-world factors behind creative decisions in each medium in which the character appears, each of which having a distinct conceptual history. The character development section is erudite and confident, and doesn't repeat information in any overkill way whatsoever. The Appearances section is subdivided so as to give appropriate context where due, in an out-of-universe prose style, and is weighted and ordered so that no medium in which the character appears is given undue detail.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, you're more than welcome to go challenge Jabba the Hutt, Senator Palpatine, Padme Amidala, and many other FA character articles that are set up this exact same way. Nightscream, what you are not seeing is that the "plot" info is written from an OOU perspective. It does not write from an in-universe perspective, and as such there is nothing wrong with that section. Otherwise, you're suggesting that all "plot" sections of TV episodes and Film articles be rewritten to incorporate real world information? The "appearances" section is the equivalent to the PLOT of an episode or film article, it just has to summarize much more content than either of those and it does so in a more OOU perspective than either the TV episode articles or film articles do. To me, it makes no sense to talk about casting Allison Mack and then go straight into what the character does on the show all in the same section. There's no transition whatsoever in content and the content itself isn't even directly related to each other. BTW, this isn't my first rodeo with fictional character articles...I've been working on them for years as well and the difference is that the majority of the ones you work with are comic book characters, while I work with live-action characters. They are a different beast when it comes to their articles. You couldn't begin to chronicle Superman's "fictional" history on his primary page like you could with someone from a TV show or a film, because comic books have far too extensive histories and as such it's easier to focus solely on real world information for the entire article. Like I said before though, my basis for all my articles has always been the featured fictional characters of live-action programs, because apparently the community felt there wasn't a problem with the way those pages were set up when they went through FAC.

The "Portrayal" is all information about Allison Mack and the casting of her in this role. The "Character Development" info contains no primary sourced information, is not a rehash of plot info, but actually a retrospective look at what the writers/actor were intending to do with the character over the course of the show. It's OOU info explaining what the character was going through.

As I told JGreb before, though I don't prefer it, I'd be more than willing to compromise and move the "Literature etc." stuff down below the rest of the TV related information under an "Appearances in other media" type of heading. It would look like this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zythe, if you want to know what I think would make for a better format, then simply read my above posts, as I indicated quite clearly how I think the format should be structured in order to comply with policies regarding writing about fiction. None of what I stated bears any resemblance what you have inferred, nor emphasizes criticism of Bignole's edits to date, as you have.

We are not talking about Palpatine or Zabba the Hutt, which again, do not exhibit the problems that this article does, as there is no redundant, secondary summary of appearances in all different media. Why you keep bringing up articles that are not analagous in this regard, I don't know, but those articles properly devote most of their content to the media in which those characters primarily appear, with a more summarized proportion of material to adaptations.

The only one of the three you mention, Bignole, that does make a better analogy in this regard is the Amidala article, and yes, that format is wrong for the reasons, and yes I am challenging it. Is this a problem? Are you implying that I can't? Or that because some editors are so used to this practice that it can't be? I ask, because your statement that I am "welcome" to challenge it comes across as a veiled attempt to imply that doing so would be a hopeless cause. The sentence at the top of the Amidala Appearances section is just a repeat of the Lead, and is therefore unnecessary, since the Lead is the section just prior to it. Summaries of entire sections at the top of the section are repititious, and poor writing. Such idiosyncracies, in my opinion, should be dispensed with.

I agree with your proposed compromise about the Literature sections. Nightscream (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAF states, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." - No where in this articles does it present any information from the perspective of the fictional world itself. Even the plot information is presented from a real world perspective. There is no policy that you cannot have plot information in an article, and there is no policy that you must mix plot information with real world information. If there were, then episode articles and film articles would be in a very crazy situation right now given that 99.9% do not mix real world info with their plot info. In the least, the plot info here is not presented from an IU perspective. So, I am against the merging of production related info with plot info when the purpose of the section is merely to give the reader a basic understand of what happens with her on the show. Knowing about Chloe originally being of ethnic background, or that Mack wanted to audition for the role of Lana Lang has anything to do with her finalized appearance on the show (which is what you originally merged into that section on your last edit).

The more I look at the reordered version of the page, with spin-offs, comics, etc. at the end the more it actually grows on me. So, unless there is some other disagreement from someone else (clearly not from Nightscream and I would assume not from JGreb) then I'll probably put it back to the way I tested (and probably restructure the other Smallville characters pages similarly where necessary).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Powers

theres an interview with allison mack and she explains that her power is called Empathy. shouldn't that be added in the information under the picture? heres the video link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2gwlVxPoS7o —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, plus the fact that they generally post copyrighted material that is taken down when the owners get wind that it is on YouTube.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But the youtube account belongs to The CWSource. Beachdude0213 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make a little bit more sense to call her power something like "Empathic Healing" or something because empathy is really a fairly small part of her power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because that isn't what they call it. By "they" I mean the producers who have identified it as just "empathy".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but either way, shouldn't we put something about healing after empathy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean: "Mack further defines the power as the ability to heal others by taking their pain and making it her own."? It's already in the article, it just isn't in the infobox because they don't call it "Empathetic healing", they call it just "Empathy" and later describe it in better detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who isn't totally familiar with the character's powers or how they work, why don't we put "Empathy" on the article, with a link to the relevant description at List of comic book superpowers or healing factor or something?  Paul  730 03:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with the name, the producers inaccurately labeling it "empathy" when even their description doesn't match the true definition. You could link it to "healing factor", but I think that there would be confusion because of how they chose to identify it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not the source in this case, it's merely the web host for the material. The source is Mack herself. As for the issue of copyrighted material, even if it weren't the CW's own channel, links can be updated. If the copyrighted material were an episode of some TV show, then that TV show could simply be cited itself as the source. Nightscream (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Remaining characters

The article states that by season ten, Chloe and Clark are the only remaining characters from Season One, yet this is false. Lionel Luthor is in season ten, Martha Kent makes appearances, and Lex is involved, meaning that there is at least 5 characters from Season One.--121.72.203.29 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that is supposed to be the only ones that are still considered "starring" roles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lionel was a starring role in season ten, he was a big part in the whole plot-line.--121.72.203.29 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No he didn't. He was listed as a recurring guest. Allison Mack actually received starring role credits every time she appeared. John Glover did not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chloe Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927032039/http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050316180841/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/cult/news/cult/2003/04/29/4108.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2003/04/29/4108.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)