Jump to content

Talk:Smallville/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

End song of the episode no. 162 ?

Who sings the end song of the episode no.162 and how the song is it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.197.146 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

?!?!?

so has it been renewed for a 9th season?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.239.238 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry.....

i meant has it been renewed for a 10th season?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.239.238 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chloe Chronicles

This part of the article states that "There were two volumes of "Chloe Chronicles", totaling seven mini-episodes." As far as I know, there were five episodes in the first series, and at least seven in the second, so I think this bit should be re-written. Conrad1on (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Superman feature films

"Christopher Reeve, star of the first four feature length Superman films..." This is incorrect. Christopher Reeve starred in the second through fifth feature-length Superman films. George Reeves starred in the first. I would prefer that the author fix this, because otherwise I'm likely to get into an argument. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"ethnic"

It doesn't matter what wording the source uses, by itself, "ethnic" has no meaning. Everyone is "ethnic" in that they possess an ethnicity. ninety:one 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The third definition that you provided: "being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society". Ωphois 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In the US, which is where it is being meant, "ethnic" is very specific to minority groups, specifically latinos/hispanics and African Americans. When "ethnic" is used it automatically refers to minorities in the US. Now we can link directly to the US definition of "ethnic", but the source doesn't specifically say "ethnic-minority", it just says "ethnic". That can mean any number of things. Allison Mack insinuates in the interview that it's an African American ethnicity, stating that the other actresses auditioning were all African American women, but the producers/writers/etc. never clarify what "ethnic" background they were originally looking for. They specifically stick to "ethnic background" and nothing more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is read by anyone who speaks English, so using "ethnic" as a noun, which is a US-specific meaning, is not appropriate. (Ophois, in the third definition it is still an adjective, as evidenced by the example that follows the definition...) ninety:one 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's used as an adjective in the article... Ωphois 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's used as a noun adjunct, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand? ninety:one 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Your previous comment... Ωphois 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where this is going; I'm saying that "ethnic" by itself has no meaning outside the US and we therefore shouldn't use it. The lexical category is irrelevant. ninety:one 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses wording relevant to the country of origin. For example, article such as Doctor Who use British versions of English. This is an American article, so it's fine. Ωphois 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who uses British English spelling etc., but per WP:COMMONALITY, we should try to use vocabulary that is common to all varieties of English. I don't see that "ethnic minority" would be confusing to speakers of American English anyway, and if it was I'm sure another wording could be found? ninety:one 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it works fine like it is, but we should probably note that Mack is Caucasian. Ωphois 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
To me, "ethnic" means (in the US) "something other than northern or central European". In that sense, Chloe (being Irish) is "ethnic". But that's my view. "Ethnic" does not have a well-defined meaning. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear me. "Ethnic" has no meaning to anyone but a speaker of American English. Pursuant to WP:COMMONALITY, vocabulary that is understandable by all English speakers should be used. Therefore, "ethnic" should be changed to "ethnic minority", or some other suitable description that can be understood by all English speakers. ninety:one 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ethnic can mean anything. As you pointed out so very clearly, and they don't clarify what ethnicity the character was supposed to be. So, just to fix the problem, I've put it in quotes, since it's a direct quote of what they say anyway. I've also linked to the U.S. definition of "ethnic" for anyone that is curious. I have problems with add words into statement directly quoted because the original statement creates a different meaning for some.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tessa

The section on Tessa should reflect the 10th-season revelation that she is Lionel's illegitimate daughter and thus Lex's half-sister. This would explain why inherited the mansion and business after Lex's death.CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add it, properly sourced. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not relevant to this page, that's something for Characters of Smallville. This page does not go into detail about the character because we have enough here already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

canonicity

This article (as far as I can tell) does not mention that Smallville is non-canonic. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-canonic to what? It's never claimed to be a continuation of anything. Non of the films state they are "non-canonic" to anything, because you don't do that when you're merely adapting a character to another format as opposed to adapting an actual storyline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Canon is irrelevant. All will be assimilated. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ASCAP Award

The Accolades section states, "In 2002, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers honored the band Remy Zero, who provide the opening theme song, "Save Me", for Smallville, and composer Mark Snow for their contributions to the show. The award is given to individuals who wrote the theme, or underscore for the highest rated television series during January 1 – December 31, 2001." I bolded the sentence that doesn't make sense. Something is missing there, because there's no way Smallville was the highest rated tv series of that year. Go at it, fans!AstroCog (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I found an updated source, it says exactly that but what I noticed is that the award is going to every network. So, it must mean the highest rated show for each network and Smallville, until season 10, was the highest rated scripted show on the WB and the CW during its run.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Music

At the end of the music section, it said that an episode ("Vortex") used "the Coldplay song". I changed that to "a Coldplay song", but I think the specific song should be referenced there. I'm just copyediting, so I wasn't going to research that. Go at it, fans!AstroCog (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the song title and sourced it. BTW, do you hate EMdashes or something, because you've removed every one you've come across. LOL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's a stylistic preference. Commas are just prettier. ;-) AstroCog (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, can you keep some because I find EMdashes nicer for my own stylistic preferences. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Literature section

Again, I'm not doing a peer review of the article, but wanted to give my thoughts while I copyedit. This article is about the TV series, so I think too much detail is written here concerning the Young Adult novels. I think it's enough to acknowledge their existence and tie-in with the TV show, but most of the plot details seem unnecessary. Link to the article for the YA series and let it give the plot details. I'll let the article's experts deal with how to pare this down.AstroCog (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's only about a paragraph per book, which I think is just about enough detail. If it were more than one paragraph, then it might become objectionable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it seems like a lot of information, but that's merely because there were so many books released in the early years. None of those books are notable enough to be mentioned on their own anywhere else, thus there is no Young Adults series page. If there was, it would look exactly like this section and be deleted or merged back to this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My quibble is that the plot details don't belong there at all, unless reading the books is necessary to follow the plot of the TV series. I notice that a plot description of the arcs from the comic series isn't given, which makes sense. The plot details YA books are tangential to understanding the TV series in an encyclopedia article. As an example, the article for Buffy the Vampire Slayer just acknowledges that a lot of tie-in books were written, but doesn't give an accounting for their plots, nor the plots of the canonical comic series. My recommendation is to reduce the this YA section to the bare essentials, without plots.AstroCog (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the tenses concerning the comics series. Most of it is still present tense, and so the section doesn't include the range of dates over which the comics were published. Somebody want to add that info?AstroCog (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The plot details are like one to two sentences each. That's hardly a lot of detail about the books. The reason the plot details for the comics isn't given is because they're harder to come by than the books and there isn't a source out there that describes the comics. I don't know the range of dates the comics were published because they weren't as big as the novels were. I know they haven't been published in years though. Additionally, Buffy has List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels, which does provide short plot summaries. Now, I'm not going to debate whether that page should exist or not, but Smallville doesn't have such a page, nor as many books as Buffy, so I think compared to the amount of information on this page that is directly related to this show I think it's fine personally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I don't think it's a big deal. Certainly not big enough to kill a FA nomination. Just adding an alternative view. I'll leave major edits to the article's experts.AstroCog (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think what makes it look "worse" is that it's such a large section of just text once you hit that area of the article. There's nothing there to break it up. It could probably use a free image of someone that is connected to the books, or maybe a quote box containing something about the books to help break it up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Merchandise section

Looks like a season 7 companion is out, and supplements to the RPG are also out/planned. I think someone could tighten up the section about the companion volumes. I was just looking for minor copyedits, but I think there's a lot of redundancy concerning those books. Perhaps at the beginning of the paragraph, a basic description of what a companion is could be given, rather than repeatedly stating that a book contains interviews, plot details and color pictures, as all the companion volumes seem to contain.AstroCog (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Smallville characters: Hank Henshaw

Can Hank Henshaw be part of the category Category:Smallville characters, since this character is going to appear in Smallville Season 11, the comic book continuation of the show?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say no since the category description specifically references the television show as the medium of use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

BIG NEWS: Batman finally going to arrives in Smallville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After ten years of waiting, Clark Kent going to meet Gotham's Dark Knight in the show's comic book continuation this fall. You can read about it from DCComics.com. Sadly, I wish they meet before they were in costumes, but then again, Bruce probably still travels around the world for his trainings during the time before Clark becomes Superman.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Powerful Lord/sandbox

Check out this sandbox User:Powerful Lord/sandbox for the proposed Smallville Season 11 page. Anyone feel free to make contribution to it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When there is reception on the comics, which will show notability, then the page can be created. I hope that Powerful Lord knows this, as in its current state it would be returned to a redirect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's what the sandbox are for, for Powerful Lord to collect info and invite other users to contribute.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast photos

There is a situation in the cast section where there appears to be a bias towards addition of photos. I had added one of Allison Mack to highlight her 10 year stretch, but was removed as "it left a big white spot". Now, that's a bit hypocritical as the other two did the exact same thing. I re-added, but was reverted as "it was now considered clutter". So i removed the one of Durance, reverted due to "consecutive photos weren't appealing". So i re-added the photo and moved it down, but suddenly a MOS situation occured in which photos had to be next to their entry. So i performed a logical stance by removing the single pictures and instituting a cast photo as there would be no bias, but no, it still wasn't satisfying. What and where is a compromise? A cast photo is the path i select. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:16 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be very to the point with this. There is no reason for a non-free image of the cast (which already appears on Characters of Smallville) to be used when free images of some of the cast are available. The images are only there to break up the wall of text in the article. All images need to be next to the text they describe, and unfortunately, Allison Mack's section is covered by Welling's image that dips down across several characters. This is not about "who is more deserving", this is about aesthetics. Fair use POLICY dictates that we use as little non-free images as possible, and only where they are truly necessary. In this case, with that cast image being used on a page devoted entirely to the characters, there is not a need to use that image on this page. That said, again, there is a wall of text and the free images of Welling and Durance are more than sufficient to break up the text and not interfere with the structure of the section by forcing text out of the way in huge gaps of white space because they are too close (which is what you had when you added Mack's image).
I'm struggling to see if this would benefit the article or if it's the way you want it. I mean, we're not allowed to put the cast list in the infobox, as you insist it's too lengthy when shows like The Office and ER do it and now we can't add an additional photo or a cast photo as it ruins the section. Sure, it may bring about a small white blank, but at least we make the most of the article and make it more colorful. I mean, isn't that the aim of the game, to improve? It may be a picture, but it's one of the show's second longest cast member. I'm not thinking in terms of "she deserves it", but doesn't that hold more feel over a pic of Durance with her pic description illustrating a point already mentioned in her entry? I would understand if it cast a photo to push down into an irrelevant section, but it looks fine. And also helps break wall of text, like you said. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 01:06 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not twist my words. I said nothing about "ruining a section". It said it is a non-free image and since it does not add anything and is not NECESSARY it fails WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE. It's not NECESSARY because it's already being used on a page devoted to the entire cast and characters. When compared to the fact that we can use free images, the policy on non-free images is that you use the free ones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You essentially implied it. Every rationale you and Opehious listed at first were essentially nitpicks. Now, what you just said only accounts for the cast photo. There's no exact reason why Mack's pic can't be featured. And "it's not necessary" isn't a strong excuse. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 01:12 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I implied nothing of the sort. Again, please do not twist my words, or put words in my mouth. The cast image violates the policy on non-free images, Macks' image comes into conflict with the MOS for images. Given that the image needs to be next to the text is describes, and Welling's image is blocking her character's information it kind of creates a barrier to using an image of her. It does not work to just put it under Welling because it creates a huge gap in the section because the text does not wrap around the image, and the image isn't next to the text it is describing. So, as you said above "it isn't about who deserves it more" then what is it about? I mean, there's no legitimate way of including the image without creating structural issues for the text, and putting it "down the list" only puts her image no where near her character's listing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, here's an idea. Here is a picture of the full cast, though depicted through character [1]. It depicts not only the long standers like Welling and Mack, but the one shots like Johnson, Witwer and Blue. It might be fan art, but does depict every character. If not used on the Smallville page, maybe it's a good replacement of the characters article. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:35 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Two issues. We are not allowed to use "fan art" on Wikipedia because it is promoting one person's work over another and it ultimately creates a lot of "Why not mine" debates. Secondly, that fan art contains copyrighted pictures, and thus is still non-free. If you can find a good, free image of the cast I'm all for replacing the ones of Welling and Durance. That's the problem, almost any images we have of the "cast" are usually copyrighted (either by the studio, or the person who took the picture).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Dammit. The show is one of the few that never had the cast take a photo together. All i found was fan art. Perhaps an otuside voice can provide a suggestion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:12 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Feel free do a "Request for Comment", or go directly to one of the image related pages where the editors there deal with these issues more often.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a poster for the final season's main cast [2], but i'm hoping to find a pic with no writing on it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:23 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Posters, fan art using posters, character pictures, and anything that doesn't say "public domain" on it are copyrighted and are considered "non-free". The image is nice, it's just not usable based on the non-free criteria that we have to satisfy. The only times we can use non-free images solely for "visuals" are when they are the lead image for the article and are designed to represent the "entire" page. For instance, the way a film poster would be used in the infobox of an article. Or a character image on a character page (or multiple characters for a page about all the characters).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a picture of the final cast with crew at Comic Con [3]. Now if i recollect correctly, there's a Wikipedian who attends Comic Con and takes photos of the actors/actresses who attend. Perhaps he might have a copy? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:42 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Would certainly work if you could find someone to release it to the public domain. I don't know what editor attends ComicCon, so I don't know how to go about tracking them down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
User:GageSkidmore. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 02:07 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you contacted them yet?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So..where are we on this? Have we found a free cast photo? Otherwise, I think the others needs to go back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kryptonian Orb - Clone (Replicant) Capacity

Has it ever been mentioned in-episode what the capacity of the orb was or how many Kryptonians were stored in the orb ?
80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It has not, but the talk page for articles is about improving the article and not really for general discussion about the show. If you're just looking for others to talk about the show, then I would suggest the forums at IMDb or Kryptonsite.com.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Guiness World Record

I don't think you have a reliable source to say that Smallville now has the record for the longest continuous run of a Science Fiction programme. I've started a discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GateWorld as a reliable source for Guinness World Record information? Maccy69 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Um... Did you forget about Doctor Who? that series has has hundreds of episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.87.145 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

First, this is for US shows and Doctor Who is not a US show. Second, Doctor Who is set up differently and not in a traditional television series format. Either way, the record that is referred to is based on US television, and there have been no other US sci-fi shows that ran as long as Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think the record within the world record book is phrased as being specific to US televsion, or is specified as such within the book? It is a book a world records after all, and I haven't seen a cite for that being in the wording. Rather merely that it was 'longest continuous', which it appeared to have been hastily changed to when it was pointed out the Doctor Who was longer. Ignoring the fact that in its original run, not even counting its later return it had a longer continuous run. And it's a rather odd and erroneous claim that it isn't in a 'traditional television format'.Number36 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "Doctor Who is set up differently and not in a traditional television series format" the world record isn't specific for US. If its cited in that as a WORLD record then that's what it is. Don't forget as well that if you arnt being genre specific then you also have ER (TV series) to name one and I am sure there are others. Not to make accusations Bignole, but you should be careful, a few of the comments on here might be seen that you see this article as your Own. MisterShiney ✉ 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Guinness finally corrected their original mistake: website, so that bit about Stargate should be taken out as being obsolete (and not relevant to this article). DonQuixote (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Just tried to copyedit it, and it doesn't need to be change as such. Stargate did hold the Guinness' world record at one point, which has been beaten by Smallville, but there's nothing that says that Smallville is the current record holder (which it isn't according to the above Guinness link). It might be made a little clearer (footnote perhaps?), but I think it's fine the way it's written now. DonQuixote (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
To Number and Mister Shiney, the source states "continously produced" and "North America". Doctor is not traditional in the sense of how it is produced, not to mention the fact that it's a British show and thus the qualifier of "US" would not apply to it. I never said that Doctor Who was not the longest running Sci-Fi show in a general sense, just that based on how the source and this article words it, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Don't throw this "OWN" crap at me. Just because I hit some nerve with regard to Doctor Who. When they say "WORLD RECORDS" they don't mean just records that are not beaten anywhere else in the world, but ALSO records from different parts of the world. In other words, there can be a record for "longest running show in the United Kingdom" as well as "Longest running show in the US" and "Longest running show in the world". No one claimed that SMallville was the longest sci-fi show in the world, but in the US. Pay attention to what I've said please (Sci-Fi show in the US - that's both genre and geographically specific) and don't make big deals out of nothing. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry Bignole, but that's incorrect, the source explicitly states that the Guinness World Record category was Longest Consecutive Running Sci-Fi TV Show, and asserts that it should but doesn't contain the qualifier "in North America". No offence intended but the claim that Doctor Who is not 'traditional' in the way it is produced continues to be meaningless and irrelevant at best as far as I can tell. Oh and I'm not making a big deal out of it.Number36 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of what they say Guinness says and what they say it should be. The text in the article reflects what they say it should be. Obviously, given that it became a talking point at all means that it's something to point out. Now, the "Guinness" part can be removed if that is people's qualm, but multiple sources reported it as the Guinness record, and this page reflects it as a US record and not a worldwide record.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The clue is in the title Bignole..... Guinness WORLD Record. But looking at the Gateworld article, it is THEY who have it in correct in claiming its a world record in the first place. Back to the point this person was originally saying, can that be considered a reliable source? Taking a look at it, it does come across (to me) as a glorified blog. (What was the outcome to the above discussion on the said noticeboards?) The qualm I have, after reading it, is that it says its the "By the end of its run, Smallville had surpassed Stargate SG-1 to become the longest-running comic book-based series and longest-running North American science fiction series in television history"
Can we change it to say something along the lines of "By the end of its run, Smallville had become the longest-running comic book-based series and had surpassed Stargate SG-1 to become the longest-running North American science fiction series in North American television history"
The reason being that the current version makes it sound like SG1 was a comic based series (Which it's not) and the proposed rewording points that it is in NA Television History (TV History, implies the rest of the world also and not just one continent).
As for what I was saying about you might see your'self as owning the article, I wont get into an argument with you about it (wont serve any purpose expect to get us both frustrated), but I will point out that as a fairly new editor to Smallville, I notice your efforts at maintaining the page are commendable, but just reading the talk page it comes across a little like you have the final say and if anyone wants to change it they cant. So I will just say, please be careful. I know from experience (I have been around longer than my User page says as an IP user) how easy it is to get defensive about articles we edit and get annoyed when people want to change things. MisterShiney ✉ 07:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I took out the mention of "Guinness" and just left it as a "record", with clarification that it's North America. I also adjusted the bit with Stargate so that it's more clear that Stargate is not a comic-book based series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems an improvement. Good work. Doesn't seem like it should be a controversal assertion in that phrasing.Number36 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So an editor tried adding Arrow (TV series) as a related show, which I am sure we all agree it is not. What with it not being a spin off from Smallvile and not having the same characters in it etc etc. But what about Aquaman (TV program)? Is that also not not related? By that I mean, the guy playing Aquaman was completely different, in fact he ended up playing Green Arrow/Oliver Queen in Smallville. I am just wondering why that is justified in being listed as a related show and Arrow is not. MisterShiney ✉ 20:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true. This article's section regarding the pilot explicitly states that the creators did not see it as a spin-off. The section implies that both series would have been set in the same universe, although various shows are set in the same universe through cross-overs but aren't considered related. Ωphois 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just wanted a Talk Page discussion relating to it in case of future edits. If that makes sense? MisterShiney ✉ 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you that it doesn't seem like it should be considered a related show. Bignole probably will stop by soon to give reasoning for why it was included. Ωphois 21:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It was put as "related" because, although it would have had a separate universe, it was created by the same people and was done so because of the success of Aquaman appearing on Smallville. So, it's existence was due, in part, directly to Smallville even though it does not share a universe. So, in essence, its "relation" is from an out-of-universe perspective, and not an in-universe one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is slightly misleading if it is an out of universe one, because just above it is "Chronology" an uninformed reader may mistake it for an in verse series. MisterShiney ✉ 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Move it down to a "See also" section. Then, you can put Arrow in there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comic Books

So I see recently a lot of Good Faith additions have been made to the comic sections. I just put it to the panel does that have a place here considering it is primarily a TV series and they are just additions? Do we need to go into quite so much detail about them or perhaps they should be put into their own article? I dont know, I am just spitballing ideas here. MisterShiney ✉ 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is merely a housing unit until the comics have (if ever) some form of notability to them. Their mear existence does not automatically make them notable. I have not see a lot of third-party sources discussing or reviewing them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I didnt even know they existed till I saw on here. MisterShiney ✉ 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Me and others had ralk about creating pages for the comic book spin-off. However, until the section expand enough that it is necesarily to split, for now just still on the TV series' As I recall, the first season's episode summaries posted right here before someone split them to a new page. This is just starting over for the Season 11. Same thing is happening on Arrow now.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

200the episode

Why wasn't there's any article regarding the 200th episode? It is just as much of a highlight of the series as the 100th episode, seeing glimpse of Clark's past, present, and future as Superman, etc.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the lack of reliable secondary sources covering the episode. Just because an episode is notable to the series doesn't make it notable to Wikipedia. Without reliable secondary sources there isn't anything to report except a plot summary and maybe 1 or 2 reviews. Both easily covered on the season page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction?

Could someone please provide some reliable sources that confirm that Smallville is SF? --91.10.35.172 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Steven S. DeKnight

Am I missing something. Why is there no mention of this writer, producer, director. Or is it just minimal and I overlooked it?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would he be mentioned on this page anyway? He wasn't an executive producer, and we don't generally just list every crew member.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I didn't realize that you saw everyone below an "executive producer" as worthless crew members. I think that's a pretty baseless comment BIGNOLE when DeKnight had a huge impact on this show. But something tells me from your reply there are other reasons he has been left off this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I have a personal vendetta against Steven S. DeKnight, and that's why he isn't listed on this page. Or it could be that as a general rule we don't just list every writer and director that works on a show and the infobox only has an "Executive Producer" section. DeKnight was not an EP, and there isn't a place for him anywhere else as the "Crew changes" section is really about the show runners. The individual season articles would talk about DeKnight's impact (if there was a reliable source describing it). I believe that he is quoted on many character articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No...it sounds like you have something against anyone that isn't an executive producer.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The reality is, DeKnight had more to do with this show than is being stated (since nothing is being stated) and that is pretty bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I hate every crew member that isn't an EP. LOL. Please elaborate on everything he did for the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to be an ass, go right ahead. I will not stop you, but you did clearly state: "Why would he be mentioned on this page anyway? He wasn't an executive producer" and I don't find your back tracking now humorous in the slightest. But if you are serious (after that display) and wish a real discussion we may continue.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I first assumed that you had a working knowledge of how TV pages worked and what typically ends up on them. I was wrong, and I apologize. Second, you were the one that took this to a ridiculous place by making it seem that I either hate anyone not an EP, or that I personally don't like DeKnight (Hence my sarcasm). As for my last question, I am seriously curious as to what you believe he added to the series, as I am willing to bet it IS mentioned....just not on this page as there is most likely not an appropriate section. Given that I have written just about every Smallville page, I could tell you where your information would either be appropriate or where it already exists. If by some chance there really is something that needs to be on this page, then we will add it. You came here with the preconception that there should be something, so that is why I am curious as to what you think it should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that you are the most interested party and the main contributor to these articles and I do have more than a general idea of how Wikipedia works, but lets move past the stupidity we may both wish to raise as it ain't getting us anywhere.
Since you state that it might already be there, lets go by THAT for the moment and I'll just repeat what I began with by asking "was the mention just minimal and I overlooked it"? If it is already there then perhaps that is the end of it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
When I said, "where it already exists", I did not mean this page. DeKnight is not quoted or discussed on this page. A quick search of all the pages reveals that he's mentioned (quoted really) on the Characters of Smallville page, and Lex Luthor (Smallville) and Justice League (Smallville) pages. If there is something else that you think needs to be added, then I am asking you what you think that is. Coming to this page and saying "Why is there no mention of this writer, producer, director" and "DeKnight had a huge impact on this show", but not providing any reliably sourced information does not actually help DeKnight get anymore mention. So, I'm back to my previous statement of please elaborate on what he did for the show that made him so impactful. We would need a reliable source discussing it and then need to find an appropriate page/section for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Cast

I know from past times not to add the full main cast to the Infobox as its way too lengthy (though in fairness The Office has their full main cast in their Infobox), but shouldn't we at least have Tom Welling in there as he's the main character of the show? And maybe Allison Mack as well considering she and Welling were the only two main cast to star from season 1 to to season 10 without departing in between. 'RAP (talk) 13:58 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think simply from a fairness standpoint. There were 17 series regulars through the show's history, which just unnecessarily extends the infobox into several sections. It's easier to point to the section of the page the list them all. Plus, Tom is listed in the lead section anyway. I'm also not sure that The Office is a good example, literally, I'm not sure how it became "Good Article". It's currently violating at least 4 guidelines with its structure and content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comma Nonsense

My efforts to provide some corrections to the lede have now been reverted twice, with the argument that they are "inappropriate", which makes no sense, and the argument that the "the dependent clause doesn't make sense then", which is rather suspect, since the sentence in question (After Smallville '​s fifth season The WB and UPN merged to form The CW, the series' later United States broadcaster.) doesn't contain any dependent clauses. The sentence should probably be changed, with the comma, to enhance readability (After Smallville '​s fifth season, The WB and UPN merged to form The CW, the series' later United States broadcaster.). It's not really that big a deal, but rejecting my edit for a preferred version with an incorrect justification doesn't fly on Wikipedia. The rule is generally four or more words before the introductory comma is required, but see #2 here and discussions here for why the comma is appropriate.

As for the other comma, setting off the city-state combination, this is inarguably grammatically correct. See #4 here and #7 here.

I appreciate the work of the copyediting organizations as much as anyone else, but that doesn't somehow invalidate the grammatical knowledge or edits of other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: - Um, that isn't the only sentence you keep adding a comma to (I actually didn't see the one you are referring to above until I just re-examined my review). You're also adding it to "Smallville, which ended its tenth and final season on May 13, 2011, follows Clark Kent (Tom Welling) in the fictional town of Smallville, Kansas, before he becomes known as Superman." - Your comma is going after Kansas. That is what I'm removing, because "before he becomes known as Superman" is a dependent clause. It's intended to enhance the independent clause of "Smallville follows Clark Kent in the fictional town of Smallville, Kansas". The way the sentence is structured, putting a comma there makes it appear that "before he becomes known as Superman" could survive on its own as a sentence (it can't). P.S. None of your links work btw.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bignole: - Thanks for pointing out the error in the links, which I fixed; they should actually point to the correct pages now. Actually, I did address the comma and sentence that you are referencing. As I said, city-state combinations are considered parentheticals, so when they are paired together, they are always set off by commas. It's the placement of the geographical location in the sentence which requires the comma, rather than the ordering of the clauses. If not for the city-state, I'd agree with you that the inclusion of a comma there is incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Although I think it reads oddly now (and in general for all similar cases), I do concede (after reading through the rules for city/states) that you are correct in the placement. My apologies for repeatedly reverting your effort to correct the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree it looks weird, but I have to say that I do hear the pause when I speak something like that aloud. And no need for apologies--we're all working toward the same goal. :) Grandpallama (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Season 11 comic

How will this[4] be handled? As season 11? Or in merchandise?--Harmony944 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already on the page as "Other media". Right now it's in the beginning, but when there actually is a comic and we have something to say about it other than an announcement it will probably have its own section like Chloe Chronicles or the young adult novels.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already a comic and some issues were already published, not to mention that it's in the ending of its 1st storyline, i gave it its oun section along with the Chloe Chronicles and young adult novels, however it was deleted and i don't see a reason why it should, it's important and informative. --Powerful Lord (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

First, it's covered on the page already and this page is long enough, so we don't need to coverit in detail as it (may) eventually have its own page once we get reliable reviews for it. If it was going to get expanded, it would just go under "Comic books" anyway, not its own section. We have the details of the comics being covered on the character pages, so we don't need to rehash all of the details here considering how long the page already is. That said, what you added was unsourced anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It was treated as Season 11 with main characters, supporting characters and episodes. Why shouldn't we? Danishjaveed (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a comic book and not a television show. You can't pretend that they are the same and count the same when they aren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not pretending anything. The comic book is not separate from the television show but part of it and treated as the next season - Season 11. The difference between this season and the rest of them was media - Season 1-10 was live-action based, Season 11 was comic based. Danishjaveed (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smallville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Persuaded whose manager?

"Although David Nutter had to convince his manager that the role would not hurt the actor's film career to persuade Welling to read the pilot script, after reading the script Welling agreed to audition."

Did David Nutter persuade his own manager or does this refer to Welling's manager? If he was indeed referring to Welling's manager, that is an odd way to put it. 78.0.197.69 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a little clunky. I think that's because it was taken from the Clark Kent article, where there was more information about the casting. They just copy and pasted instead of making it work for this page. I think I fixed it enough to not sound so clunky.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories

I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2000s and Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As it notes on the former (and with modifications on the latter) "This category is for television series with a significant portion set in the 2000s, but which were produced at a later or earlier date". Smallville was produced in these decades not at a later or earlier period, and occasionally time travel aside, was primarily supposed to take place in the period it was broadcast. Thus it is not appropriate for the article to be included in either category. Dunarc (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Rosenbaum Crisis on Infinite Earths

Rosenbaum tweeted about it himself (I considered using it, but don't like using Twitter as a direct source): https://twitter.com/michaelrosenbum/status/1176526751461019648/photo/1

Coq87rouge (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

His official twitter would be acceptable over a fansite. I would probably use a google archive link with it, (if it doesn't have one, then archive it manually with Google Archive) in case it's deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smallville/Archive_4&oldid=1214995308"