Talk:Smallville season 5

About major spoiling during Season 5

Hey everybody! I've been off for a while, but now I'm back to update the recent Smallville episodes. To my surprise, lots of Smallville fans are working now on the page, which I'm glad of since that was the objective when I rescued this article back in september 2005.

Every Smallville fan knows that the upcoming episodes will be crucial for the entire story, and so, spoilers at this point would be fatal and may ruin the whole plot for everyone interested in this Wikipedia article.

So, just in order to keep the story with its fully emotions to every single Smallville fan, I've suggested that we DO NOT publish the summary of upcoming episodes until they have already aired.

Eventually, the deleted summaries will return since we have a backup, that work won't be lost.

--Charlie144 12:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• • That's ridiculous. The summaries are official summaries provided by TV Guide from Kryptonsite.com. That is what the summary will be in TV guide, it isn't like it will change. They should not be removed. Also, it won't spoil the episode because the summaries do not contain vital information that would spoil it.... i.e. Reckoning doesn't say who is going to be killed and anyone that watches the show knows that someone will be killed in the that episode. So, your basis for deleting the summaries is wrong, since they don't include spoilers and are official summaries issued by TV Guide.
    • Also, if you wait till after the episode to post what it was about then people will not be able to distinguish what could be a potential spoiler, because they will want to put every aspect of the episode in the description....see the previous episodes that have already aired for an example.

--Bignole 10:22 AM, 16 January 2006

• • • Well I DO have a point. Even the official summaries provided by the WB contain spoilers, for example, for last season's finale I was really disappointed to watch a clip from the WB itself where Clark was shown in the snow, it totally took the emotion out of the episode, the ending was totally obvious then...and the latest summaries provided by the WB have been like that. The reason I posted this was because of one of those summaries where it said "Finally Clark tell his secret to..." C'mon!! Isn't it a little bit disappointing reading that? It completely removes the surprise factor from the show. After the episode has aired, then it will be appropiate to post a summary, and to make it relevant, clear and with no further detail (since it's a summary not a complete episode recap) we should post only the WB's official summary. --Charlie144 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Well I don't look at the WB, or watch it other than for Smallville, but the snow scene was apparent anyway cause you already know what the crystals were going to do, it wasn't like a big secret. Anyway...if you saw "Clark is going to reveal" then you should delete that line under "spoiler", but if you do that then you have to delete the entire page cause if you go back to the previous episodes they are all contain spoilers where people have put in every detail of the show. The opening of this page says "{{spoilers}}" so that does not give you the right to remove verified information, and yes it is verified I even provided a link at the bottom, that you deem as spoilers when the page itself already warns you about spoilers. If you don't want to read them then please bypass them till the episodes air, and then you can correct any mistakes made. Following the rules of Wiki, since the information was valid and sound, your removal of said information because it could be spoilers for people editing the page could be considered vandalism to this page. Bignole

• • • • • Bignole, please don't make a big deal about this threatening me with the classic "vandalism" catchphrase. It seems you're angry because I deleted your work. I already said that the content will be back until the episodes have aired and I'm doing this for everybody who wants to cooperate with the article, not just for me. If one wants to find out what happens on the next episode they go to a website and find out. The official deal with the spoiler thing ends, at least for us who are constantly maintining this article, after the episode has aired and this will save us a lot of trouble. Imagine Kryptonsite adds summaries for the next 10 episodes, big deal huh? You wouldn't want to read it because it is spoiler thousand years ahead. The spoiler warning is for everyone that reads the article, not for us who are editing. End of the story. Please continue with the excellent work you have been doing, dont' be mad and don't stay offensive, you don't have to, since we're just discussing a topic in good terms for this article. Let me tell you that I'm glad you're cooperating with the Smallville article. It was a hard time being alone here, trying to save it, but now with your help, things have gone better. Well see ya man! --Charlie144 18:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I am hardly mad. I was annoyed at first that you deleted it. You really didn't have a right, you aren't the only editor of this page. The content should be there now. This whole "spoiler warning" that doesn't affect the people editing the page is nonsense. That warning is for everyone, including editors. Why? Since anyone with a computer can edit Wikipedia that makes everyone potential editors. Since you say that editors should are not bound by the "spoiler warning" then it should make no difference if the summary is up there ahead of time. Why should someone have to go to a different site to read about an episode description that can be found right here. I didn't see anyone else complaining about the descriptions, just you. No one else deleted them when they were put up there, and if you were so on top of things why didn't you delete the ones that I put there for the previous episodes? They were up there before the episodes aired. I think that you are upset that someone else is editing this page with more vigor than you are and you feel threatened. Now please, place those descriptions back on the page, cause they should only be deleted if you can find valid, sound reason why they should not be up there; and "I'm looking out for others" is not a sound reason.

p.s. I enjoy a good argument, that's why I keep this going :), and thanks for the praise on the work that I have done. You have done a good job yourself, I just do not agree with your dictation on this particular issue and it should not be up to one person to decide if something like this should not be up on the page. If you are looking out for others than let them speak, they have a voice. Bignole

• • • • LOL the last line was good man. Just to make things clear I'm not the owner of this article and I don't feel threatened by anybody. As I said before, I will put the summaries back...after the airings (the important thing is that the info won't be lost OK? I know there was an effort there and I'm glad). It does nothing to the article if they're not here by now and eventually they will be here don't worry. The objective of Wikipedia is to record things that happened or are happening, not future happenings. Keep with the good vibe. Cya! --Charlie144 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks, I try. See, I don't care that they will be back there later. If I had written them personally then I wouldn't care if they went back up there later, because I would know that what went back up there would be all me. But, since they were TV Guide descriptions then they shouldn't have to wait, they aren't going to be there after the episodes air, so why should these wait? I think that these should be there now, and when the episodes air you can go in and add to them. They are rather bare for a description, because they have no information other than what the episode will be about. You considering "Two officers take Lex and Lana hostage until Lex tells them where the ship is" a spoiler, well that's a personal opinion that should not be imposed on the page unless someone of authority (i.e. site moderator) says that it is a good choice. I feel that they aren't spoilers, and since they are accurate, official descriptions that they meet wikipedia's regulations and standards on information for the site. You said the object is to record things that have happened or are happening, well these episodes are happening and they will not change, so that makes them good information. Simply because they won't air till certain times does not mean anything. If that is the case then the pages for X3 and Superman Returns should be removed cause those movies have not been released yet. But, since they contain information that can be verified they are allowed to stay, same as should be here. Bignole

• • • • • covenant...OK Lockdown passes the exam, man I thought the ship was gone forever :S ...And we're closer and closer to find out who will be gone from Smallville forever...creepy --Charlie144 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • LOL..you just don't want to admit that I might just be right on this one, do you? Well,.............ooohh...it's so tempting to put something in there that would be a big spoiler for you..lol. I won't, i'm not mean...entirely..lol. Read all my descriptions, they all pass the exam, none reveal anything that would be a spoiler for you.

• • • • • I'm just happy there are finally Talk articles in Smallville LOL. Bignole, do you anything else apart from Smallville?

• • • Yeah, just click my contributions and look for yourself. I created several pages including ones in A Nightmare on Elm Street (the sequels, the original was already done), Subspecies, the term "Punishment", Seinfeld and various actors. What about you?

p.s. Put the rest back up there. You have already read them so they aren't spoilers to you anymore..lol. Plus if they contain something that you think is a spoiler you can take that out. I checked your talk page, apparently this isn't the first time you have deleted stuff that should not have been deleted.

• I was fightin' to save a piece of this article, it is so annoying when they put those Afd's without reason, I think that 'witch' was envious of the success of the Smallville article...in the end nobody supported me except the welcoming guy :( but I didnt' lost my pride. Anyway, I also watch LOST, Supernatural, Surface, The OC, Joey, Scrubs, The Simpsons and South Park. --Charlie144 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no one "owns" articles on Wikipedia. You can review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for further details. The guidelines specifically states that: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. " --Madchester 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • The OC??? come on dude, not the OC. LOL, that "witch"? Well, I will make a deal, you repost my descriptions at 10pm every thursday after the preceeding episode. So, after LOCKDOWN finishes post the RECKONING article, so forth and so on. After they run out, I will hold on to the future descriptions, that have not been written up yet, until after their preceeding episodes...if that makes sense. That way they go up right after the trailer airs for them at the end of that nights episode.

To be brutally honest, this is not a TV Guide, or a preview website, or a fansite for that matter. The rules of spoilers and of information you personally might not want to know do not matter, that is because this is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias do not look at information and decide that the viewer would benefit better later on. No, they present information as it is and only information that can be backed up by fact. When WB releases details on future episodes these are considered information on upcoming episodes that everyone should be allowed to view, that is why we have the "spoiler" tag above stuff the reader may not want to read. Personal beliefs do not matter when it comes to censorship of any type, if the info is there it has to be presented. Whether the reader chooses to read it is entirely up to them. Tik 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)\

That is what I have been saying. As for TV Guide, they don't make these things up, they post what is given to them by the WB. Bignole

Yeah and I agree with you, i just wanted to put that little statement out there so the arguement would stop. The problem is that so many people aer big fans of the show (me included) but they cant take a neutral approach to it, thats not a bad thing but enthusiasm can sometimes interfere with presentation. But we're on the same page so i wont beat the horse anymore than it already is. Tik 14:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• • now we just have to control the name dropping of the death in Reckoning..Bignole 14:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding spoilers

There's nothing wrong with spoilers. As long as the details come from a reliable source and/or are verifiable, all an editor has to do is use the spoiler-tag to warn readers. For The Amazing Race articles, editors there use a special spoiler tag to indicate details from unaired episodes (i.e., The Amazing Race 9).

If you have any inquiries about spoilers, feel free to drop me a message. I've been involved in similar discussions/debates about spoilers in the past. --Madchester 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • thank you, that is what I was trying to get at. I created an "external link" section to provide a link to the site that usually gives the official descriptions via TV Guide. Oh, I moved your spoiler message to the top, it would be a little much to have to continuously move it each week. bignole

Well actually, that's the point of that specific spoiler tag. There's some users/editors that don't like reading spoilers of upcoming episodes that have yet to be aired. Over on the Amazing Race pages, editors move the tag weekly, so that information of completed and unaired legs are seperated from one another. That way you can appease both the spoiler and non-spoiler audience. --Madchester 09:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I watch the DVDs rather than the broadcast TV, so practically everything is a potential spoiler because I'm a year behind. It's really hard to avoid spoilers when you're that far behind - even IMDB's notation of what years an actor was in the series can be a spoiler. I've just learned to be careful about what I read. For shows with real long-term mysteries, I try not to look at *any* material about the show... even the back of the DVD package is a risk. Jordan Brown 04:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reckoning

• should we put in there who actually dies?? I think not cause it would really take away from the episode. That is more than just a spoiler, that is a major bit of information.Bignole 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the actual name is unnecessary. Just the fact that "someone important to Clark dies," as all the promos keep saying, is enough. 209.51.77.64 02:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • yeah I don't see why we should completely spoil it for people. Since it's such a major character and so devastating I think it should remain nameless for wikipedia. Bignole 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you guys don't want to completely spoil it for people, then that quote should really be taken out. It definitely implies that person died... Read it for yourself, everybody! Emily 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, I thought about that when I saw the quote. It's an iffy thing to keep. It does not explicitly say he dies (as all the other statesment were doing when the episode first aired). It's one of those things that is up in there air as to how much it reveals. I mean, you have watched the episode and you understand it's context better than someone that has not seen the episode and just reads the quote as is. Also, we have discussed the relevancy of quotes to the page at all. But, I agree with any decision that is made on the further existence of that quote. If others also believe it should be removed then I think we should take it off. Bignole 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. You guys heard Bignole. Or read what Bignole wrote, anyway. So does anyone else think the quote is a bit too much of a spoiler? Or should it be left there? Please share your opinions! Emily 03:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Put the information up!! Im not a big fan of the show but when i came to wikipedia i expected to find the information, WHY? cause this is a factual encyclopedia! Now I have to go to another site just to find something that should have been left up there. Remeber this is not a fansite, you dont choose whether fans dont want to see it or not, if this is a guide for shows then post the relevant information!! There is already a spoiler warning so people already know that there will be important information left up. Remeber none of you own this article, you report it as it is. Whoever died name should have been left there. Thanks alot. (212.219.97.7 13:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, but it was decided that that was too much of a spoiler. This is not an official website for the show this is just a page that gives descriptions for each episode. If you want to know what happened then watch the show, it won't take long to realize that they are not there anymore. First, the way you put it in there isn't even a correct format. You cannot just put anything in an article anyway you like it. There are templates, formats, structures and you have to go by them. As for deciding what gets put on the page, yes, we do get to do that. That is why we have this TALK page, to decide what is relevant and what is not, and what should be left out. As I have been told many times, Wikipedia is not a Macropedia. The point is that it was decided by the editors of the page that devulging that information would be too much of a spoiler. The spoiler warning is for details that are spilled that you might not find out from a standard description. The reason we don't say who dies is because it would completely ruin the entire episode for the viewer and that is not what wikipedia is for. The way you put it up there it was like you knew we didn't want it up there and were blatantly placing it there with exclamation marks. Bignole 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that people agreed not to put the spoiler before the episode aired. Now that the episode has already aired, I see no reason why the information can't be put in the article. It's pretty notable, and is necessary for things like comparing Smallville's canon to the comic book/movie canon, etcetera. I think that now that the episode has already aired, it should stay in the article. --DDG 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see the point about canon, but it would seriously ruin the entire episode. There is more going on than just that one person's death and revealing it would take so much away from the show. People don't come to wikipedia to read what happened in an episode, they come here for statistical information, and brief descriptions (which get turned into novels by editors as soon as an episode airs). Bignole 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion above it appears that the concensus was to leave the name out of the entry, but this edit has added it back in. In addition, the entry seems to still need some work - the "frantically trying to save them again" seems unclear - which "them", and what do you mean "again"? I think the "them" refers back to the unnamed person whose life will be taken, but I only parsed it that way on about the fourth reading. I'm not sure what concensus is on what to reveal here - names, no, but what about time travel? Perhaps it would be best to simply delete "only to find himself frantically trying to save them again,". If we want to reveal the time travel, perhaps "A desperate Clark appeals to Jor-El for help and the day restarts, but Clark must keep events from playing out the same way the second time. Meanwhile, Lionel reveals ..."

Perhaps the notes about JS and Chloe belong on the Allusions page. Jordan Brown 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of these episodes need some rewriting in the plot, all the way back to the beginning seasons. I wouldn't worry about the allusions, because once the Allusion page is deleted (as it appears it will be) it will basically mean that even these ones on the season pages will need to go, because of their "original research" basis. Bignole 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with the OR assertions, as you will have seen over on the AfD page. However, I do think that we need to find a balance between hypothesis ("So-and-so said XXX and that's a reference to YYY") and [[WP:ATT]'s "It is legitimate to make ... straightforward logical deductions" (linking Arthur Curry from Smallville to Aquaman). Should we perhaps have a discussion somewhere, record some guidelines, and maybe even get some senior wikipedians to bless them? Where? Jordan Brown 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

About irrelevant data

Is it really important to compare Smallville with other Superman series to state the fact that it's the first one to have a fifth season? On the other hand, having a 100th episode is different since that's a major accomplishment for any TV series, even being a reason for celebration among the whole cast and production staff. I think the fifth season thing is just fancruft and should be deleted. Please add your comments. --Charlie144 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the information that we put in these pages is just fancruft. Really, you wouldn't find most of this stuff unless you were looking at a specific encyclopedia for entertainment, maybe even television entertainment, and even then you wouldn't get the detailed description of episodes that people put in here. Personally, I think that recognizing that this series has been able to last 5 season is just an accomplishment in and of itself, and the fact that it has been in color is one too. I can see where it could be considered "trivia" and not wikipedia material, but, I think that the simplified version that is there now is fine and can stay. Bignole 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a Trivia section at the bottom, which will help us organize these "facts." This season has in fact lots of this information including the death of a main character, the 100th episodes, the change of opening credits, the infamous "KristEn Kreuk" mistake and of course the fifth season thing. What do you think? --Charlie144 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that could be a way of monitoring the "trivia" based information. Though I think we will have to monitor the "death of a main character" because I can see people releasing the name in that section also. Attempts have already been made to put the name in pictures and other episodes. But I think that a trivia section would be just fine. Let's see what others think.Bignole 18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The "fifth season" thing isn't really approriate for an encyclopedia, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is fact, doesn't mean that it should be included on Wikipedia.

You can simply write something up on the main Smallville article stating that "this is currently the longest running Superman television series to date, with over 100 episodes over 5 seasons" or something like that. The fact that Smallville is in its 5th season isn't particularly notable. Many television series have had 5 or more seasons. However, Smallville being the longest running series is worthy of inclusion. You have to be careful in the way you present the facts. --Madchester 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The fifth season thing is more of a milestone than the note about "Reckoning" being the 100th episode. Smallville's outlasting past Superman shows is notable. When you get down to it, facts like that fit into an encyclopedia more than arbitrary quotes.

It's historic. It means that as of this season, Smallville has outlasted both Superboy and Lois and Clark (each lasted four years). It hasn't beaten The Adventures of Superman overall yet, but has for color episodes because only the last four years of Adventures were in color. Wryspy 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if each Superman movie counted as a season for the movies, it has also topped Christopher Reeves' movies, of which there were four.

For that matter, has any comic book superhero TV series completed a fifth season since The Adventures of Superman? The Incredible Hulk lasted four years plus a fragment of a fifth season. Wonder Woman lasted three full seasons plus a fragment of an earlier season. Four years seems to be the limit to how much the public wants to watch any superhero in one TV series, but Smallville has broken that barrier.

• • yeah well with the new Superman coming out that would be counted as a 5th season and then Smallville will have to go another season to out do Superman, but that would only be if they didn't make another movie (when rumour has it that there are a couple of sequels lined up). But, I think that 5 seasons is an incredible achievement for any series, not just a superhero series. There are a lot of series that don't make it to 5 years, and even more that don't make it past 1 year. Bignole 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The new Superman movie has none of the same actors. Lex Luthor is not the same person as in the old movies. Calling that a continuation of the series is like calling Lois and Clark seasons 4-8 of Superboy.Doczilla 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true. It's a continuation of the same medium (films). Lois and Clark: the new adventures of Superman replaced their Jimmie Olsen after the first season. The Superboy series of the 1980s replaced every single character including Superboy, with the exception of Lana who was not replaced. So, by your standards, Superboy Seasons 2 thru 4 aren't the same as the first season. Just because someone is replaced doesn't mean that it isn't a continuation of the series. A continuation would be something that picks up with the same characters of that particular Superman universe. In this case, Superman Returns picks up a few years after Superman II, making it part of the Superman films universe. Bignole 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming Episodes

Please monitor the upcoming episodes information. Descriptions are being place, along with air dates, for episodes that have none of either. If there is not a website linked to verify where this information is coming from then it cannot be considered accurate. If you go to the external links, neither website talks about the "release of Zod" or what dates the April episodes will be released on. Bignole 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Two pictures on this page are clearly stolen from KryptonSite, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chloe_Tomb.JPG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clark-Victor-Cyborg.jpg. Open Chloe_Tomb.JPG in a new tab/window of your browser. Open this image in another. Compare. You can see that the Kryptonsite tag was replaced by a black border, the rest of the image is exactly the same. As for Clark-Victor-Cyborg.jpg, in the image history you can still see the Kryptonsite logo. Removing a logo does not remove a copyright. So, unless we get permission from KryptonSite, these pictures should be removed, correct? - Nights Not End 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. The easiest way to avoid a copyright is to alter a picture. By removing a logo it becomes accessable for all. This doesn't apply to every picture, but, when you are working with a screenshot from a television show or movie, things that do not belong to the website you got them from, you can remove logos placed on them to remove a copyright. The picture itself is not copyrighted, that is a still from the scene. What is being removed is the copyrighted "kryptonsite" logo. So, the pictures should not be removed. As long as you are not showing another sites logo on a picture then it is fine. The reason being is because you can get that picture anywhere. The same thing goes for that "WB" logo on the TOMB still. That needs to be removed as well. To avoid copyright laws you have to remove the copyrighted information. Also, because their is a link to Kryptonsite.com at the bottom of the page they are given credit for supplying information to this article. Bignole 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Speaking of irrelevant data, why does an encyclopedia include all those quotes from the episodes? They're not informative as encyclopedic content. They're generally not of historical importance. They're stuff the fans find cool. Isn't a source like TV.com more appropriate?

For that matter, why does an encyclopedia have an episode guide? Wryspy 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia isn't your standard encyclopedia, if it was then you wouldn't have half of the pages that you do on here. Wikipedia is an expanded encyclopedia which includes descriptions and details that extend beyond the normal realm of your standard Britannica. I can agree that the "quotes" are a bit much and probably not that necessary. But, the episode guide is completely legitament when it comes to what Wikipedia is trying to represent, and that is a free, complete, online extensive encyclopedia. Bignole 05:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not complete. They clearly state this is not a macropedia. (It's just a passing thought. I don't actually have an opinion about the episode guides. I just wondered.) Wryspy 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They may say that it is not a Macropedia, but, when you give people the ability to edit freely and create new pages, you very quickly lose privilege of saying that you are just merely an Encyclopedia. If they just wanted to be an Encyclopedia then why have movie pages, actor pages, television series, (and the list goes on)? Why have all those when you can simply just scan the hardcopy Encyclopedia and be done with it. No, this is very much a Macropedia. Bignole 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What about their size guidelines for pages? If an article grows too big, it will get flagged as needing cleanup.

Well, considering all the other Smallville pages carry the same information and some movie pages are even longer I think we will be ok. But, it is gets flagged for cleanup because it is too large then the first thing to go will be quotes, followed by "featured music" so forth and so on based on importance to the page. Bignole 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki Link

I have just created an interwiki link from the entry on Aqua to the corresponding page I have just made on the Smallville Wikicity. One of the reasons for Wikicities is to allow for more information on specialist subjects which may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. So while I dont think that each episode of Smallville deserves a page on Wikipedia, I do think that it is worthwile having a Wiki page where everyone can add information, more detailed synopsis, production information etc. It is the first time I have tried adding such a link for a TV series so let me know what people think --Amxitsa 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just went there...had to correct a name. That's really awesome, though I don't think we will get to the point where each episode has it's own page, it is good to have another place to put extra information. well done. Bignole 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Ok, these picture wars have got to stop. We need to decide on a picture and keep it. This back and forth editing of each other's pictures is getting old. If a picture is put on the page and it is relevant, is a good quality (meaning that it is in focus and the contrast is good), it fits the size requirements set by the rest of the photos and it does not violate any copyrights then it should not be changed. If for some reason someone wishes to change/update a photo then they should come to the discussion board first and explain their reason for adjustment. Also, message the person that inserted the picture originally since they hold "ownership" (i use that term meaning the one to put a picture up first and not as in owns copyright) of that picture so that they can atleast discuss it with the other party. Bignole 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Bignole, this time you've got to support me. I've got big reasons for changing that picture:

• That picture has very BAD quality.
• That picture doesn't show a representative scene from the episode, i think the ghost/Chloe one suits better.
• That pic even has an ugly black bar on top.
• If it were a good picture, sure why not keep it, but if we just try to leave the article with mediocre pictures then is that a good effort?

Comments please. And I suggest changing the picture. --Charlie144 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't trying to take a side. I know it came off like I was attacking you, but, what I was trying to do was establish some sort of requirement for pictures so that we do not have these editing wars. That whole "must be HDTV" requirement doesn't really hold because once it's on a computer the quality will change anyway. I set up this section so that if there is a problem with the pictures then it should be discussed instead of just deleted. I get into this with others on other pages. We have Talk pages for a reason and it isn't to be a forum. I messaged Smallville 101, just as I did you, so don't think that I was out for you. He/she got the exact same message requesting them to view this page. I will have to open up both pictures and view them together before I can make a comment about them. I vaguely remember your picture. I will respond after Smallville 101 has responded. Also, for anyone else that reads this, please go back and view both pictures and post your opinion as well. Bignole 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from my trip and nobody except from Bignole and me have replied to the discussion. So in terms of fair discussion, the winner is the sole statement that stands here. I'm proceeding to change the image since there was no argument against it since we opened the discussion on this Talk Page. And just a note, to avoid this image conflict, I will take the responsibility of providing the images since I have the episodes on Tivo. For Season 6 I invite all Smallville fans to reunite on this page and agree an standard for everything in order to avoid future misunderstandings. Again thanks to everybody that is supporting this article, you're doing a really good job. --Charlie144 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC

If you have a problem with my picture, then I'll "improve" it. But you could show some manners instead of just going and taking my picture off, which I may add, as I told you before, was not easy for me to retrieve. --Smallville 101 11:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC

Wikicities

I have updated all the episodes with the wikicities link. Follow the link to the appropriate page. Let's try and update these episodes there also. Wikicities is a place where we can put more information about each episode (i.e. songs, quotes, notable information) that way we do not overload wikipedia with information that could be considered more fanbase than encyclopedic. Bignole 17:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I'm sorry to have to remove the quotes, as I really enjoyed reading over again and remembering the episode, but found out that wikipedia does not want quotations from tv, movies, or similar mediums on the pages. Please go here if you wish to add, read, or edit quotes from the seasons. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smallville Bignole 02:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. IMDb is a better place for it. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The wikiquote articles for Smallville could use some serious reworking. Even the page for Bill Hicks' quotes looks better. 75.2.17.151 02:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be because no one has actually worked too hard on it. You can attribute to it. Bignole 03:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reckoning Poster

I thought maybe we could change the Reckoning Poster at the top of the page to the newly released poster from the season finale, just a thought.

I don't know, because it is only going to get changed again once the DVD artwork comes out. Bignole 17:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Brainiac/Fine

I know that Professor Milton Fine's identity as Brainiac is more than mere fan speculation; the publicity materials have been referring to James Marsters's character as Brainiac since before he even joined the show. Still, I think it would be more appropriate to consistently refer to his character as "Fine" since the show has not once used the "Brainiac" name; referring to him as "Brainiac" just isn't an accurate reflection of what has happened on the show.

I agree, that was why I changed the caption under the photo that used to say "Brainiac is Back!"Bignole 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could call him "BrainIAC" if you don't like using "Fine"... just because he is a "Brain (I)nter(A)ctive (C)onstruct"--Torourkeus 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He's called Fine, that's his name. When it comes to describing the events of the show, it should be FINE. Bignole 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Season Pages or List of Episode (individual Ep pages)

All editors, please see discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes Bignole 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Allusions

Perhaps the notes about JS and Chloe belong on the Allusions page. Jordan Brown 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of these episodes need some rewriting in the plot, all the way back to the beginning seasons. I wouldn't worry about the allusions, because once the Allusion page is deleted (as it appears it will be) it will basically mean that even these ones on the season pages will need to go, because of their "original research" basis. Bignole 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with the OR assertions, as you will have seen over on the AfD page. However, I do think that we need to find a balance between hypothesis ("So-and-so said XXX and that's a reference to YYY") and [[WP:ATT]'s "It is legitimate to make ... straightforward logical deductions" (linking Arthur Curry from Smallville to Aquaman). Should we perhaps have a discussion somewhere, record some guidelines, and maybe even get some senior wikipedians to bless them? Where? Jordan Brown 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I put us in a new section so it'a easier to find. Here is the problem, in truth, none of the allusions are "encyclopedic". The only rea encyclopedic information is the fact that the show has so many friggin' allusions in it. It's extremely fanbased, because even with an explaination most people, who aren't fans, won't know what it's talking about. I don't know how we could keep it and it not come under fire some time in the future. We will just end up bogging down the season pages, because there are so many of them. Bignole 14:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Equating Smallville characters with DC characters

I found a couple of CW episode guides equating Smallville characters with DC characters, so I tweaked the text a bit to make that linkage explicit and cited the episode guide as the source. I did Bart Allen / The Flash and Arthur Curry / Aquaman, and I'll stop now so we can discuss it.

I like having those linkages explicit and out in the open, but some people think that it's WP:OR since there's no citable source... when we've got citable sources, heck, let's use 'em.

Jordan Brown 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Might it be good to have an explicit "Visiting characters" entry in the table at the top of each episode? That could be a clean and convenient place to put the linkage, without having to do awkward things like say "Joe Smith (Tonka Joe))" or "Joe Smith (Tonka Joe from the DC Universe)".

Jordan Brown 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well sometimes The CW isn't doing any research (like asking the creators) into who is who. For example, according to reports (i think Aussio) when Bart returns in "Justice" (Season 6) he won't be code named "The Flash" but "Impulse". So that kind of creates a problem, because technically he is both of those characters at some point in DC universe, but not originally, and if Smallville doesn't code name him "the Flash", should we really have that name beside him? Bignole

Hmm. Shrug. Like I said, I'd like to have the explicit linkage over to the DC characters. In this particular case, since Bart Allen is one of the Flashes (and also Impulse and Kid Flash), I'd say that it should primarily link to Bart Allen and perhaps secondarily to Kid Flash and Flash (comics). (There is no article for Impulse, because that's just Bart.)

Perhaps, since clearly none of the Smallville characters are identical to their DC counterparts, they should only be described as "related DC characters" or "similar DC characters" or something like that.

Is the CW authoritative? Probably not, but it's not a silly source. It's not like it's just a fan site. (And what source is really, truly, authoritative for anything?) It seems like it should be enough to satisfy the people who are sticklers for WP:NOR and WP:V. We can say "we didn't independently associate the Smallville character with the DC character; look, the distributor told us".

Jordan Brown 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing it, because when they advertised for those shows in The WB, it was "Aquaman comes to town", "The Flash comes to town" (But I have read CW descriptions that incorrectly labeled certain things in the episodes). I think since Bart has his own page, linking to him is best. I think finding some interview with the creators talking about "The Flash" coming to town would go well with "out of universe" content that could be added. Bignole 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Superman

This and related Smallville pages under Wikiproject Superman will need to be updated because the project is merging with something else. Wryspy 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated with what? A new banner?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I may have misunderstood. Disregard this for now, but watch our for the possible merge Wryspy 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)