Talk:List of Smallville characters

WTF?
I'm confused.. why do folks keep mentioning the TV show "Smallville" as if it had some connection with Superman or the DC universe in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.70.96 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm are you serious ???? lol wow...just wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.114.199 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Characters
Morgan Edge? Eroica (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He isn't really on the list because he only appeared in 3 episodes, with two of those episodes being a continuation of the storyline from one episode to the next. It just doesn't really seem to fit the idea of "recurring".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New Categories
I honestly think that we need to add some more categories and move some characters into these new categories. Like, characters such as Pete Ross or Whitney Fordman who haven't been on the show in a while, and are listed as main characters. That just doesn't make sense. Also, what about dead characters? Lionel Luthor, David Bloome? Perhaps creating a deceased and former characters section would help.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That would mean that the page wouldn't be written from a historical perspective (the way Wikipedia is supposed to be written), but from an in-universe perspective by treating the characters and their fictional deaths like they were real. The point of the page is to not update everytime someone leaves the show, but acknowledge that these were the original cast members, these came later, and these are no longer here. There's no such thing as a "dead" fictional character. Anyone can come back, if John Schneider isn't proof enough of that. The page is a reflection of historical accuracy, and those specific characters' sections indicate their "status" anyway.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that. What about a former characters page?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a former fictional character. Whether or not they are alive in the presently airing season is irrelevant on their existence. We must write about fictional works in their entirety, not giving preference to what is currently being produced. BOVINEBOY 2008 17:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for a "former character" page, even if we created one because it would comprise just about everyone on this page minus about 4 people. Thus, why would we have a page for just four people and then a page for everyone else who is no longer on the show?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually you're right. But some rearranging has to be done. It not only confuses to reader to have these "former" characters listed with the main characters, but it honestly makes us look stupid to list made up characters such as Whitney Fordman over more popular real characters such as Lois Lane.173.95.138.76 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not listed by importance, they are listed by when they first appeared. It would be biased (which goes against our policies) for us to say who is more important than whom. Whitney was technically a main character in season one, far earlier than Lois ever became a main character. Just because he isn't in the comics doesn't mean he was less important to the show itself. For the first season, he was technically more important than Pete Ross, who is from the comics.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whose to say that you're viewpoint isn't biased? You're basically stating the opposite, that Whitney was more important than Lois and Pete. Look, since I can't seem to explain it to you, what I prefer to happen is that you rearrange the page similarily to what they have done in the List of NCIS characters page.173.95.138.76 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm stating an objective fact. Whitney came before Lois did on the series. Thus, his placement in front of her placement is based solely on that objective fact. There is no subjectivity to it. My comment about his importance over Pete's importance was merely that, a comment. I was pointing out a flaw in the argument that because Lois is more important in the comics she should be in front of him. First, this isn't NCIS. This is Smallville. Second, the table details "status" is blatant in-universe writing, which is discouraged. There is nothing wrong with the way this page is set up. I don't know how someone could get confused when looking at it since each character section clearly states if they are still on the show or not. To me, it would make far less sense to isolate all the characters from season one (as Clark and Chloe are the only ones from that season left) and place them basically last in the list because it would diminish the role they had from the start. Lex Luthor was on the show for 7 seasons, and he's probably one of the most well known villains in popular culture, but based on what you want he should be listed last on the page because he's no longer on the show? Each characters' section details their "status" already. Thus, when people read the page they can see who started on the show originally (without having to read the entire article just to come across some first season main character when they get to the end), where that character is currently, and who came after them. In addition, to set the page up based on "current status" would reflect a recentism approach, and one that woudl be irrelevant at the end of season 10 given that there will be no more "current" main characters. Whitney will always be a main character, because you cannot change the fact that he was in season 1. Jason will always been a main character, for season 4. The fact that they are not main characters in season 9 or 10, or whatever, is irrelevant to the historical integrity of the series. This page is set up to be as objective as possible, and being objective means that we don't look at who is more important or what is the "current" state. We look at historical perspective.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you've seemed to claim a dictatorship over this page (as many other Wikipedian pages seem to have) I'll leave the argument at that. It's funny how one Wikipedia page can be "illegally formatted" while this one doesn't.173.95.138.76 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal
Gentlemen, I read the above argument and I have a proposal that may benefit you both as it doesn't think in an in-Universe Perspective yet gives every character a fair share on the page. What if we were to arrange the characters on the list based on importance to the story + length of time on show? Here's an example of what the list may look like and why the follwowing characters were chosen:

1) Clark Kent- Due to the story following him and his appearance in all 10 seasons.

2) Chloe Sullivan- She's also been significantly important to the story and to the development of Clark, as well as also appearing in all 10 Seasons.

3) Lex Luthor- For obvious reasons, he's been central to the first 7-8 seasons and will most likely reappear in the 10th.

4) Lana lang- Clark's love interest who's also been central to the first 7-8 seasons.

5) Lionel Luthor- Critical in helping Clark during his trials, and appeared in 7 Seasons.

6) Lois Lane- Helped to develop Chloe's and Clark's stories plus she's been central to the story since Season 5.

I know some of these reasons sound a little weak, but this was just an example and is prone to change. Anyway, Mr. Bignole, what do you think of this new idea? Does it work to everyone's best interests?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's still subjective. You would argue that Chloe is more important to Smallville than Lex Luthor only because she was only the show for longer....yet the character of Lex has been mentioned or appeared in every season since Michael Rosenbaum left. The most objective way is to just leave it as what the show credits the characters, in the order of first appearance. There would be no undue weight placed on any character based on show length or subjective interpretation of importance to the series. Some might argue that Whitney was more important than Pete ever was, yet only last 1 season on the show.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're point is excellent. However, you only seemed to have seen the first point of my proposal, which was length. Yes, I think Chloe is more important to the show than Lex, and it's not only because she was there longer, but it was what she did to help the story progress during the season. Helping Clark defeat Doomsday was just one of these many instances. Also, another point you have to understand is, Smallville doesn't follow the comics. It's based off of it, but does not follow it. While in the comics Lex Luthor is a significant figure in Superman's life, in the show, it appears Chloe is playing a more significant role in Clark's life.

Plus, as I said before, this list was only one of many examples. It is always subjective to change. If you think that Lex Luthor deserves to be higher than Chloe, then I'm sure that you and I can reach a consensus on a matter. However, currently we are discussing whether or not to approve the change. We can dicuss later on the validity of the characters.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But she did nothing for the first 7 seasons other than just help Clark solve a mystery. Lex had an actual character arc that last for 7 seasons. For the first 7 seasons, the show is about Clark and Lex, not just Clark. Everyone else is insignificant by comparison. Again, it's subjective to try and debate who is more important than whom because you cannot identify an objective criteria to measure such importance. It will always come down to personal opinion about the character, which will ultimately be biased against those who left the show earlier than others. One could argue that Jonathan and Martha were more key to Clark's character development than any other character on the show. Others could argue that they were not as important as Chloe or Pete or Lana, or whomever. That's the point of subjective, you cannot easily define criteria with which to gauge an opinion's weight. It's an opinion. I'm not sure why leaving it in the hands of the series' producers, who decide the order for the show's credits, isn't the best option here, and I have yet to actually see an argument for why there is something wrong with that option (what, someone might assume that Whitney is more important than Lois because he sits higher in his listing? We cannot prove assumptions).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem with your ordering is that it sets confusion into readers. At least this way we have some order. Everything you just said was somewhat correct: since importance is a bit confusing, we have character time length to balance it all out. You could say that Character importance is like the House of Representatives and the Time Length is like the Senate.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not support for the idea that it sets any confusion among readers. Anyone familiar with the show (i.e., those that watch it) wouldn't assume that Whitney is somehow more important than Lex Luthor. Anyone not familiar with the show can easily read the little blurb at the start of the section. Now, if you're that concerned that people are getting truly confused by the order, we can treat the main character list like the recurring character list and add: "they are listed in the order that they first appeared on the show" - or even "they are listed in the order that they first appeared on the show AND their opening title position". Either way, you're arguing for subjectivity over objectivity only on the basis that it might be confusing for readers. How confusing would it be if they see some randomized order for the cast where they cannot figure out why Character X is in front of Character W, because there is no concrete definition to the order of the characters. In order to justify their position, you'd have to actually put an explanation in each character's section detailing why they are placed there. As such, you'd be stepping into original research/synthesis territory.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When?
Completely absent. Tony  (talk)  13:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're asking or telling.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Characters of Smallville
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Characters of Smallville's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "X-ray ep": From Clark Kent (Smallville):  From Lex Luthor (Smallville):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Characters of Smallville → List of Smallville characters – Per consistency with other "List of... characters" pages on Wikipedia (List of Lost characters, List of Arrested Development characters, List of Heroes characters, List of The Simpsons characters, List of South Park characters, etc.). Bignole reverted my initial move citing the page's history with its name, which should not and does not matter- did not expect this to be controversial. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Opppose - First, there is not naming convention requiring that setup. Second, this is more than just a "list of characters", as it is a full fledge article and is treated as an article and not merely a list (i.e., there is a difference between a featured LIST and a featured ARTICLE). I believe that history DOES matter, as this article has not only been with this name, uncontested, for some time but was reviewed under this name. Not to mention other pages like Characters of Glee or Characters of Carnivale (the latter of which is a featured article). Calling something a "list", when it's treated like an article seems counterproductive. Some of your examples are literally lists of character names and a brief description, and in no way comparable to this page (or pages like Characters of Carnivale). Other examples that support this structure include Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Half-Life, Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series, Characters of Halo, Characters of StarCraft, Characters of Supernatural, Characters of Sanctuary, Characters of Myst, Characters of Casualty, Characters of Brotherhood, etc.) There are many others and it's clear that this is an accepted naming convention for pages dealing with characters in a series (whether TV, video games, etc.).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is not a list, it is an article. Per Bignole, this is a perfectly acceptable and commonly used format. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Character Timeline
Looking over the history of the page here and it's evident that the user "BIGNOLE" runs this article, it's his way or the highway. So open for discussion. As per practice across MANY LOC pages on wikipedia, timeline character tables are a common template used at the top of articles to help give readers overviews of the characters in said series.

Given Smallville ran for 10 seasons and had numerous cast changes throughout the course of the series, a timeline table is a given and should be used here.

Examples of some long lasting TV shows that use this format;

I could legitimately go on and on. B.Davis2003 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and assume good faith. DonQuixote (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * First, just because other pages have done something does not make it status quo or "standard" in anyway. There really weren't that many changes to the cast until the last few seasons. They kept their core for 7 years, only changing out 2 or 3. In addition, Lana wasn't recurring in season 8, she was a special guest. Kreuk was finishing out the remaining episodes of her contract after having left early the year before. Either way, we don't need a visual guide on who was regular and when. It's not relevant overall, because they were all regulars at some point.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. See where this page title was moved away from the "List of" form several times in past years, and editors have transformed this article into much more than your average "List of" article. However, at the end of the day, supporters of the "List of" title have policy and guideline backing this rename. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy New Year! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville → List of Smallville characters – Naming Conventions and is not consistent in the rest of articles similar to this. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. JC7V (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   15:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:NCTV – there is no need for a non-standard title for this, and the Glee one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fleshing out my response. To respond to the statments made that this is an article and not a list, this is exactly how any other character list looks, just with more detailed character sections, which hopefully more character lists would have. Regarding the fact that this has been reviewed, it is worth noting that when this list became a GA, the NCTV guideline did not have a section for lists, see this.--Gonnym (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the fact that NCTV didn't have something on list titles doesn't change the fact that this page isn't a list page. The GAC has always been clear that it does not give GA status to lists. Second, the NCTV still does NOT actually say that 1) You have to say "List of", it merely has a group of example pages. 2) the NCTV examples are of list pages, not articles. That is why it uses the term "list page". This isn't formatted to be a list page, it's formatted to be an article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Still a list, even if you say it isn't. Also, as linked below List of Agent Carter characters - also a list, also a GA and still called a list. --Gonnym (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is more than just a list. This isn't some table that basically lists out the characters, but a fleshed out article containing a group of articles that do not warrant their own page. There is a difference between how you handle list articles and regular prose articles. This page is modeled after Characters of Carnivàle, a featured "ARTICLE" not a featured "LIST". Per WP:SAL: "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." - This is not a series of items formatted into a list. This is very clearly a structured article discussing characters within a series. WHat naming conventions are you referring to in this nomination by the way? Nothing in NCTV says it has to say "list of", especially when this isn't formatted like a list page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is clearly an article, not a list. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – as noted by the last two posters, this is an article about the characters, not a list about them. WP:NCTV doesn't require the "List of" naming, and this doesn't fit the standard definition of a list, not to mention that it's been reviewed and listed as a Good Article, which by the GA criteria is not given to lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lists are articles. This is even evident from the quote from WP:SAL given in the oppose !vote above. Thus "this is more than just a list" misinterprets what we put in "lists", and "this is an article, not a list" creates a false dichotomy. We don't expunge articles of content when they are titled as lists. Changing the title would not necessitate a change to the content of this article. Dekimasu よ! 06:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference being that this is NOT a list. It is an article. Calling it as "list of" is making it a list, when it is not. SAL clearly talks about how those "articles" are formatted, and this is not formatted to be a simple list of characters. It contains a list at the bottom, but the rest of the page is not formatter to be a list (hence why it is GA status, which cannot be given to list pages). You don't call article pages "List of" when they are not lists. You can have a list page that isn't titled "list", but you cannot have an article titled "list". Also, given that there is no requirement that this be called "List of" (the NCTV doesn't actually say that), the name it currently rests with is more accurate than saying "list of characters".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article describes various characters from the series in summary style. See, for example, List of Twilight characters, List of Supernatural characters, List of Kinnikuman characters, List of Cheers characters. Moreover, the topic "characters of Smallville" would not be a clearly notable topic for an article. However, as a list the contents here describe how a range of subjects fit into a particular predefined category. In fact, WP:CSC clearly indicates that List of Dilbert characters is a list "created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their 'parent' topic." Note that List of Dilbert characters also shares this same prose summary style. Dekimasu よ! 18:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. At the end of the day, this is still literally a list of Smallville characters, just with lots of details for each character. This is no different than List of Agent Carter characters. - Brojam (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except, it isn't a list. If it was a list, it would have failed the GA nomination. I think the reality is there are more "list of pages" that aren't actually lists, than there are "Character of" pages that are lists. The key is always, how is it formatted, and this isn't formatted to be a list. If it was, it would simply be a table or big bullet list with names and nothing else. As an example, here is an actual list: List of horror film villains.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * List of Agent Carter characters is a GA. Also it is stated three times in the article (for each of the three sections of the article) that the following is a list: "The following is a list of series regulars who appear in one or more of the series' ten seasons.", "The following is a list of characters that are recurring on the series;" and "The following is a supplementary list of recurring guest stars,". Seems pretty clear this article is three sections comprised of lists. - Brojam (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And what I said was that List of Agent Carter character shouldn't be titled "List of", because it's structured as an article, not a list. The fact that sentences say this is a list of doesn't make the article structured in list format. Again, lists are bulleted items, not fleshed out sections. Technically, the only "list" even in this article is the very end for the non-notable, recurring guests. So, really if it bothers you then the simplest solution would be "The following sections are the series regulars", and so on.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I object to the idea that article titles, a reader-facing part of the encyclopedia, should be determined in any way by background assessment criteria. It is more important to get the titles right than to worry about whether this will cause a featured article to lose its status, a featured article to become a featured list, etc. Dekimasu よ! 18:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about losing a status, it's about the fact that "list of" implies that it is a list page. This isn't a list page. Ignoring the obvious fact that it is NOT formatted like a list, which is what "list of" page titles should be for, it was also reviewed for GA status (which does not allow lists) and as such supports the notion that it is NOT a list. You wanting to label articles with "List of" is mislabeling them when they are in fact not lists.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the above and the similar discussion at Talk:Characters of Glee. Dekimasu よ! 07:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Characters of Glee has been moved to List of Glee characters. Dekimasu よ! 15:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a mere list. The proposed fails WP:CONCISE, introducing wordiness, and not even accurate wordiness. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current arrangement is that Characters of Smallville is a non-intuitive title – even if it doesn't get moved to List of Smallville characters (and I think it definitely should...), it should be at Smallville characters, not at Characters of Smallville. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it non-intuitive? Characters of Smallville seems pretty obvious what the page is about. I'm not saying that "Smallville characters" is not also good enough, but I don't subscribe that some reader would see "Characters of Smallville" and not realize that the page is about the character that appear on the show Smallville anymore more or less than they would if it was called Smallville characters.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article titles should consider what people are searching for as much as possible – Smallville characters is a much better title with that in mind than "Characters of Smallville". The article's focus is Smallville → characters, not characters → Smallville. Therefore, Smallville characters is the better title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be much more likely to support "Smallville characters" over "list of characters in Smallville" (which, technically by your current argument of direction, should really be "List of Smallville characters"?). I'm just against calling pages "List of" when they are in fact not lists. Glee should not have been moved, nor should a lot of those other pages be "lists" categorically. That's like trying to argue that List of Glee episodes should be able to be classified as an article. It's a list, not an article. The same with pages like List of Harry Potter actors. Those are list. Those are appropriately titled. This page and many others are NOT lists. They may contain a list, but they are not overall structured like a list. Page titles should reflect what the page is. This is an article (not a list) about the different main and recurring characters in Smallville. It contains real world information about all of them, including reception and characterization, reliably sourced. A list would be nothing but names. So, if you want to proprose a move from "Characters of Smallville" to "Smallville characters", that's fine. I wouldn't be opposed to that directly. I'm opposed to this page (and any other) being incorrectly labeled a list page when they are not structured or designed to be lists. NCTV does not actually require that character pages be all titled "List of". What should really happen, which we have done so before for other pages, is there needs to be a distinction made as to whether the plan is for pages to be developed as a basic list or as a fleshed out article. That decision should dictate how pages are titled (as it does with the rest of Wikipedia outside of fictional medium pages like TV and Film).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that Talk:List of Glee characters just closed as move. --Gonnym (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Means nothing on this page, also does not negate the fact that it is the wrong way to list things that are NOT list.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSISTENCY might not mean a lot to you, but it does for the rest of the project, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and all. --Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * People like to invoke "consistency" when things are being done wrong all over the place as if that justifies continuing to do it wrong. Eventually, people need to realize that it needs to change, not continue to be done wrong. That's why we eventually got rid of trivia sections, got rid of pictures in plot summaries of episode tables, etc. They were done to be "consistent", just like it was "consistent" that we automatically split pages simply because there were 2 or 3 seasons, ignoring the fact that the main page never warranted splitting in the first place. Yet, we've reworked the MOS to better clarify that if a page isn't large enough to split, you shouldn't just automatically split it simply because multiple seasons exist. It may be "consistently" done that all character pages are named "list of" because people think that it should be, but it's time we start recognizing that "Lists" and "Articles" are not he same thing; they are structured differently and should be named appropriately.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

An error
Chloe was recurrent in season 10, not main. IKhitron (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * She appeared recurringly, but she was still contracted as a "series regular". That's why she continued to show up in the credits.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. She wasn't. There were only four main characters in the credits, in many episodes beginning, not all of them. Does this make her main? IKhitron (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "She wasn't"? She wasn't what? I said she was still contracted as a regular. Your regular status doesn't dictate a minimum amount of episodes. Brian Peterson's interview he points out they are counting her a regular.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not that. You just said "That's why she continued to show up in the credits." She showed up in credits for nine seasons, and then disappeared. She was in these credits just a little in season 10. This is why I've asked if it's still qualifies her as main role. Thank you for the explanation. IKhitron (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Her contract qualifies her. She could be contracted to be a series regular, and end up only appearing in 5 episodes. Eric Durance was contracted as a series regular starting in Season 5, but she did not appear in most episodes (not even half of the season because of episode restrictions placed by the film division). She still counted. We go by what's reported reliably for them to be. Another example would be on "Legends of Tomorrow". Matt Ryan is contracted as a series regular, and appears in most episodes, but in the title sequence he is listed as "Special Guest Star" for whatever reason.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. IKhitron (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)