Talk:List of Smallville characters/Archive 1

New characters
When are we going to add David and Tess? They are definitely going to appear, and there is a bit of OOU information about them, character descriptions, cating etc.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  03:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing on them but just that. I'm still skeptical that they are actually going to be "regulars". Given that we had no idea that Laura Vandervoort was going to be a regular till she ended up in the opening credits this past year, I'd like to first wait till we know where they would be placed. And at the moment, I'd rather focus on getting this page straight with who we have, tightening up prose and getting all the OOU info in before we start adding new characters in. It's easier to add them later in the season when we can summarize their episode appearances, instead of having a "And in this episode he/she did this..." format for months until we cna finally trim it all back. Right now they seem to be covered on the main page well enough, and I'm sure that when we finally have a season 8 page we'll duplicate the info over there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but we can't just ignore them. Actually I think, I just read the rest of your comment, which was what I was about to say. They are on the main Smallville, and they haven't appeared yet, so this page probably can wait.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pic of Rosenbaum
Hey Bignole, is there a specific reason why you removed the pic? I thought it looked nice, giving the reader an image of what Rosenbaum looks like, and after all, it's a free image.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once that page for Lex is created, the section here will be trimmed the image itself will take up too much space (plus it will be useless since we'll have a page for Lex). Not to mention that all of the main characters from the first season are in the lead image. We probably don't need the image of John Schneider, but I kept it because there is so much stuff in that section that it needed something to ease the eyes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see; that's good enough for me. Any progress on the individual character pages? Anything you need help with?  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've finished gathering 90% of the info from the books (the 10% being whatever they might add in the episode details of the book, instead of the actual character pages), it's just all scrambled right now. I have to clean it all up and organize it. Once I get the majority of the pages organized I'll go ahead and move them, and then start filling in the rest while their in the mainspace.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville
I would like to add to the section new characters Tess Mercier as a new character. She has become the CEO of LuthorCorp after Lex Luthors disappearance. If you want to know what I have found out, please take a look at my userspace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Smallville/Bulletproof and leave me a message on my talkpage if you know more about Tess. Thank you very much.Sha-Sanio (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have a section called "Tess Mercer".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about adding to the section about Tess Mercer that she is the one who wants to get the Prometheus suit off of Lana after it was successfully tested on her. She doesn't care that that would mean Lana's death. She wants to destroy the Prometheus suit, but in fact it is Lex who uses her in order to get the Prometheus suit for his own recovery after it was successfully tested on Lana, that refers to the episode Power. Sha-Sanio (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wrong, as Tess never wanted the suit. Tess clearly wanted to destroy the suit so Lex couldn't have it. Lex never used Tess to get the suit, as Lex has no control over Tess any longer. The suit is only important to Lana, as it was something new to Tess (discovered in one episode and gone at the end of it). It's minor. Again, I've told you this before, there is a reason we generally wait till the end of the season to update these characters because you don't know what is going to be important to them for the season. What seems important in one episode might be forgotten for the rest of the season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add that Tess comes from Louisiana and went to Harvard when she was 15 years old and that she is loyal to Lex Luthor, before she learns of the implanted nano device and that she doesn't want that anybody get the Prometheus suit, thus preventing that anybodey else gains superpowers?Sha-Sanio (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only do I not recall that little tidbit of info about her, it's irrelevant. We don't talk about where anyone else went to college. Like I said, we need to wait and see where her character arc goes for the season. The episodes aren't going anywhere, and neither is the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add to the synopsis of the episode Bulletproof about Tess Mercer that she admits that she has has done everything what he has ever asked her to do, because she trusted and respected him. I think we should add it, because it characterizes her Lex' chosen successor.Sha-Sanio (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added some details about Tess and Oliver.Sha-Sanio (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) More details on Oliver.Sha-Sanio (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
I have uploaded some new images and they are like the most recent ones and I would like to add them to the article.Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) This is the image I want to add File:Smallville08.jpg, they look pretty original, don't you think???Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with this fixation on the "most recent". The "most recent" cast is not as notable as the original cast for two reasons. One, they were not there when the show started (the original cast was). Two, out of everyone in that image, only 2 have been there for the entire time. A part from Lois, who was a series regular in season 4, and Jimmy who got that status in season seven (only last year), everyone else is new and probably won't be on the show next year (should there be a ninth season). So, no that isn't a viable replacement for the current image.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the old image should be replaced, the characters changed, Clark's parents died,the picture needs to be replaced.Sha-Sanio (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I have uploaded some current images and I suggest to add one of them to the article instead of the old one. Sha-Sanio (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus for the change. Just because something or someone is new doesn't make them better. I'm not going to argue this with you any longer, because it never goes anywhere.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is not fair, you never agree with anyone else. This picture File:Smallville08.jpg is also representative becuase it depicts the CW logo, the airing time and date, the main characters Clark and Chloe and the new arrival, the villain Doomsday. I have read yesterday in the forum that there are people who realy adore Doomsday and he is not shown on your picture. This is shi....Sha-Sanio (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the poster is gorgeous, where did you get it from? Is it new?74.3.2.107 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it. I have to look up, wwhere it comes from, but I definitely think the old image belongs replaced.Sha-Sanio (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, when you put a picture on the talk page please put a colon ":" in front of "file" so that the image itself does not appear on the page but a link to the image's file location. Second, the image you have there is a fan made image and is not one officially sanctioned by the CW.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey why are you always doing this, my image was at least pretty cool,your is old and worn out, nobody wants to see it anymore. I mean forget it, throw it away, the stupid old thing. The people on the picture don't play their roles anymore. The series continues without them,they are finished.Sha-Sanio (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I want the Sha-Sanios image back, the show must go on, Why don't you get it?74.3.2.107 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey really glad about you support, IP-ler. Thankx. I'm just wondering what he is gonna do if we add back. He can't ignore us then any longer. We are two. He is all alone. Hey, big-what-so-ever-in=whereever and elsewhere, you are all alone and your single one opinion, doesnt establish the famous consensus.Sha-Sanio (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Add it back, when someone else see is on the page, they will like it and want it back, when he bosses around and takes is away again.74.3.2.107 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not formed on a whim, especially when it cannot be determined that the IP that keeps popping up is not you. If you continue to add the image back without actual consensus then I'll will forced to request a full protection of the page like I had to do with the Clark Kent article while the socket puppet investigation was started.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing there, you can't do this. You are not all alone working on the articles. Stop forbidding others the editing. And we don't need you to decide picture fits best, we have chosen the best picture. We want it back. Sha-Sanio (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the policy on consensus, as you do not have one. Secondly, Wikipedia does not promote other people's work and that image is fan made. That means that you cannot put it in a Wikipedia article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, should probably name one person who can support his opnion of keeping the old picture and then we can discuss, because there are two of us and he is all alone. 74.3.2.107 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see Sha, or IP, or whoever you're signing in as this minute. I don't need consensus to support me when it comes to fan made images. Wikipedia doesn't allow them, period.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how can you know that they are not original? Prove it.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather easily. Chloe and Clark were taken from this image, except that they mirrored the image for Chloe and cut/pasted her next to Clark's right side (instead of his left as she is in the original photo). The image of Brainiac is taken from this image, as is the caption that is on the poster you uploaded (i.e. "Every triangle has three sides"). The big key is the fact that someone actually scratched out "triangle" and "three" and inserted "four" and "square". The CW isn't that sloppy. Lastly, I don't know what that image is that is supposed to be Davis, but it certainly isn't Sam Witwer. If it is, I couldn't find it through 8 pages of search "Sam Witwer" in Google Image. It's a fake.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks, like we should rather add your image. Any contradictions?? Or do we all agree to take your poster.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't need to be an image change at all. You haven't provided a valid reason for why we should replace an image that contains a cast that was part of the show for more than half of its life.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They simply don't contribute to the progress of the story anymore. Nobody knows what this old image stands for or who these people are.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the caption of "Original cast" and a list of all of the actor's names is so confusing that people don't know what they're looking at?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sha-Sanio, this has been going on for over a week and it is becoming clear that you won't get consensus for an image change. I assume in WP:Good faith that you believe you are doing the right thing, but what it appears like for an outsider is that you are also engaging in WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Sockpuppeting and violating our policies on WP:Non-free content (uploading images without proper copyright, missing fair-use rationale, and orphaned fair-use images). I am neutral on the image topic itself, but maybe it's time to let go and focus your energy elsewhere where it it more embraced. – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as images go, I wouldn't mind swapping this one for an image of the season two cast because it contains the cast the was on the show the longest (as Whitney was only there for one season).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to reiterate, since Sha and his sockpuppets were harrassing me at my talk page, that the current image is fine and should not be changed to a season eight one, as that is blatant WP:RECENTISM. That fact that it should not be changed to a fan-created image should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: The image should not be changed to a fan-made image. Bignole's proposal to change it to a season two image would be fine, since it's more or less the same cast.  Paul    730  12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support changing the cast image to that of the second season. Good idea.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Second or Third, as it's the same cast. Which can be found with the better quality (e.g., focus, in frame, etc.).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to a version of the second/third season cast. I like it a bit better than the current image (quality wise), but I have no distinct preference.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it when I get home for lunch (work's blocking that website right now). Is it a merged picture, or just a site that has both the season two and the season three cast pictures (separate)?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good quality one of season three (which we'd shrink down in size). But, I'm also pondering scanning the season five cast, because it contains all of the prominent (more than 3 season characters) cast members: John, Annette, Tom, Kristin, John G., Allison, and Erica. All were on the show for at least five straight seasons.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love a season five image. There are two versions of the image which I am aware of: the normal one, and the one with Ackles. I guess the Ackles version is better, mainly because it has another version person. (I bet Sha is rolling in his grave! :P)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   04:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's actually season four. I said "season five" because Ackles isn't in that picture but apparently they didn't take a season five group photo (or at least I cannot find one in my books). Google isn't much help either. I'd like to have Erica because she's been on the show since season 4, so she's kind of important. We might have to go with the season four image with Ackles...I just hate including someone who was only there for one season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they definitely didn't take a season five photo, so they probably just used the season four one and took Ackles out. The Ackles image is fine, IMO, and if it's any consolation, he's way back in the corner so you can hardly see him. ;)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   05:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville good topic
Just in case anyone is interested. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally forgot we had a GT. If you want to propose it, that would be cool. What do we need to do for Lois? I mean, she could probably pass GA right now, but in case that cannot be done fast enough should we just have a peer review done (or something)?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You would have to get the Lois article up to good article status first, but once that has passed it should meet all of the good topic criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * GT doesn't have that peer review thing like FT does? Hm...doesn't matter. I went ahead and put Lois up for GAN anyway.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They both do allow certain articles and lists to be audited, which includes a PR, but that can only work for articles which are "inherently unstable". Examples would be a movie or a video game that has not yet been released. But just glancing at the Lois article it looks to be in pretty good shape. I don't think it will have much trouble getting through GAC. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that Lois Lane has passed, but now there is the Justice League article that will probably have to become a good article for the topic to pass. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm working on it. I have the reception stuff in my sandbox waiting for me to go through each link and see if it actually talks about the characters. After that I'll put it all in, do some C/Eing and put it up for review. Hopefully it won't take as long as Lois did.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah sometimes the GA process can take a while. The article looks pretty good already so it shouldn't have any trouble getting through once the review starts. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I'm worried about is the costume comparison image. It's a large, non-free image. I can see that giving me trouble. I hope it doesn't, because I love the image and feel that there is enough critical commentary on how they chose to go about creating the costumes with respect to their comic counterparts.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of images, I've uploaded the title letters for the show to the commons to use in the topic box since it's a non-copyrightable logo. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But can't they trademark the design?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be (and probably is) trademarked, but the Commons only looks at the copyright status of an image to determine if the image is "free". Other IP restrictions, such as trademark, are ignored. You might want to take a look at the Commons policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Should/could we replace the image being used at Featured topics/Smallville (season 1) with the one you have, since it's more directly connected?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. I'll go ahead and change it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallville overview topic
It just occurred to me that this would probably qualify as an overview topic.

Once the "Characters of Smallville" topic is finished, that would be a subtopic. And a long term goal could be to complete a "Seasons of Smallville" subtopic with the episodes list as the lead article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The seasons subtopic is a goal that I have. Is this one a true complete for overview topic? There was such hassle over the season one featured topic because it's the bare minimum.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes some people will probably not like it because it only has 3 articles in it, but I've looked around and I can't seem to find any other articles that would fit in the topic that wouldn't be included in the 2 subtopics, and according to the criteria that is a complete overview topic. You know this subject better than I do though, so if you can think of any articles that fit within the scope of a Smallville topic that I'm missing you can let me know. To avoid some of the criticism of having such a small topic, you might consider holding off on this topic until after the Characters topic is promoted. Strategically, it might make it more acceptable to some people if one of the subtopics was already in place. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, technically one subtopic is in place. The season one subtopic. That already exists. I think we can wait to do the overview topic until the characters one is done, the season (or "Episode") one is completely done (i.e. all the seasons are GA or FA). I'm not worried about an "overview topic" at this time.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "contest"
In this diff, I think you made it say the opposite of what you mean. "contest" means something like "dispute", so "The crew contest that it was never their intention to reveal Adam Knight to be a young version of Bruce Wayne." is like "The crew disputes that it was never their intention to reveal Adam Knight to be a young version of Bruce Wayne." Which sounds like they did mean for him to be Bruce Wayne. I could be wrong. Or maybe that sentence just needs some clarifying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. As I think about it again, I think it does say what you want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to be more clear.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Casting
Unlike most shows, which generally get about four weeks of casting, series developers Al Gough and Miles Millar had five months. - the first part of this is extremely vague, "most, generally, about" - and really a matter of opinion. I don't have access to the source, so I'm not sure how to fix it, but the vague assertion really needs to go.  Chzz  ►  09:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of opinion when the casting director explains that most shows only get about 4 weeks. The "generally" could be removed as redundant to "most shows", but the assertion is that of the people in charge.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - but the way it is currently presented shows that it is our opinion that they generally get about four weeks - not that the directors think that. Something like, "Series developers Al Gough and Miles Millar said that..." etc. - this really does need to change, per WP:NPOV.  Chzz  ►  00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a NPOV violation, but I concede that it should be more specific. I'll go back and see who stated the fact and add it in.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions re. fact tags
I recently tagged a couple of things with a fact tag, seeking clarification, viz. During its first season, Smallville had eight regular characters. As of season eight, six characters from the original cast have left the show, with seven new characters coming in over the course of seven seasons..

This was reverted, with the edit summary Doesn't require citation, it's an observational fact, it's simply counting those who started out with the "Starring" title and then noting when they left the show"

Apologies for my stupidity and naïvety, but, whilst I understand the sentiment I claim that, per WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". As an outside observer, I cannot see how the characters leaving can be ascertained without original research; if other references within the article cover the assertion, then that is great, but could you please add them to this section so that the reader can verify the facts asserted? Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a challengable item. I could challenge that the Sun isn't yellow or the sky isn't blue, but it still wouldn't require a citation to verify the obvious. A source stating such isn't necessary, because it would require a dozen sources (all primary) showing the character left the show (in both continuity and in real life). It isn't original research, because I'm not making any opinion on anything. I'm stating an observable fact. A source isn't required to verify that 2 + 2 = 4, because it's simple math. This is simple viewing. Whitney, Pete, Martha, Jonathan, Jason, Lionel, Lex, Lana, Kara, and Jimmy aren't on the show anymore. It's as simple as viewing the episodes in question. In additional, each character's section has the instance in question sourced. The prose that comes before all the sections is a summary of the entire section (i.e. a mini lead for the section), and given that there isn't any exceptional claims made, it's rather dumb to put in over 10 sources at the end of the sentence to just to verify that each character left the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's 10 characters, not 6?  Chzz  ►  09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whitney left in season 1, Pete left in season 3, Jason came and left in season 4, Jonathan left in season 5, Martha left in season 6, Lionel left in season 7, Kara came and left in season 7, Lex left in season 7, Lana left in season 7, Jimmy left in season 8, and Davis came and left in season 8. That's 11 people that have been series regulars and left the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you agree that the current assertion is incorrect? Can we source this info, or is it original research?  Chzz  ►  00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect how? The first season had eight series regulars (Clark, Pete, Chloe, Lana, Lex, Martha, Jonathan, and Whitney). That's a simple fact that doesn't require additional sourcing because the episodes themselves are the source (i.e. they're listed as "stars"). "As of season eight, six characters from the original cast have left the show, with seven new characters coming in over the course of seven seasons." Everyone but Clark and Chloe have left the show from the first season, simple math says that 8 minus 2 equals 6, and that's how many are not on the show. Seven new characters would be Lionel, Kara, Jimmy, Oliver, Tess, Davis, and Jason. That probably needs to be upped to 8 new characters, since Callum Blue is actually new to the show as a regular. It's not original research to point out that the original cast is all but gone, and that new people have come and gone as series regulars, especially when you go into detail in the body of the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bignole, what is clear to one reader might not be clear to another. There are thousands of reliable sources that will verify that 2+2=4; are there none that verify these claims? If the content only be derived from the primary material – i.e. by observing the regular characters, viewing the episodes in question, then I'm not sure these claims can be verified, as they seem to engage in novel synthesis. What if an editor were to contest that such-and-such a character was a regular, or a member of the core original cast? That is precisely why we need independent reliable sources. Skomorokh,  barbarian  00:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not synthesis, as I'm not putting in opinion. They appear in the opening title sequence, they are considered series regulars. They don't appear anymore and their character never comes back, they are considered gone. Each character's section goes into detail, and provides sources, as to their departure from the show. Please stop trying to wikilawyer the policy on verifiability and original research.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Identical twins
I'm not convinced that Aaron Ashmore and Shawn Ashmore are actually identical twins - can anyone find a RS to assert this? I see this, but I remain unconvinced -it's such a rare thing, I am somewhat skeptical simply because the fact isn't asserted elsewhere; we don't claim it in Aaron's article, although they are indeed in category:Identical twins  Chzz  ►  10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would assume that if the CW believes that they are identical twins, it's probably because it came up in conversation when they cast Aaron a few years after casting his brother on the show. The fact that they were born 1 minute a part, and look identical doesn't persuade you to think they're identical twins? Other than that, we have search results, more results. Probably something that needs to be addressed on their page, not here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't make assumptions on Wikipedia - we use reliable sources. I strongly suspect that the majority of those Google matches are based on people looking at this Wikipedia article - this is how myths propagate. The fact that they were born 1 minute apart indicates that they are twins. Roughly 2% of the population are twins, but 0.2% are identical - it's pretty rare. Twins often look very similar. Sorry - but without RS, I'm removing the word 'identical'.  Chzz  ►  00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then their articles need to make that, it's clear they are identical twins. The Google News search showed you a news article that identified them as identical twins.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the other articles may need fixing - but that's beside the point; this is the discussion page for this article. If they are indeed identical twins, do you not find it odd that only two minor newspapers have mentioned the fact? Do you think, perhaps, it is possible that those newspapers got their information from Wikipedia, or one of the other sites that has copied our material?  Chzz  ►  00:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could do some genetic testing. Oh wait, that would be original research. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep; good job we're interested in verifiable facts, not WP:TRUTH.


 * According to aaron-ashmore.com, and various other discussions on forums, they don't actually know themselves whether they are identical or fraternal.


 * Unreferenced information like this, on Wikipedia, is exactly how myths propagate - before you know it, a book will publish the 'fact', and then everyone will scream that there is a reliable source; unfortunately, many publishers do their research by reading Wikipedia, and circular references are commonplace.  Chzz  ►  14:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)