Talk:Smallville/Archive 1

Homoeroticism?
Why is there no section on the distinctly homoerotic overtones in Lex and Clark's relationship? As they share those long, tense pauses after Lex has just posed a difficult question which skirts close to uncovering Clark's ture identity - surely most viewers can see the analogy for unacknowledged homosexual love? I'd be interested to hear anyone's thughts on this. --82.44.21.151 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a section regarding the Lex/Clark relationship in this manner is pertinent to the article. As a viewer of Smallville, I personally have never noticed any supposed overtones throughout the series, though I am aware of other individuals' credence in the notion. Regardless, I don't believe it holds encyclopedic value for this article because it is not an established idea in the Smallville series. I know of other mediums whose fan bases have similar relationship questions (the Harry Potter series, for example, comes to mind); however, these respective articles do not divulge them. Angleterre 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Smallville Update!
I've taken up the Smallville series article and cleaned up most of the content. Let me present you the latest and significant changes and updates:


 * New Main Image for Smallville
 * New Structure for Seasons 1-5: Each one has its main section with specially developed TV Season Infobox, Episode list, Overview, Special Sections, Episodes with summary, music info and images
 * Characters Section
 * Smallville interest articles grouped in "See Also"
 * Smallville Nav Template
 * Television Season Template
 * Characters of Season 5
 * Places of Season 5
 * Smallville Opening Credits History (Completed! Seasons 1-5)
 * Opening Credits History (Now with its own article since it's really big!!)

Future updates by me will include:
 * Places of Season 1-5
 * Characters of Season 5
 * Seasons 1-5 Completed with every single episode and images

There's still a lot to do and as Clark said, "I can't do this alone", so I encourage all Smallville fans to unite for this cause and help with:
 * Characters Section Cleaning
 * Supporting Characters (Seasons One to Four)
 * Allusions to Superman Comic Books and Films
 * Remaining images for every episode of Seasons 1-4
 * Remaining images for every guest character of Seasons 1-4

If you need help or want to suggest ideas, feel free to use this section!

--Charlie144 07:43, October 18, 2005 (UTC)

Episodes
So I was bold in reverting the linking of every episode.

For some series, Wikipedia does have an article series for each episode. I think the potential for Smallville to have an article for each episode is limited. Maybe a separate article called "List of Smallville episodes" and having brief synopses there? Major plot points, such as "Clark reveals his secret to Pete in such-and-such episode" could be placed there as well. Just a suggestion. --Christopherlin 04:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Images?
Shouldn't there be at least some images to illustrate an article of this length? --Fritz S. 12:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Opening credits
Do we even need this section? Can't we just put a link in the see also section? It's kind of garish. Whispering 02:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the other article has since been merged. However, I still don't really see this section.  While I appreciate the time whoever took to take the screencaps and upload them, I don't think it adds any real value.  I think a single image of the entire main cast would be a better choice. -- PS2pcGAMER 11:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, a lot of shows change there opening credits, but you dont see pics of each of those credits on other pages. This is just more fancruft that should be removed. Tik 17:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment
Yeah, I don't really feel like logging in right now, but this is just an anonymous comment... lousy article. I know there are Smallville FANATICS out there, where are they? This article is pathetic and told me nothing about the tv show. Seriously. And yeah, the buncha images for the opening credits &mdash; silly! And yeah, garish. 24.196.19.87 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SPIKE arrives.


 * I agree, at the very least some general trivia (even about the huge amount of stars and guest stars from the movies, including Annette O'Toole) wouldn't be dismissed, it's far from the worst, but definatly can use a lot of data.--Kinglink 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Last Season?
I havent heard anything official but wanted to ask, is Season 5 the last season for smallville? There is a lot of substance left in the series still available to the characters and i wouldnt figure they would cancel the show yet. With the plots they are setting up and the animosity of the characters intensifying, i would think season 6 would be a better wrap up than any, since it would probably lead to the clarke graduating or starting work at the daily planet and becoming superman while the lex arc of spiraling into evil (one of the best storylines in the show) would also have enough tmie to evolve to what is currently the defacto Lex luthor. Tik 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Kent farm location
I've removed the part of the article that claims the Kent farm is in Cloverdale. Cloverdale is a part of Langley; basically, the western/southern part. (Actually, I may be wrong about this, it might be southeast Surrey. In fact, I think it *is* SE Surrey.) While this is where the city scenes are filmed, this is not where the Kent farm is located -- it's still in Langley, but much too far east to be considered Cloverdale. However, rather than correcting the location of the Kent farm I've removed it -- it's a private residence, after all. --Steven Fisher 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cloverdale, officially, is within Surrey's city limits but I guess some can say it spills over to neighbouring Langley as well. Personally, I consider it part of Surrey, as the "spillover" area in Langley is normally referred to as, well, Langley city. The Kent farm is definitely in Langley district (not to be confused with Langley city) though. The surroundings look too farmish to be Surrey, in my opinion. -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

About Clark's Powers
Question: I've seen what Clark can do on the series (Smallville) like throwing a tracter several miles, seeming like no more than a momentary blure when running, and making Super-Jumps, but I was wondering if anyone had any specific details about his abilities like the most he can lift, fastest he can run/fly in the Smallville Show like they have over in the article about Superman's Powers. Does anyone know?


 * I don't think they have put a limit on his power, they really haven't tested it (at least as far as the fourth season). In addition he's just gaining power, if you know of how the power work, he's like a battery so he's gaining them, he hasn't even reached the power to fly.  His speed isn't full force either, because at times he can run as fast as the flash but he's noticably slower.  I also don't believe he has the superbreath (cold breath) power yet either.--Kinglink 17:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast times?
Is there a reason an encyclopedia needs this information? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to leave it, or fork the page. The West Wing which has received Featured Article status has a page for it. Another FA, Arrested Development, also a section for it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

About the template
Hi guys, In order to avoid spoiling the plot to future visitors of the Smallville article, it'd be better to just mention the characters in the same block, thus removing the "Past Characters" part. I'm proceeding right now, since one of our fellow characters is dead, and it won't be necessary to spoil it anymore. Please add your comments. --Charlie144 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charlie. Just so people know, template discussion can be discussed at Template talk:Smallville. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
For an example of a properly attributed image see. Note it has a breif descripton of the image, including the episode its from and tv show. It tells you what website it was obtained from and gives you the exact page as a link. It tells you who owns the copyright and has the correct license tag. And most importantly it explains why i think its fair use in the article, in this case it illustrates the main plotline of the episode (cartman having an anal probe) and helps people identify cartman.

All of those things are required for fair use.

Theres no rush in tidying up the pages but as i mentioned before it needs to be on a to-do list for smallville editors.

Bignole you mentioned kryptonsites logo. sorry but thats inappropiate, the site should be properly referenced but that doesnt including using its logo. I have no idea what the sites logo looks like and neither will the average person, not to mention logos themselves have copyright issues wikiproject fairuse would go bananas. Just stick to text and links. Discordance 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I remember reading that if you have the permission from the copyright owner then it was ok to use the image, but, only if you have the permission of the owner. the logo is simply the sites name "kryptonsite". I have seen other pages that contained pictures with other website logos on them. I would have to assume that they had the express permission of the copyright owner to use said logo. You can go to my TALK page to see where he left permission. If you need an email addy to verify I have two that he left me ( I just erased them so that people trafficing through my page wouldn't send erronious emails. What I am saying is that if we get a picture from that site, since we now have permission, we do not have to crop the picture and remove the logo that was placed on the screencapture (since every picture we use comes from the episode itself, with exception being the top picture that usually is the DVD cover). Obviously we would still have to say what the picture is and where it came from in the upload section, just that now we can leave the logo, if there happens to be one there from kryptonsite.com. Bignole 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah its on the image, well in that case its ok to include if you have permission from the site owner and it would be wrong to crop the images. However as the images are from a copyrighted tv show it would be best to try to find clean images. Marked images are only suitable when theres no alternative, from the way you talk about the site i assume they have some exclusive images we wont be able to find anywhere else? When it comes to old episodes already aired the best source would be to take some screenshots off the dvd. Or some programs like southpark have screenshots of every episode on their official websites (southparkstudios.com) thats often a good source of images. Discordance 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be true for seasons 1 - 4, but, this is Season 5 and is an ongoing season. We update accordingly. The screencaptures they have are from trailers for the upcoming shows, not promotional photos (though they do receive promotional posters which one can be see at the top of Season 5 page). The only question is where to get the trailers for the upcoming episodes because sometimes they receive captures from trailers that have not aired yet, but, most of the time they have someone that captures the trailers that air right after that night's episode. The only difference with finding an unaltered photo is that it will probably be captured by a different person and thus it would probably not be the same photo. If you find the same photo on the net of a screencapture on more than one site it is either because the capturer is selling the photos or because other sites are stealing the photos. That is the problem with screencaptures. But, Kryptonsite usually acknowledges the people that supply them with the photos, but, the name is usually and alias. Bignole 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Filming locations' images
I took the bus to Cloverdale today and snapped several cell phone pics. While not high quality, I think those pics would be a neat addition to the filming locations section, however if they take up too much bulk, then feel free to move them to another page or something. -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are awesome! I hope everyone agrees we can keep them... Emily 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a really good camera phone if the pictures came out that well. I don't see what they couldn't be incorporated into the page. If there was a reason why not, I could only imagine that it would be because there is another page devoted to Smallville locations. But, I don't know of any. Bignole 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? My friend actually said those pics are pretty poor quality even for a cell phone camera. I'm just surprised nobody thought of taking some pics of the Cloverdale locations, as there are plenty of Vancouver-area Wikipedians around here. (EDIT: I'm going to see if I can get to the building for Smallville High in the near future. It's not that hard to get to; it's in a residential area of Vancouver proper, and not out in the Vancouver rural areas like Cloverdale.) -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Added a previously-orphaned photo of City Central, which was used for the LuthorCorp headquarters for season 3. This is also a cell phone shot but it's pieced together through 6 different shots, because the building is so huge... -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 08:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that the images are great. It fits into that section perfectly.  However, some may say it is a little to fancrufty (is that a word?), but since the article is fairly short anyway, I hope that wouldn't be a problem. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad for a cell phone?? Yeah right. It's not HDTV quality, but it's a cell phone it should not be. Unless you had some 3-400$ cell phone I wouldn't expect it to be awesome quality. It's in focus, contrast is good and you can make out everything. Keep up the good work.Bignole 12:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a pic of the university scenes used in the series. There's now an empty white spot in the gallery, but it will be filled up later, as I figured out the locations of Kent Farm and the bridge from the pilot where Clark gets hit by Lex. And, as noted before, I'm also going to try to get pics from "Smallville High." I have a feeling this gallery might be quite big, so moving it to its own separate page might be an idea to keep in mind. -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can, try adding more columns to the gallery so that they fit the whole page from right to left, then it will flow better (structure wise) with everything. Bignole 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, there's no way of doing that with the current format, although I can try converting it to a regular table. -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought about that myself, just setting up a normal table with pictures in the cells. Bignole 18:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kent farm is a private residence. I think you'd be best off leaving that one alone. --Steven Fisher 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, but of course the location won't be revealed publicly. Just a photo of the outside (which you see on the show anyway). There's no way in hell I'm going to reveal the exact location of the farm (or even close to it) because of like you said, it's a private residence. -- Buchanan-H e  rmit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK!  20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

...the Series is Based on
"series follows the adventures of the young Clark Kent in the town of Smallville before he became Superman." I believe this statement in the article is incorrect, I thought I recalled Loeb stating that the series is  a reimagining of the Superman universe in an adolescent world.
 * You would have to find the article. The only thing that I know is that Loeb and all other exec. producers have stated that Smallville is not Superboy, reimagined. In my opinion the statement is correct. It is about Clark Kent, not Superman, and the adventures he gets into while discovering his purpose on Earth. Bignole 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

General Zod
I'm not trying to heckle or be disrespectful, but I believe that Ausiello and kryptonsite.com have established that Zod will be in the season finale: http://www.tvguide.com/News/Ausiello/AskAusiello/default.htm?rmDate=03292006

Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but does that constitute speculation on my part, Bignole? Or does the fact that Jor-El and (possibly) Zod won't be in their own actual bodies in the episode discount their actual appearance on the show?

Question: Will we be seeing Zod or Jor-El this season on Smallville?
Ausiello: Yes, they'll both pop up in the season finale — but they won't be who we think they are. And here's another finale superscoop: Lois and another major character will end up on an airplane that's locked in autopilot — and there's only one person who knows where it's headed. (Hint: He looks like a platinum-topped vampire we once knew and loved.)

rlee1185 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, Ausiello has been wrong on many occassions and kryptonsite did nothing but provide that exact same quote that you just did. There has been no further report about Zod or Jor-el making an actual appearance in the episode. Also, as characters go, we treat it just like we do episode number, because anything can happen between now and when the episode airs. So, we don't say there have been 110 eps until there has been, because something could happen and the episode could get yanked for no reason at all, and never air. Is that likely, no, but wikipedia doesn't deal in probabilities, they deal in certainties. Technically, Jor-El has made an appearence since Season 2, when we heard his voice, but we are talking about physical presence and no one has confirmed either of them for the finale. If they are in the finale why hasn't a casting rumor been sent out? Bignole 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the education, Bignole. I'm still a newbie that's learning the ropes. rlee1185 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For someone that has been posting for over a year, I'll take that last comment as sarcasm. Bignole 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, if you notice the quality of my posts, you can tell that I'm still a newbie. I don't post very often, and when I do, there's always some room for improvement. I'm honestly not being sarcastic.rlee1185 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, don't worry about it. Just, when you go to make an edit about a show's future make sure the sources have more information that can verify what you are going to say. Bignole 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

History, Overview, and the rest
Most of these areas need to be slimmed down. The "History of the Show" section really needs to be slimmed down, and also broken into sub-sections. The pictures of the "real locations" need to be fixed and put back in, or removed altogether. There is no point in having a partially complete table of pictures. Bignole 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Overview reads almost stream of consciousness at some points. Definitely needs trimming.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History of the show seems to be more about the failed Batman project than Smallville. Worth a mention? Yes, but this isn't the place to go into that much detail. 70.167.19.131 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. All of that could be created into it's own page "Bringing Superheroes To The Small Screen" or something like that. Bignole 00:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the History section, overview, and new Series History section are looking much much better. With the help of Wisdom89, who has gone back through and cleaned up punctuation and grammatical errors, we have managed to eliminate a lot of the information that was not directly related to the show, and take what was already there and reword it to sound more efficient. Bignole 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind, I made some changes to the history bit. I have the series bible and have interviewed/spoken with people who were involved with the Bruce Wayne project. More can be found at http://www.kryptonsite.com/brucewayne . Alfred Gough and Miles Millar were never involved with Bruce Wayne, though Tollin-Robbins Productions was. No one was officially cast in the project. --69.111.36.56 08:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why delete the WHOLE Trivia (and what is wrong with it)??
Dear Bignole, why do you exterminate the whole Trivia section of that Smallville article without even go over and read thoroughly and reconsider them carefully? Although that whole stuff was terribly written like what you've just said, there are yet some clear points written on it are still relevant plus there are also some other points that might not have mention it from the respective Season pages! Maybe it must not be written in alphabetical form that prompted you to wipe them all out! So, PLEASE do think carefully before any appropriate action is taken by you or anyone else as well! Besides, those Trivia that I've added them took me over about two hours non-stop of full hardcore strenuous effort and hard work that I've put into so much! How terrible you are, Bignole!!! -onWheeZierPLot Tuesday, 4th July, 2006ad.


 * First, if you continue make personal attacks you will be reported. Second, always sign your comments. Next, most of that information is found on the respective Season pages, and does not need to be repeated here. Maybe next time you will come here to the Talk page before you add them, so that other editors can go through and rewrite them, remove duplicates and verify if there is even authenticity to your claims. Bignole 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, bother! You seem to be taking it too seriously! What are you talking about and what authority when you say and mean that I make personal attacks on you? You don't seem to make myself clear when all I just ever did was to make a reason on why the Trivia was not put up, isn't it? I am just giving a stressing plea and that's all! Why do you have to make a mountain out of a molehill for such a trivial matter? You are quite over-sensitive and very close to the attitude of small-heartedness. Besides, is the term "terrible" appears taboo to you? Please do stop it or else you will be reported as well! Such editor! "Sigh!" -onWheeZierPLot Tuesday, 4th July, 2006ad.
 * I'm not taking it too seriously. Any personal attacks, even ones as childish and umimportant as "How terrible you are, Bignole!!!" are equal in the eyes of Wikipedia. There is nothing that you can say that will bother me in reality, but for the purposes of Wiki, it's simple principle that one should not make personal attacks. I have not made such to you. The trivia isn't even real trivia, and what is real isn't important for this article. The name of the article is "Smallville (tv series)". More than half of what you have on there is Superman Trivia, not the tv series trivia. What you do have that is the tv series trivia is already mentioned on the dates that they occurred. Shelby, Brigette Crosby, they have been mentioned. Anything you have left isn't enough to even have a section of its own. Bignole 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My two cents: On Wheezier Plot, everyone is entitled to make modifications and contribute to articles on Wikipedia, but major rewrites or the inclusion of lengthy streams of text should be brought to the talk page first so that the main editors who constantly monitor the article can be notified of the changes and have time to respond so that ultimately a consensus can be reached. There are no binding rules that specifically dictate this, but it's just good faith practice since we're all supposed to be working together to improve these articles. You are being universally reverted because even when Bignole brought this to your attention you dismissed the idea of discussion and began making unilateral reverts. This is unacceptable, and is in clear violation of WP:3RR. Wisdom89 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's look at this section by section, shall we:

*Bly, Nellie: Pioneering female investigative journalist, popular in the late 19th century and hero of Clark's pal Chloe, is also a former editor of Smallville High's student newspaper, The Torch.
 * Chloe's fascination with Nellie Bly is mentioned on the episode she first talks about her. Even then it is unimportant, because Chloe has no existence in the Superman world outside of this show, and her future has yet to be written.

'''*Crosby, Bridgette: Colleague of scientist Virgil Swann (Christopher Reeve, see Virgil Swann in this Trivia), played by Margot Kidder. Crosby tells Martha Kent she had a relationship with Swann "in a different lifetime," a nod to the Superman movies, in which Kidder played Lois Lane to Reeve's Superman.'''
 * This is noted in Season 4, when she first appears. Not necessary for this article.

*Guest Stars: The Who's Who of young guest stars on Smallville has included Desperate Housewives Jesse Metcalfe, The O.C.s Adam Brody and Losts Evangeline Lilly and Ian Somerhalder.
 * This is noted in the "overview" section of this article. We don't need to go into detail of which guest stars are which, that was just create a lone list.

*Ian Somerhalder: Before boarding Oceanic Air Flight 815, Somerhalder (who played Boone in that show) did a six-episode arc on Smallville as Adam Knight''', a mysterious newcomer sent by Lionel Luthor to keep tabs on Clark. There was much Internet speculation that his name was a nod to Batman (Adam West played the Dark Knight on TV in the 1960s). "That was people's imaginations running wild," says executive producer Al Gough. "But we didn't go out of our way to dispel that!"'''
 * Unimportant for this article. They never created the character of Bruce Wayne and the fact that he MIGHT have once been intended to be so in irrelivant from how he turned out.

'''*Justice League Allusions: Two superfriends hinted at a future Justice League of America when they showed up in Smallville. In Season Four, Bart Alien, aka the Flash, suggested that he and Clark find other super-powered types and "start, like, a club or a league or something." In Season Five, Aquaman-in-training Arthur Curry proposed he and Clark start a Junior Lifeguard Association, to which Clark responded, "I'm not sure I'm ready for the JLA just yet."'''
 * All JLA and superhero references are mentioned on their respective episodes, not part of this article.

*Lex Luthor, Lana Lang and Lois Lane: Legend has it that the initial L''' are most prevalent in Superman's world were a tribute to a girlfriend or unrequited love of one of the character's creators. Smallville producers put their own spin on it with Chloe Sullivan - the only main character created for the series - who has the double L embedded in her last name.'''
 * This is comic book trivia. This is not unique to the show. Chloe's name is mere speculation, there is no proof that there intention was to keep the 'LL' by putting it in the middle of her last name.

*Oscar Nomination: Annette O'Toole, who plays Clark's mum, Martha Kent, was nominated for an Academy award in 2004ad for co-writing the song "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from the film "A Mighty Wind." O'Toole wrote the song with her husband, Michael McKean, who guest-starred on Smallville as a tabloid journalist (and future Daily Planet editor) Perry White.
 * This should be kept to her particular page, and the Michael McKean part should be listed on his respective episode.

*Richard Donner Connection': Director of four Superman'' movies back in the 1970s and 1980s. "The first Superman movie was hugely influential for us," says Gough, who, with producing partner Miles Millar, worked with Donner on 1998ad's Lethal Weapon 4. Donner "was always trying to ground the character," Gough reveals. "He wanted Clark Kent and Superman to feel real, like they could exist in the world."'''
 * This isn't trivia, it's a quote from Gough. It isn't trivia.

'''*Terence Stamp: British actor who provides the voice of Jor-El, Clark's biological father. Stamp's connection to Superman mythology runs deep: He played General Zod (see Zod in this Trivia) in the first two Superman movies.'''
 * Noted on his first "appearance".

*Uncle Fester: Pete's nickname for the bald Lex Luthor.
 * Unencyclopedic. It's irrelevant.

'''*Virgil Swann: Reclusive billionaire who taught Clark about the fate of planet Krypton. Swann was played by the ultimate Superman, the late Christopher Reeve.'''
 * Noted on his first appearance.

*X-Ray Vision: Clark's ability to see through anything - except lead.
 * Not trivia, known fact.

No Flight, or No Flights?
Google shows 263 hits on "No Tights, No Flights" (which is the version I always heard) and only 49 for "No Tights, No Flight". Among the 263 is http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue308/interview.html in which Alfred Gough is quoted as using the plural version. Can anyone document evidence for the single version? --Keeves 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If Gough is quoted as such then ok. I always thought it was singular. Bignole
 * Thanks. Now changing. --Keeves 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Guest stars
The show had two doctors in which their last names were taken from the comics: Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Teng. However, the comics was Emil Hamilton, rather than Stephen Hamilton. I'm not too sure abou the comics Dr. Teng. Should these be added in the comic guest stars, even though it's not really the same character?--CasimirAngel 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one was Dr. Teng again? Hamilton (I believe) was a nod to the comic character, but they weren't really the same. I think it would be ok if it was noted that it wasn't quite the same. Then again, none were quite the same. For him, I think it's ok to list him appropriately. Bignole


 * Dr. Teng in the comics I think helped clone Lex into his so-called son (although it was really him). Dr. Teng in smallville helped Lionel out with analyzing Clark's blood and the whole storyline with Adam and his resurrection.  I'm not sure if they were both female though.  --CasimirAngel 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Teng was a man in the comics. But, seeing as in Smallville Dr. Teng is helping Lex, and in the comics Dr. Teng helps Lex, and both have similar jobs with genetics, I would say it's safe to go ahead and list Dr. Teng as well, just note that one is female and one is male. Bignole 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Character basis
I agree that the dispute needs to be mentioned, and the overview section seems like the most logical location for it. However, the contention between the two parties does not have any bearing on which character Smallville is based on. If the creators say Superman, then it is Superman. After this has been stated, then we can go on to mention the legal conflict. Wisdom89 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "If the creators say Superman, then it is Superman" is unsupportable. There is a serious, active, legal case where the other side argues that it is *not* based on Superman.  You cannot take one side in a dispute like this and portray the side's claims as established fact, just because that side includes the creators.  Once the case is over, we will know who the series is based on.  Right now, it could be either character. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If this was such a "serious" case then why hasn't the show been put on hold until the matter is cleared? Usually, when there is such supportable evidence to the contrary of what a company is doing and cease and desist is placed until the outcome of the trial. The show is not about either Superman or Superboy, and Gough has said that. It is based on Clark, and how he becomes Superman, not Superboy. Has he ever put on a suit like Superboy? No. Has anyone ever refered to him as Superboy? No. Has anyone done the same thing for Superman? No. This is about Clark and his growth as a person, not as Superman/Superboy's adventures. As far as the wording goes, until there is some legal ruling that says otherwise, you go by what is said by who produces the show. You can note that there is a legal battle over the basis for the show, but you don't write it to read "either/or". It is one, and until a trial says otherwise, it is the original one. Bignole 15:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the other half of the rights was Shuster's, and DC still retains that half. So DC may create Smallville even if it's based on Superboy; being based on Superboy only affects having to pay the Siegels, not whether the series can be produced at all. If it isn't based on either one, then the sentence "Smallville is based on the DC Comics character Superman" is incorrect and should be removed. Ken Arromdee 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, please learn that you do not separate other user's comments just so you can respond to each statement. If you must, then you quote them. Secondly, if the Siegals wish, since they own the rights, they can vie for it not to air, or sell their rights to Warner Brothers. Yes, WB not DC created Smallville. The "based" on was my fault, he never said "based", he was refering to what the show was about. Either way, if WB says it's based on Superman than it is unless a judge finds otherwise. Just becuase someone goes to court doesn't mean that it all of a sudden becomes ambiguous about what it is based on. When Dan Brown went to court for the Da Vinci Code, his book didn't become known as "Plagarized Novel" or "Stolen Research Novel" just because he was in court for that. Bignole 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sources online seem to contradict. Some say that Siegel and Shuster had the Superboy rights; some say it was Siegel alone.  If the rights are jointly owned, then the Siegels cannot say it can't air.  Jointly owned rights don't work that way; each copyright owner may grant a non-exclusive license.  At any rate, it is not true that restraining orders are always requested or granted for copyright disputes.
 * Your Da Vinci Code comparison is bad because the Wikipedia article for the book didn't say "this is a non-plagiarized book". The lawsuit didn't assert anything which contradicted what Wikipedia said about the book.  If Wikipedia had said "the Da Vinci code is not a plagiarized book" it would be perfectly reasonable to remove that and, until the end of the lawsuit, say that there is dispute as to whether it is plagiarized. Ken Arromdee 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Wiki said that. It's called an analogy, and what I said was that just because he was in court doesn't mean that when you describe his book you have to describe it as potentially plagarized. You cite it as what it is, and then you create a section detailing the apparent court battle over the dispute. Just because they believe Smallville is based on Superboy, and WB says that it's based on Superman, doesn't mean that it should be labeled as either/or. If a court finds that it is then you change it, because WB will be forced to recognize it for what it is. Who owns the rights to the show? Warner Brothers. Who gets to say what it is based on? WB. Unless a court rules that it is falsely based on Superman, so as to not pay the owners of Superboy, then you cannot contradict what WB says. If I write a book based on "John Doe", and afterward another John Doe comes along and claims that my book is based on his life because there are similar events, you cannot simply label my book as being based on that particular "John Doe" just because he claims so. If a court rules that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it is based on that "John Doe" then you can say that, but, just because someone disputes something doesn't entitle their opinion to be part of the description. (Hypothetical Analogy) What if WB owned the rights to Clark Kent, Shuster owned the rights to Superman and Siegel owned the rights to Superboy. The WB creates a show, "Smallville", and in their show is Clark Kent, who has superpowers (which he always did) but never wears a costume and is never refered to as "super" anything. Say Shuster and Siegel both sue: one sues for it being based on Superman and the other for Superboy. Two separate lawsuits. You are you saying that we should now say "Smallville is either based on Clark Kent, Superman, or Superboy"? That doesn't make sense, it's unencyclopedic. It's one or the other, not all three. Bignole 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are three competing, serious, claims about what the series is based on, then, yes, you should say "Smallville is either based on Clark Kent, Superman, or Superboy". It's not Wikipedia's job to state that one of those claims is true and the others are not. You cannot say that WB should be considered a definitive source due to them owning the rights; first of all, you don't actually know they own the rights (as the rights are part of what is being disputed), and second, we don't always automatically believe the word of the rights owner. For instance, in Baby Ruth we report the company's claim that the candy bar was named after Grover Cleveland's daughter, but we don't treat that as a fact, and there isn't even a lawsuit involved. People can lie or be mistaken about their own properties. Ken Arromdee 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the dispute isn't over the rights to the show, it's over what the show is based on. WB owns the rights to the show and to Superman. If they say the show is based on Superman then that is what it is based on, unless a court proves otherwise. You are saying that if anyone comes along and says that someone is basing something on their idea that they should get partial credit or consideration when describing said object just because they claim to own the basis for said object. In that case any Joe Blow with a copyright on something could claim that. Wikipedia is not in the business of claiming both sides as if they were both correct. It's an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia's produce current facts until otherwise refuted. Current fact is that WB owns Smallville, no ifs ands or buts about it, and they own Superman. Shuster/Siegel own Superboy. They claim (claim being the key word) that a product of WB is based on something they own. WB, who owns and produces the show, has never marketed as such and claims that it is not based on what they own. Since the show is property of WB, and the object they claim it is based on is their's as well, the reserved right of fact goes to WB. If a judge rules differently then it gets changed. You can't just go around saying "it's either this, that, or the other" just because there is a lawsuit about disputes of character basis. That isn't how an encyclopedia works. You can create a section articling the lawsuit and what it is over, but just because there is one does not mean that all references to the show must now be changed to reflect the "possibility" that it may be based on something else. Bryan Singer released the actual budget for Superman Returns, but does mean we must ignore him because others (not part of WB) claim it's different. No. He is the leading representative for that information, like WB is the leading representative for what THEIR SHOW is based on. Bignole 04:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The dispute *does* involve the rights to the show. The show being based on Superboy is used to support the claim that the Siegels have the rights to the show.
 * As for the rest, you've been repeating and repeating that since WB makes the show we have to take them at their word for statements about it. That's not true.  We ignore what a company says *all the time* for perfectly valid reasons.  There's not only the Baby Ruth reference, but The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohan says the Prisoner is not John Drake, but we describe that as one of several opinions, not as fact), or even Batman (DC Comics is contractually obliged to say Batman is solely created by Bob Kane, but we don't take DC's version as truthful).  WB is certainly *a* source for what their show is based on, but they're not the only one and what they say doesn't have to be accepted blindly just because WB says it.  Your claim that since WB makes Smallville, we have to accept what they say about it is something you're just making up.  It is not how Wikipedia deals with sources. Ken Arromdee 06:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit isn't about who owns Smallville. If Smallville is based on Superboy that doesn't make the Siegel own the show, that just means they get money for character basis. There is a difference between own the show outright and having to pay people to use their character and owning the show because it is your character. If the Siegels win the lawsuit they don't win the rights to Smallville, they just win money for Smallville using their character. That is a big difference, so WB does OWN the show and get first word. Is there a lawsuit pending on the Baby Ruth? Batman? The Prisoner? about who/what it's based on/created by? No. That is why there is a clear definition for those. You are confusing media here. The Prison was created by two people, who disagreed about who the character was based on. That is why there is a debate and confusion over it's basis. Smallville was created by two people, both of whom (including the exects at WB) agree that it is based on Superman, not Superboy. The creators have the right to say what it is based on, THEY CREATED IT. The Siegels are trying to claim it's based on Superboy, not Superman, simply because it takes place while Clark is a teen. They are not connected to the show in any other way than the fact that they created some of the characters (which they are given credit for, just not for Superboy, because that isn't what the show is based on). Now, if they had worked on the project, helped to collaborate, or in some degree had a true connection (like Patrick McGoohan & George Markstein, being two people that created it but have opposing views) then it would deserve to be stated as such. But, when the creators, the producers, and the owners all state that the show is based on Superman, and the only people to oppose them are people that are seeking money and don't work on the show, they have the right. As for Bob Kane and Finger, well you'll just have to tell Finger not to sign a contract that says those things. Part of Kane's contract was that he would receive a byline with his name on the comics, and over time it became "created by". That is merely a misconception, because people misinterpreted his name being on the comics. But that is neither here nor there, because it isn't a battle about who created the character, but what the character is based (in which only your Prisoner example works). Baby Ruth's name contraversy is in part because it didn't make sense to anyone, even at that time. It was created around the time Babe Ruth was playing, and no where near when Grover Cleveland was in office. Again, the only good example is The Prisoner. But the difference is that it's own creators can't agree on where the character comes from; Smallville creators agree, as do the producers and all of WB. The only disagreement is from the Siegels who are seeking monetary retribution for what THEY believe is a usage of a character they own. That is why it reads the way it does. There isn't some big contraversy over what the show is based on, just a simply lawsuit with the Siegels. There isn't mass confusion over at WB about what it is based on. So, as I said, the lawsuit about character basis would be fine for a section, but not as the description because everyone that matters is in agreement about where it is based. The owners, creators, everyone except one outside family that has no connection to this show other than creating some of the characters (in which they get credit for). Bignole 14:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are we suddenly required to just have one statement? Why not mention contraversy? (Person X sais Y but Person Z sais A.) ---J.S (t|c) 16:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you go back and read I said that it would be find to have a section articling the contraversy (which is only with the Siegels), and the development of the lawsuit as it pans out further. But, when describing the shows, in the introduction, you don't start going through all the opinions about it's basis. It is what it is, and since there is no dispute at WB, or with the creators, then there is no dispute in the intro. Just because someone finds a dispute with it doesn't mean that from then on the show must be refered to as "being based on either/or". You'd have dozens of shows that way just because someone decided to sue. Noting them in a section provided for that kind of stuff is fine, but when a court hasn't decided legally that is is otherwise, and the only people disputing it are ones not affliated with the show itself, then there is no right to acknowledge it as an actual ambiguity. Bignole 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"The creators have the right to say what it is based on, THEY CREATED IT."

Again, THIS ISN'T TRUE. There is no Wikipedia policy which says that the creators' word must be accepted over someone else's. I've already given examples where we don't do that at all.

"You'd have dozens of shows that way just because someone decided to sue."

Really? Name some. This sort of thing is pretty rare, at least if we're not talking about obviously frivolous lawsuits. This isn't just some guy off the street claiming WB ripped him off.

"Why are we suddenly required to just have one statement? Why not mention contraversy?"

I tried to do that. Bignole would only be satisfied if the article claimed as a fact that the series was based on Superman and described the controversy later. It shouldn't be claiming this as fact in the first place since it isn't established as fact. Ken Arromdee 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is is a fact that the show is based on either Superman or Superboy? Where is the fact that Superboy is even a contender to qualify as what the show is based on? Just because he's Superboy, or just because there is a lawsuit. How can you say that the creators have no right to say what they based it on? How can you say that the owners of the show and of the Superman character have no right to be taken as fact? You are saying that the only way to establish something as fact is for a lawsuit to settle it. Fine, then I guess Buffy the Vampire Slayer really isn't based on the film Buffy the Vampire Slayer, because there hasn't been a lawsuit disputing it that was resolved in it's favor. You are the only editor here that wants to change the article to say "either or" while others have disagreed. Just because there is a lawsuit does not mean that the show's basis is now in question. Even the "legal" section of Superboy doesn't say that the show is based on Superboy.
 * "The ruling throws into question the ownership of Smallville episodes that have run since that date. At stake is a potentially sizable portion of profits from the Smallville TV program. On the other hand, besides a few throw-away references made as in-jokes, the Clark Kent character on Smallville has not been consistently identified as "Superboy", and it is unclear yet whether the ruling covers all appearances of a youthful Clark, costumed or otherwise. "
 * This says that they may be entitled to money because the show depicts a young Clark Kent, not Superboy. But because Superboy is a teenage Clark Kent that used his powers for good means they may be entitled to money because of the similarities, regardless of the basis for the character. He can be based on Superman, but because he's a teenage Clark Kent saving the day (ala Superboy) the Siegels would be entitled to "likeness rights", so to speak. The lawsuit has never been about what the show is based on, but what the show is showing. They are arguing that Smallville is infringing on the Siegels rights to Superboy. The fact that Clark is a teenage, saving the day gives them a case of copyright infringment. They have never contended that the show was based on Superboy, just that the show is showcasing Superboy without a costume. The sentence isn't about what she show is about, it's about what the show was based on. Gough and Miller pitched an idea of a young Clark Kent and his maturation into the man, Superman; they did not pitch and idea of Superboy in Smallville. Thus, that is why the show is based on Superman, and not Superboy. Now, a section detailing it's infringment on the character rights of Superboy is completely different than saying that Gough and Miller based their idea on Superboy. Also, just to point out, Superboy is based on Superman. Regardless of what the show entails it is still based on Superman. Now, its exploits are a different matter, because many story arcs parallel both Superman and Superboy (i.e. Lex in the White House (Superman), Lex and Clark friends as teens (Superboy)). Bignole 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
I've been asked to give a third opinion on this dispute. Quite frankly, there's a very simple solution to this - NPOV. Ideally, it should be worded on the form "Group X claims that Smallville is based on Superman because... [cite source showing that they do], while group Y claims that it is based on Superboy because... [cite source showing that they do].", and so on, until all the points of view have been covered. Both of you have shown extensive knowledge of at least one side of the debate; put it into the article instead of slinging it back and forth on the talk page! Make it clear that there is a dispute, and furthermore, make it clear what that dispute is, and who support each side. It may be advantageous to take the entire paragraph out of the overview, and expand it into a section in it's own right about the roots and inspirations of the show. --Scott Wilson 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I fully and completely support this form of balancing the issue. There's a lot of semantics that are being argued throughout this talk page - but that is just what they are - semantics.  The method itself is quite sound, and I fully support it. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be fine, but claims for the lawsuit were not about the basis for Smallville, they were about copyright infringement of the character. The basis is clear, it's Superman. The basis for Superboy is Superman. What it is based on should be not in question, because that isn't what the lawsuit pertains to, but, Ken wants it to read as if that is the dispute. The dispute is over whether Smallville is infringing on Siegel's rights to Superboy, not whether Smallville is based on Superboy. It can't be based on Superboy and not be based on Superman, since Superboy is itself based on Superman. That is why I think there should be a section detailing the lawsuit as it is, possible copyright violation with characters. The article's sentence is about the show itself, not about Clark Kent and who he is personally based on. It reads, "Smallville is based on the DC Comics character of Superman." It does not say "Clark Kent is based on Superman". Group Y and Group X are not arguing over what Smallville is based on, but whether it is violation copyrights with similarities with the characters and story-arcs. The original lawsuit was about who owned the rights to Superboy, which was decided that the Siegel owned the rights. Smallville was around well before the suit was settled and the Siegels retained the rights to Superboy. The next step has been to establish if Smallville violates copyright because of similarities, which a lawsuit hasn't been filed yet on that behalf, and which has nothing to do with the basis for Smallville, just the similarities. Bignole 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "It can't be based on Superboy and not be based on Superman, since Superboy is itself based on Superman."
 * This is another false statement. Superboy and Superman are, according to the law, considered different characters.  It most certainly can be based on Superboy but not on Superman (and it can also be based on both).  While within the story, Superboy is the same person as Superman, from a real-life legal viewpoint they are considered distinct characters, with different ownership, different creators, and different licensing.
 * I suggest you look up the Superboy copyright FAQ at http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/08/02/superboy-copyright-faq/.
 * You are assuming that because the comics say that Superboy grows up to be Superman, Superboy and Superman are the same character. This isn't true.
 * As for your Buffy comparison, if there was a currently active, clearly non-frivolous lawsuit where someone claimed that the Buffy TV show is not based on the movie, yes, we should avoid stating as a fact that the TV show is based on the movie. Ken Arromdee 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Scott, I am perfectly happy with your suggested solution. But Bignole won't allow that.  He wants the section to state as fact that Smallville is based on Superman, and to only describe the dispute later.  This is the wording I last put in, before it was removed (by someone else):


 * DC Comics claims that Smallville is based on the DC character Superman. However, the heirs of Jerry Siegel claim the show is based on the character Superboy, of which the Siegels, as has been ruled in a recent lawsuit, own the rights. Superboy and Superman are considered legally distinct characters, even though in the fictional context, Superboy is a younger version of Superman.


 * This seems to pretty much agree with what you are saying. It points out, in a NPOV way, that there are two different parties who make two different claims about what the series is based on.  But when I tried to put it in, it got changed back. Ken Arromdee 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * False statement? Do you not understand the concept of being "based" on something. If Superboy is based on Superman. If he was a completely different character, with no basis from Superman, then why does he have all the same powers, basically the same name, same parents, same friends, same enemies? There is a difference between being based on something and just being outright the same thing. Superboy is not Superman, but he is based on Superman. The whole concept of Superboy is derived from Superman. Ownership of said character can be different than who owns Superman, legally, but that doesn't mean thst Superboy wasn't based on Superman. Being based on something doesn't mean that the ownership of it goes to whom it is based on. All ownership states is who owns the character itself, not what the character is based on. There are different rights for different things. Don't assume I mean something unless I say so. I did not say that they are the same character, I said one was based on the other. Regardless, you want to change the sentence that states that Smallville is based on Superman. First, the lawsuit by the Siegels was about who owns Superboy, not about Smallville. Second, there is no current lawsuit against WB about a copyright infringement with Smallville and Superboy. No one has filed one as of yet. Third, general talk about the infringement has nothing to do with denying what Smallville was based on, merely what the show is depicting. If it's based on Clark Kent becoming Superman, not Superboy, then that is what it is based on. BUT, if it depicts elements of the Superboy universe, without giving just recognition and compensation to owners for that use, then it is violating copyright of Superboy. The only thing that has connected the two mediums has been when the Siegels lawyer stated "we have enough evidence to show that Clark Kent is Superboy". Again, not questioning the basis for the show, just the basis of a character. The sentence in the article dictates what the SHOW is based on, not who Clark Kent is based on. You keep saying that the Siegels claim that Smallville is based on Superboy, but there is no lawsuit for that, and even their own lawyer was refering to Clark Kent being based on Superboy, not the show itself. There is a difference between an entire show being based on something, and one character of that show. Also, the lawsuit decided that the Siegels own Superboy, not Smallville. The only thing that is now up for grabs is if DC/WB owe the Siegels money for all episodes aired after November 2004. Since the show started back in 2001, it's basis is not in question, as regardless of what is going on now, the Siegels didn't own the rights to Superboy (which WB never claimed it was based on anyway) back when the show first aired. Bignole 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "If Superboy is based on Superman. If he was a completely different character, with no basis from Superman, then why does he have all the same powers, basically the same name, same parents, same friends, same enemies?"
 * Because the courts have said that Superboy is a different character. In 1947, the court ruling said that Siegel and Shuster did not have the rights to Superman, but did have the rights to Superboy, so DC had to buy the rights from them.  Because of how copyright extensions work, if DC had to buy the rights from them they get to reclaim the rights during the copyright extension period.  They are considered different characters legally.


 * To quote the FAQ:


 * But isn’t Superboy just a derivitive work of Superman?


 * Perhaps, under traditional circumstances, this would be the case. This, though, is anything [but] traditional circumstances.


 * The FAQ goes on to explain that legal considerations meant that Superboy and Superman are considered separate characters. This one was decided almost 60 years ago.  They are not the same character, even if they are both Clark Kent.  You are confusing "the story says that Superman and Superboy are the same person" with "Superman and Superboy are the same character".


 * "Second, there is no current lawsuit against WB about a copyright infringement with Smallville and Superboy. No one has filed one as of yet."


 * Do you think I would have written all of this if no lawsuit had been filed? The claims about Smallville were part of the ongoing Superboy lawsuit.  http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=1&id=35291 .  "Still to be resolved is the question of whether Smallville—now in its fifth season—is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, which was filed in 2004".  Ken Arromdee 15:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the courts decided that his ownership was legally separate from Superman's as punishment for what DC did to Jerry Siegel when he first proposed Superboy. As per what the FAQ was describing, that normally it would fall under as a deritive work, but this isn't a traditional circumstance, because DC refused to develop a Superboy comic when Siegel came to them, but while he was away in the Armed Forces, they developed it anyway. Secondly, Jerry Siegel, and the family, do not own the rights to the Superman Shield, nor do they own the rights to Clark Kent, or to the name "Superboy". The character was based on Superman. His basis has nothing to do with who owns him, or any legality, it's a simple statement explaining where he is derived from. The lawsuit was not about Smallville, it was about who owned Superboy. There was an extension passed on the copyright laws, and that was what was in dispute. The court ruled that the Siegels were still in their time frame to reclaim ownership of Superboy. The next "proposed" lawsuit is whether Smallville falls under the Superboy ownership, because the Superboy comic copyrighted the "Smallville: Home of Superboy" billboard. The lawsuit is not about what Smallville is based on; it's about if Smallville is infringing on the copyright of Superboy now that the Siegels own the rights again. You want to change the sentence to read as if the show was based on Superboy, which WB and the creators say that it wasn't. Regardless of whether or not it violates copyrights it still doesn't change what it was based on when it was created. The sentence is used to explain where it comes from for non-fans (part of the NPOV of Wikipedia). It explains that the show is based on a character and place that was created way before Superboy was. Now, explaining that the show has a potential copyright violation lawsuit against it is great to note, but it doesn't change what it is based on. The point of being "based on" something is to explain it's origins, it's foundation, not to describe what it is currently. I reworded the paragraph to explain the current situation of the Siegels, and I even used the link you provided to cite the information. Bignole


 * "The lawsuit is not about what Smallville is based on"


 * Try the Newsarama story: http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/SuperboyCompl.htm
 * Unfortunately it has a typo at a critical point, but it's clear this sentence means to refer to Superboy, since Superman isn't a "super-powered youth":
 * "The claim then states that The WB’s Smallville is also derivative of Siegel’s Superman materials, pulling many, if not identical characteristics from Siegel’s original story outlines including a super-powered youth anonymously doing good while trying to protect his identity and abilities from discovery."
 * The lawsuit *is* about what Smallville is based on.


 * "The sentence is used to explain where it comes from for non-fans (part of the NPOV of Wikipedia)."
 * NPOV means a neutral point of view. If there are competing claims made about something, we must report both claims.  We should not report one claim as fact.
 * In this case the competing claims are "Smallville is based on Superman" and "Smallville is based on Superboy". NPOV requires that both of these be stated as competing claims and that neither of them be described as fact in preference to the other.  That is what I want to do, and that is what you won't let me do. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Try finding a source without a typo, cause even your own link (where you provided how the copyright for Superboy is with the Siegels) explains that it isn't about what Smallville is based on, but if the show currently violates the Superboy copyright. There is not "current" lawsuit, but a possible lawsuit that, as their lawyer stated, is about whether Smallville (the place) falls under Superboy's copyright, because of a simple billboard that was printed in the comic explaining that Smallville is the home of Superboy. Your only link is from a magazine that paraphrase what THEY thought was happening, when your other link, and many I have found that quote lawyers never mention that. Stating Smallville is based on Superman is not incorrect, or anything less than fact. Also, NPOV is also about removing fanboy information and making the article more knowledgible to those that don't follow the comics. Superboy is based on Superman, regardless of the fact that a court deemed him a separate character out of punishment for DC's poor business actions against Jerry Siegel. Smallville was first mentioned in Superman, thus Smallville is based on that character. The point is to keep it straight forward and simple, and that is why it is based on Superman. If a court literally finds that it is "based on Superboy" then it's fine to change it, but you keeping saying we must change it just cause there is an opposing view point. Opposing viewpoints should be noted, but not in the way you are trying to make them. A section detailing a current battle over the rights to Smallville is what is appropriate, not changing the wording that has been there since the show started. The show was in existence for 3 years before the rights to Superboy changed hands, and in that time it was never mentioned to be about or based on Superboy, and was constantly negated by the creators and producers as being of those. It should be noted that there is a dispute over ownership, but you are trying to make a difference of a opinion a fact. It isn't one or the other, it's just one, and currently it stands that the one it is is Superman, not Superboy. You keep missing the point that there is no current lawsuit against Smallville, only speculation as to what could happen if something isn't settled. What you are doing is introducing speculation into the article. If you read your own link, under where it describes the Siegels claims in that very lawsuit, you will see that there is no mention of Smallville, only of Superboy. Further, you will see that "DC admitted that it had, in August 2004, asserted the unfettered right to see to the production and distribution of new Smallville episodes". As of this moment, there is no hold or dispute over Smallville, so what DC claims is what is fact, since they own it. Fact is always subjective, no matter how you look at it, because it's all about preception, and until a jury finds otherwise, the perception is that Smallville is Superman, not Superboy. This is the last thing I am going to say on the matter;
 * I think a good section detailing the any actions past, present, or future against Smallville by the Siegels and their newly acquired rights to Superboy is what is appropriate for the page. Claiming the show is based on either this or that is for one thing poor quality. The Siegels are the only ones disputing anything (and they have never said Smallville is based on Superboy, only that Smallville should be part of the Superboy rights). I think you are passionate enough about the subject matter to create a good section for this page, and I implore you to seek out multiple sources and provide that section. You already have 2 sources on this page, and I found almost half a dozen good sources by simply googling "Smallville lawsuit". Bignole 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I was aware, Superboy in any form of media is never seen, or "followed" through the storyline, growing up. Therefore Superboy is while derive from Superman is a completely different charactly because he never becomes Superman, although it is assumed he eventually does, he never did. Superman never puts on the costume until he has grown up, however, he did still have powers, and did still use them. Siegel is argueing that Smallville is based upon Superboy because it takes place when Clark Kent is young, even though in every version of Superboy he wears the suit. WB is argueing that Smallville is based upon Superman even though it does revolve around a young clark kent, because he never flies, and never puts on the suit. It is NOT possible, that the Clark Kent in Smallville, is just "some other" Clark Kent, because we did see him in a first-person view in the episode with the kid that could see peoples death's flying in a cape


 * Not really sure where you are actually going with any of that, but, the Siegels (not Siegel, he is dead) are not arguing about the basis of the show. They are arguing about Clark Kent himself. They are saying that Smallville's Clark Kent is actually THEIR Superboy. WB/DC contend that Smallville's Clark is just Clark, and that he is neither Superboy or Superman at this moment. The point of the lawsuit is to determine if any incarnation of Clark, before adulthood, is considered an interpretation of Superboy and thus part of the Siegels' ownership. Bignole 11:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An important fact in this argument. Early Superman comics game minimal information about the childhood of Clark Kent. It was in Superboy comics that it was first established that Clark Kent grew up in a small town called Smallville.--Drvanthorp 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No one disputed that. That's like saying if they did a show about the Justice League of America, and the vast majority of it revolved around the town of Smallville, then that must mean the JLA tv show is based on Superboy. Having aspects based on, or straight stolen from, another source doesn't dictate the basis for an entire show. Either way, the section has been reworded to comply with NPOV. So it's over with now. Bignole 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Smallville based on Superboy/Superman
This is a dispute about whether to state that Smallville is "based on the character Superman", or to state that there are two competing claims as to what character Smallville is based on, one being Superman and another being Superboy. 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * The basis of Smallville is a matter of legal contention between the heirs of Jerry Siegel and DC Comics. DC claims that the series is based on Superman.  The Siegels claim it is based on Superboy, to which the Siegels have recently won a ruling reclaiming the rights.  (Because of a court ruling, Superboy and Superman are not considered the same character, nor is Superboy a derivative of Superman, even though Superboy grows up to be Superman and both are Clark Kent.)
 * Since which character the series is based on is seriously disputed, the article should not describe as fact that the series is based on one character, but should use a neutral phrasing such as "DC Comics claims that Smallville is based on the DC character Superman. However, the heirs of Jerry Siegel claim the show is based on the character Superboy". Ken Arromdee 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming that there is a dispute about Smallville being based on Superboy/Superman. There is no such legal dispute. They have not claimed that, nor has a lawsuit been filed. The only thing that has been considered is if Smallville is part of the Superboy copyright, or if it falls under Superman. No one has claimed that Smallville is based on Superboy, outside of magazines and websites that are inferring from discussion. No lawyers, or the Siegels have disputed what the show is based on, only made comments that it could fall under the copyright of Superboy. Stop construing what is actually said to support your view. Your own links even explain that what COULD be a possible lawsuit (not what is actually one, cause one does not exist) is that the show may fall under the copyright of Superboy, because Smallville was first mentioned in Superboy. No where in there has any claim been made that the CW show is actually based on Superboy. Stop trying to word things to the effect that it has. Bignole 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to help out, here are links to many websites discussing the case and quoting the lawyers and judges in the case. You'll note that it doesn't refer to "what Smallville the show is based on", but rather if the show infringes on the rights of Superboy. These two things are not the same. What one thing is based on has nothing to do with if it contains elements (such as the setting of the story, or a character in it) that are copyrighted by another source. The only discussions have been about whether Smallville and it's main character would fall under the ownership of the Siegels, and not about whether the show itself was based on Superboy or Superman. You will also note that there is no current lawsuit against the show, so all this is really speculation.

http://www.newsarama.com/general/smallville.html http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6323787.html http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18747,00.html?fdnew http://www.sfx.co.uk/news/smallville_hit_with_super_suit

Comments
"You keep claiming that there is a dispute about Smallville being based on Superboy/Superman. There is no such legal dispute. They have not claimed that, nor has a lawsuit been filed."

As far as I can tell, you keep saying this not because there isn't a lawsuit, since there certainly is, but because the lawsuit doesn't use the exact words "based on". Claiming that Smallville is derived from Superboy, claiming that Smallville is about Superboy, or claiming that Smallville infringes the copyright of Superboy are all other ways of saying that Smallville is based on Superboy. The use of the words "based on" is irrelevant. Ken Arromdee 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me the lawsuit? All sources say that the Siegels have yet to final another lawsuit (that would go to a jury, not a judge) on behalf of whether Smallville is their property as well. The only lawsuit was about who owned Superboy (please read your own links). Second, saying Smallville infringes on the copyright is not saying that the show is "based" on Superboy. Please look up the words if you do not quite understand their meanings. The reason that Smallville "may" infringe is because the town wasn't mentioned until Superboy #2, thus it could be interpreted that the town is part of their ownership. Second, it has been mentioned that Clark "may" be a representation of Superboy. Nowhere in there has anyone said that the SHOW may or maynot be based on Superman, other than writers of magazines that try and interpret what a "potential" lawsuit "might" entail. Bignole 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, I already gave you a reference. "Still to be resolved is the question of whether Smallville—now in its fifth season—is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, which was filed in 2004"."  It's been filed. Ken Arromdee 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does your one site have that, when my references say that they haven't filed a suit. They haven't filed a suit because WB is still working on getting the appeal for their ownership of Superboy. They haven't filed a suit yet because WB has warned Mrs. Siegel that they will revoke her benefits if she chooses to file against the ownership of Superman and it's deritives, which they see Smallville as a deritive of. Better yet, with no trial date, or a verdict, the ownership of Smallville still falls under WB, and Superman, thus making it whatever they want. Unless ownership of Smallville changes hands, and the character of Clark Kent in the show is found to be Superboy, then there is no argument for "fact" against WB. As of right now, the legality of Smallville and Clark Kent fall on WB, not the Siegels, and you cannot legally say that Smallville is based on Superboy, nor Clark Kent for that matter. Who owns Smallville is what is potentially up for grabs, the key word being potentially. The point is that Smallville is currently owned by WB and they decide (as they did when they first introduced the show) what it is based on and who the characters are based on. Only if a jury finds in favor of the Siegels can the sentence be changed to express what is legally correct. Expressing two opinions is not encyclopedic, because it isn't fact, it can't be proven. What is proven is that WB currently holds the rights to Smallville (town and show) and unless a jury finds that they are in copyright infringement of the Siegels' ownership of Superboy, and that Smallville (town and show) falls under their ownership (as it wasn't stipulated in the actual lawsuit that was settled in 2004), then WB is still legal owner of show and town and can stipulate exactly what each is. At this moment in time, Smallville is a deritive of Superman, because no jury or judge has found it to be otherwise. I'm sorry, but there is no case to support changing what the show is "based" on, but I implore you to create a section chronicling Smallville's journy so far, and potential journey through the legal world. Bignole 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a list of all guest characters that identifies who knows Clark' secret.

This is a ridiculous argument. Superboy is the same character as Superman. No version of the original Superboy (I don't include the recent cloned version) has ever claimed that Superboy and Superman are different fictional entities. Superboy is the young version of Superman. Perhaps if he ever ages further, he will be Supergeezer. That will not mean that he is a different character. Clark Kent is the same fictional entity as both Superman and Superboy. Clark Kent is the adopted name of the fictional entity Kal El. The show Smallville is based upon this one, single character. This character was originally created by Siegel and the rights are owned by DC. If there is a court ruling that the Siegels own the rights to Superboy, then that should be construed to mean they own the rights to portrayals of this character as a young man. Since it's the same character, it is correct to say that Smallville is based on Superman, and it is also incorrect to say that Smallville is NOT based on Superboy. Applejuicefool 15:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Legally standing, Superboy and Superman are separate, because of a punishment against WB/DC for "poor business practices" with Jerry Siegel. Yes, in all technicality Superboy is Superman, but for ownership purposes they are different. Smallville is not based on Clark Kent, it's based on the premise of how Clark becomes Superman. The Siegels have not dismissed this. They are simply claiming that Smallville's Clark is actually Superboy, thus creating a violation of copyright by WB. The show could be based on the tooth fairy, but the fact that Clark is a teen in it brings into question whether or not the Siegels own every incarnation of teenage/young adult Clark Kent sans costume, or if they are restricted to ownership of only Superboy himself (the one in the costume). Bignole 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I see with the Siegel's case is this; Superboy was created in the Silver Age comics to add a new dimension in Kal-El. This was not the original childhood of Superman. Also, in most modern comics Kal-El did not spend his teen years as Superboy but rather just Clark Kent. Also, any interpretation of a comic book can illude to him being Superboy as a child or not and not have to give specific reference to Siegal's or pay added royalties on top the standard fee. Since Smallville is just another telling of the story, they should be able to interpret Clark's teen years any way that they wish.Manofthespoon 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (don't forget to sign your comments)They are free to tell the story any way they wish, but since legally Superboy and Superman are separate, if they use Superboy, or if it is determined by the jury that any version of Clark Kent that isn't an adult Superman (in his 30s) is actually Superboy, then they still owe them money. The show can be based on Superman, or the JLA for that matter. If the character in the show is equivalent to their owned character, then WB owes money. Also, it has yet to be determined if the town of Smallville is part of their ownership, since it wasn't mentioned until a Superboy comic. Bignole 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Hiding

 * The article seems to read fine to me. It covers the dispute in the overview section and the lead reports the basis in a neutral matter. What more do you think it needs to state, Ken? Hiding Talk 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says "Smallville is based on the DC Comics character Superman." as if it's an established fact, and only then points out that some people dispute that. It *isn't* an established fact.  That's like writing "Kashmir is owned by India.  There is some dissension about which country owns Kashmir..." or "Power lines cause cancer.  There is some dissension about the health effects of power lines...".  It's inappropriate to describe one side of a disputed statement as a fact. Ken Arromdee 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has disputed what Smallville is based on, please actually read the interviews. The only people to draw this conclusion are the reporters, on their own terms. The debate has been over whether they OWN Smallville because of the Siegels ownership of Superboy. Don't try and change wording. They are trying to establish if Smallville falls under the rights of Superboy, and if it does (regardless of what the show is based on) the Siegels will receive a hefty amount of money for all episodes aired since 2004. That has nothing to do with that the show is based on, but whether the show itself, because it utilizes the fictional universe first mentioned in a Superboy comic, belongs to the Siegels or to Warner Brothers. Currently, Warner Brothers owns Smallville; the name, the town, and the television show. They have every right to dictate what the show is based on, and unless a court rules that they do not own any of those things, and the Siegels file a grievance against Warner Brothers for producing a show "based on Superboy", then there is nothing else to say about the matter. Bignole 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless someone provides a source showing that the Siegels dispute that part, there's no reason to change "based on the DC Comics character Superman." It's officially based on Superman. Superboy was based on Superman. The Siegels own Superboy, but apparently they do not dispute the part about being based on Superman. They're arguing about Superboy's influence on the show, about ownership of the fictional setting, about whether they own a piece of that TV show's pie and how big a piece. Doczilla 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Would both sides accept that Smallville is based on the DC Comics character Clark Kent? Hiding Talk 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a nice suggestion, but I feel that it's unwarranted. The reason I feel this is because Ken is basing his opinion on reporters instead of what the lawyers. The lawsuit, which has not been filed, is to pertain to who owns Smallville the town, not Smallville the show. It also pertains to who Clark Kent is based on. No where in there does it mention a dispute about what the show itself is based on, just elements of the show. The overview has recently been rewritten by myself and Doczilla to better illustrate the current situation regarding this. Since Warner owns the show, and has always owned the show, no one else has any legal right to change what they say the show is based on unless a court actually rules in that favor. This isn't about some country, and who owns a country, as Ken tried to make it out to be. This is about a fictional piece of literature. The creator gets to say what it is based on, and unless a legal ruling decides otherwise, no one has the right to force it be noted as ambiguous. Also, your suggestion would be great if the show didn't revolve around Clark becoming Superman. It has been repeatedly stated that it's about his journey to becoming Superman. If it was just about his misadventures as a teen, with no development into the Man of Steel, then I think that would be the best way to describe the basis of the show. Bignole 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble, is, since Wikipedia presents information from a NPOV and has to take all accounts into hand, we can't assign any weight to legal or reported data. In fact, there is no legal ruling in court which asserts Warner Brothers point that it is based on Superman as opposed to Superboy.  So the neutral manner is to present the facts, and it is a fact that the show is based on Clark Kent.  The creator may express an opinion, but that is all it is. Hiding Talk 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WB officially says it's based on Superman. The Siegels have not explicitly disputed that!
 * You are doing the same thing as Bignole: not believing that the Siegels have disputed it because they haven't used the exact words "based on" in their dispute. Ken Arromdee 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless someone finds a clear quote from the Siegels stating otherwise, this should be a non-issue. On that point, there is no side to take. The dispute is over other points, as duly noted by the article. Doczilla 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've trawled UK reports of the series and I get no matches on Superboy and Smallville, they all describe the series as Superman before he became Superman. However, let's remember it's not a fact that Smallville is based upon Superman, it's Warner Brothers assertion.  So let's describe the issue in those terms, making it The concept of Smallville has been described by Warner Brothers as being a reinterpretation of "the Superman mythology from its roots". Hiding Talk 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that sentence, because it isn't trying to assert anything other than what is fact, and that WB says "this is what it is". My problem is Ken trying to say that "it may also be this", when there is no factual information for that statement. Bignole 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Would both sides accept that Smallville is based on the DC Comics character Clark Kent?"

In this context, there isn't any such thing as "the character" Clark Kent, there are two of them. I'd accept that Smallville is based on *a* character Clark Kent, but that seems like very awkward wording.

"Superboy was based on Superman."

You'd think so, but this isn't true. Superboy is a separate character and being based on Superboy does not mean being based on Superman.

"The creator gets to say what it is based on"

NO! This is not true! The creator *doesn't* get to say what it's based on. Certainly the creator may be *a* source, but the creator isn't the definitive source. The fact that DC claims the series is based on Superman does *not* mean we must accept that as fact. In this situation the creator's statement is being directly challenged as untrue in a situation where the creator has obvious motive to make the specific claim. We can't, therefore, accept the creator's word as factual. The creator's word is one side of a disputed issue.

"The lawsuit, which has not been filed, is to pertain to who owns Smallville the town, not Smallville the show."

"The ruling therefore brings up the question of who owns the post-November 2004 episodes of Smallville."

Furthermore, the lawsuit has indeed been filed. (see above) "Still to be resolved is the question of whether Smallville—now in its fifth season—is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, which was filed in 2004"

At any rate, I didn't say it was about who owns the show, I said it's about what the show is based on. The remaining part of the lawsuit is indeed about who the show is based on: "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in Smallville is in fact Superboy".  "I believe it's impossible to honestly trace the history of Smallville without accounting for its derivation from Superboy" Ken Arromdee 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you didn't say it was about "who owns the show" and that you said it was about "what it is based on". GUESS WHAT!! The lawsuit doesn't say anything about "what it is based on", it is about "who owns it". Try to actually read those "lawsuits" of yours. Have you completely missed everything everyone has said on here? Your only argument is that "yes there has been a filing", that's the only thing you can prove. Why you insist on trying to say that it's "based on Superboy" when no one else besides a couple columnists have actually said that. The lawyer has never been quoted saying that, nor have the Siegels. Owning the rights to Smallville the town, and have a court decided that Clark Kent of Smallville is indeed Superboy, still doesn't dispute or change the fact that it's based on Superman. Sorry. Your opinion that a creator of a fictional universe has not right to say what he based it on is so out that it isn't even worth talking about further. How about you create something and we'll see how you like it if someone tells you that YOU didn't base it on what you say, and so you can't claim that you did. Anyway, back to what this is really about, the lawsuits DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING ABOUT BASIS. Bignole 11:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Bignole 11:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. You are twisting words by deciding that "is Superboy", "derivation from Superboy", etc. don't mean "based on Superboy". Ken Arromdee 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me. Show me the quote of the Seigels saying that. Show me the quote of the Lawyer saying that. READ what it actually says. You are the one twisting it around, I have simply stated exactly what is said. "Smallville falls under the rights of Superboy". That is refering to the town, not the show. "Clark Kent, of Smallville (the show), is in fact Superboy". Again, that is saying that the character is an interpretation of the Superboy, not that the show itself is based on Superboy. There is a difference between having a character is based on something, and having an entire show that is based on the same thing because of that character basis. You supply links that do not back up what you say, they actually back up what I say. I never said "derivation of Superboy", which is impossible. There is not derivative of Superboy....they never created a Superbaby. Saying Clark Kent is Superboy is the same as saying Superboy is Superman. Of course they are, but is Smallville the show based on Superboy the comic? NO, and the Seigels and their lawyer have not said that it is. The law is a funny thing, you cannot try and interpret little things just because they MIGHT mean something else. If you want something then you have to explicitly say it. That is why Smallville (the town) is currently up for debate about whether it is part of Superboy or not. Otherwise, they wouldn't be having this current suit in the first place, they'd simply follow your logic: "Well, it's Smallville, and it's Superboy, so really we own that too. I mean, we didn't actually say 'we want to own Smallville (the town), also', but really it's the same thing cause we own Superboy." Right, you follow that logic. Bignole 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you please read what I write? You continue to say that it refers to the town, not the show, even though I produced a quote referring to the show.  You're *still* using the absurd interpretation that because no source uses the exact words "based on" to claim that Smallville is alleged to be based on Superboy, there is no such claim.  You're continuing to argue against subtly different claims which nobody has really made ("is Smallville the show based on Superboy the comic"--the dispute is about Superboy the character). Ken Arromdee 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which quote is that? Who actually said it? You quote the Siegels but yet don't provide a link to where they said that. Also, unless they say "we are seeking a lawsuit to prove that the show is based on Superboy", or that "the show is a derivative of Superboy" then that isn't the same thing as just expressing your opinion. Their own lawyer is never quoted as saying any of that, and I have quoted what he said. Learn a bit about lawsuits, you can't interpret it yourself, which is what you are doing. If the lawsuit does not state explicitly what it is that they want then they don't get it. If they are awarded the town (which is what they are asking for) then that means they own the rights to the town of Smallville. If they are awarded the violation based on Clark's similarities with Superboy, then that is exactly what they get. Getting either of those things does not mean that they proved the showed is based on Superboy. That is not NPOV. You are attempting to interpret what they want, when I have only quoted exactly what is said. Show me where they have said that their lawsuit details that the show is based on Superboy. You keep saying that "subtle differences don't matter", but they do, because they detail exactly what is awarded. You cannot go to court asking for money for you car and then try and claim money for your house as well. That isn't what you are there for. You are the one trying to interpret what the lawsuit is about, based on what other people have said. If you read the currenty "overview" section of this article, you will see that it conforms to NPOV quite well (it was recently rewritten). Bignole 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what you said: "At any rate, I didn't say it was about who owns the show, I said it's about what the show is based on. The remaining part of the lawsuit is indeed about who the show is based on: "Enough facts are presented, where this court, contrary to defendants' request, could find that the main character in Smallville is in fact Superboy".  "I believe it's impossible to honestly trace the history of Smallville without accounting for its derivation from Superboy"  Ken Arromdee 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)" Here is the problem with that, the only part of that could even be taken into consideration as "basis" is the "derivation from Superboy", but guess what. First, that is the opinion of that judge, and not something that was actually filed in the current suit. That was something he said when he awarded them ownership of Superboy. Second, it's clear that he is obviously disregarding the suit about Superboy and Superman being two separate characters, because in reality it would be derivation of Superman. Just because 1 character has been legally classified as a separate entity, even though it is a derivation of another original work, does not mean that that same ruling applies to subordinate areas of that media. The ruling on Superboy was that the comicbook character is now legally separate from the comic book character of Superman, and the comic book itself is not part of that ownership. The Siegels were awarded the character, not the comics and since any derivation of the comic would not be part of their ownership it really doesn't matter what the judge thinks. It was his opinion and again, not part of this current suit. He said that at the end of the first suit, and this one isn't going before a judge, it's going before a jury. His opinion has no legal bearing on this case. Secondly, even though that was his opinion, the Siegel lawyer has made no attempt to even say that the Siegels are going to prove that Smallville is a derivation of Superboy. His own quotes say that they are going to prove that the town itself falls under Superboy copyright, and that the character of Clark Kent is a violation of the Superboy character copyright. You are trying to incorporate someone's opinion from a previous case, when that opinion has not bearing here. The current overview only states the facts. It states that Warner Brothers deems the show as a "reinvention of the roots of Superman", and that there is a current dispute over copyright violations with the Siegels. It goes on to quote the lawyer as to what that dispute is about, because some judges opinion over "what they should file for" is irrelevant to what their own lawyer says they are filing for. Read the overview again, it follows NPOV. Bignole 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is one of the weirdest arguments I have ever seen. The Siegels have not disputed the WB's assertion that Smallville is based on the character Superman. They're arguing about whether young Clark Kent inherently equals Superboy and whether or not they own the setting. If they haven't disputed that Superman is the character basis, what the hell are you people arguing about??? Doczilla 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up
I move to have this article follow the guideline of Arrested Development. This article is a Featured Article. What you will notice is that there is no individual season or episode pages. Each season is summed up in the article, all guest stars are listed, all recurring cast is listed, so forth and so on. If you look at other featured TV shows, you will see a similar pattern. I feel that most of us editors wish to have the best possible Smallville that we can, and I move to have this page done in that manner. What that will mean is the Season pages, and the newly created List of Smallville episodes will be deleted. Seeing as they are all technically unencyclopedic, a simple link in a "Further Reading" section would suffice in listing the episodes and other trivial matters. Bignole 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been decided that the List page will stay, but please visit it's talk page, because there is a discussion about Individual episode pages. Bignole 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Season Pages or List of Episode (individual Ep pages)
All editors, please see discussion here Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes Bignole 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Bignole, would you object to mediation over the character basis problem? Ken Arromdee 15:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe we've had outside sources come in and discuss the issue, but if you want to bring in more that's fine. But one things for sure, when you request it, I'd prefer you leave your bias out of it. I read what you wrote on the other request and it was highly one-sided and you proceeded to label me some hate monger that wouldn't relent to your wishes out of stubbornness instead of me not relentently to you because of the facts. That means when you request don't try and push your view as if you are 100% percent correct, because you are initiating bias in the mediators, as you did with the other request. It should read similar to:
 * "It is my belief that the Smallville article's overview section is not following NPOV. I believe it should contain information regarding the possibility that Smallville is based on Superboy. My belief is based __(fill in here)___. Bignole believes the article's overview section is fine. It is his contention that there is no valid reason to state this because he believes that it is not part of the lawsuit. He believes that since it is not part of the lawsuit then it isn't appropriate to just mention an opinion, even if that opinion is from the Siegels."
 * You can fill in your own opinion, cause you would know it better than I. My point is the way you addressed the situation on the other request board was a little inappropriate because you tried to make me out to be something I'm not, instead of addressing my stand as an opposing opinion. Bignole 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Mediation? Ken, you already asked people to come weigh in on the issue. I'm one of those people. I just don't happen to agree with you. I can, however, see how people who don't read enough detail about the situation would mistakenly infer that you're right. If the Siegels have not disputed that the show is based on Superman, what is the dadgum problem? By insisting that that's what they mean, you are trying to invoke POV on the issue. Doczilla 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Smallville season 1 overview merge
Totally redundant, in my opinion, considering it partially exists here already. Request merge. (|--  UlT i MuS  09:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The other page is redundant, as it isn't even complete. All the seasonal pages were creating before the other, and since there is no mandatory style for TV shows (and the list of episode pages create tones of unencyclopedic content) there is no reason to suggest a merger in that direction, especially when it's up for possible deletion (which takes more than just 1 day). Bignole
 * My bad, you were refering to a different "Season 1". There is another page that is all over Season 1, including the episodes, not just a paragraph about it's overview. Sorry about that. Bignole 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Actually, I think this overview article could actually be deleted in its entirety. There is already an overview to each season on the main "Smallville" article. Of course, the information in the "Season 1 overview" article could just be added here, but it probably wouldn't be necessary. Angleterre 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually i just marked it for speedy deletion. It was something another editor created in an attempt to delete the Season page without losing information, which he did without discussion. Bignole

Bold text

Proposal for talk page archival
Clearly a lot of this discussion is causing this page to balloon substantially and some of the older topics on it that have been resolved or otherwise addressed in such a manner that their originators feel they are "finished" clearly could be archived to cut down on the space they are consuming. 75.2.10.17 08:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)