Talk:Smallville season 1

Copyright violations?
If you google some of the episode descriptions, they are listed verbatim on a few other websites as well. Were this descriptions pulled from wikipedia or did whoever added them here pull them from another source? I am not sure if this is the case for all of the episodes, but it was for the few that I googled. If anyone has any more insight, let me know, otherwise I'll have to add this page (and maybe the other seasons, I haven't checked) as having copyright issues. PS2pcGAMER 01:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct Date?
While I am not 100% sure of this, I seem to remember the starting date of the series as before September 11th, 2001, not October 16th, 2001. Will someone please check into this Lue3378 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I trust tv.com, and it says that the first episode did indeed air on October 16th. Sorry! Emily 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Overview
I think the overview needs to be shortened considerably. It is basically all the episodes summed together, when it should just contain major story arcs and plot lines. Bignole 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed just about all of what was in the overview because it was the same information that was in the episode descriptions. The overview should be an overview, not the entire season detail for detail. The characters do not need biographies, they have their own pages for that. Only major plot points, like Lex and Clark becoming friends. Bignole 05:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Roger Nixon not mentioned in the overview? His investigation into CLark begins in episode four and new plot points in that arc are spread across episodes up till he finally discover's Clark's secret and fights Jonathon over it in the season finale. Web wonder (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned twice because that's all that he was ever relevant to any episode. He is mentioned in "X-Ray", and then finally in "Tempest" which is when he first confirms Clark's abilities and tries to expose him. Other than that, it's really minor and not really worth the added space. It's about keeping the plot descriptions simple and to the point. Nixon doesn't do anything on the show in the first season other than try and blackmail Lex, and then learn Clark's secret and try and expose him.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tina Greer
According to some on wikipedia, Tina Greer's goal is to be Lana forever. This is true at first, but later Tina realizes that she isn't jealous of Lana, she loves Lana. That's when she wants to be with Lana forever. Does anyone else want to confirm or disagree with this? I already know Bignole's stance on this. 8.04
 * This is true, but not in Season 1. In Season 1 she wants to kill Lana and become her, but after she escapes from the asylum she wants a relationship with Lana, but that is in the later seasons. Bignole
 * Ok, that is true. 8.04 03:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Music
I think we need to remove all "lists" of music and have a music section and just discusses the music within the season. We can talk about how the show uses the music (really find a source that talks about it) and then just link to a page that lists the music for each episode. "Listing" is not good for an article, unless the entire article is about that list (i.e. List of Episodes). It's much better to turn it into a summary and then link to a list outside of wiki. Bignole 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article size
The article is of sufficient length at 30 kb. Please see WP:SIZE for sizing conventions. 32 kb is the threshold, and even so, crossing the threshold doesn't necessarily force the need to break the article down into sub-articles. Also, in regard to readability issues, "The 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles." The article is nowhere near a significant length. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This was Peregrine's purpose, to fluff the article so that he could use HIS individual episode pages which were supposed to be deleted, as a vote was cast with third party Admins telling him and Matt that most episodes cannot support an entire page by themselves. Bignole 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to that discussion? CovenantD 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to add well formatted info to this page. Stuff like relevant links and cast lists and summaries that would make sense to a non fan.  Every time I do this Bignole tries to delete and minimize it so the article doesn't get any bigger. - Peregrinefisher 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You were adding a cast name for the "fencing instructor", how is that even relevant? How are quotes relevant, because you wanted to add those as well. How is listing every song in the episode relevant to the encyclopedia, or detailing everything that happens in the episode? You wanted to add a lot of fancruft to the pages. Bignole 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It originated as a proposed deletion for List of Smallville episodes, which Peregrin set up a few months ago, after all the season pages had been established. But the topic turned to "individual episode pages" as Peregrine was linking the episodes to the individual pages he had created. Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes, the result ended with the majority saying keep the "Lists" page, but link to the Season page, and "don't create the episode pages". Bignole 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for redirect
Since redirecting this page to the list of episodes is disputed, the change should not be forced. A census must be reached. Please use this section to present your side of the argument. —Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Adds my name to the census* - Matthew Fenton - Born: [CENSORED], Sex: [CENSORED], Age: [CENSORED], Location: [CENSORED] ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1.Seasonal Pages are accessible methods of format for TV show articles. 2.Individual Episode pages rarely support themselves per Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines about articles size requirement, notability, etc. 3. Five Seasons of articles were up long before the "List of Episodes" was established, thus seniority goes to the Season pages. 4.Votes carried out on other articles do not reflect that vote that already took place on this article. Bignole 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See voting is evil. This process is following consensus reached at WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure and Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. - Peregrinefisher 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you put a "voting is evil" link up, and then cite two instances where a vote was reached for a consensus. Also, Season Pages are not "List" pages, thus their criteria does not befall this page. Again, a consensus on "LOST" is not a consensus on "Smallville". Every page is different. Not even every Featured Article for a film looks the same. Bignole 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to redirect this page? The article size is not of an inconvenient length. There's enough notable information per episode that's represented on this article, so it doesn't require creating episode pages. —Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because this page looks like a horrendous mess, it is all squishy and formatted badly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a valid excuse to redirect a page. When a page is in bad shape, the ideal method is to improve it. —Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per a link that Peregrine referenced awhile ago Centralized discussion/Television episodes. It states that if an article is too small merge it into either the main article, the list article, or the season article. Since there is a lack of verifiable information for every single episode of this show, there is no reason to have an individual episode for every one. Putting a reference in the plot (like you did with Metamorphosis, Peregrine) does not mean you have "verifiable information". There is no need to merge a seasonal page that was here over a year earlier with a List page. Bignole 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that I want to add to each episode's info. For formatting reasons, the info doesn't fit well in the season page.  For instance, links related to each episode, cast information, and better summaries.  If I added 20kb of summary, will you agree to episode pages?  I was hoping to get the linking worked out first, but if you'll give me a kb threshold, I guess I can work with that. - Peregrinefisher 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? We don't need an infobox for every episode. Per Wiki's linking policy, it isn't a repository of links, so linking every episode is irrelevant. You are attempting to add information that is either unnecessary or violates some guideline or policy. This "Hothead" is the third episode of the first season of the WB original series, Smallville. The episode was written by Greg Walker and directed by Greg Beeman. It originally aired on October 30, 2001." and quotes are the only extra bit you have on the episode pages. Other than that, you have a different format. You have an infobox and you make an actual section to "lists" songs in the episode (when we already have soundtracks listed on the main article) and to list every guest start on the episode (even ones that played busy bodies on the street and had no real connection to the plot of the show). Bignole 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first stuff you mention is a page header. Cast, summary, and music info is what's verifiable about an episode.  I guess your the magical judge of which cast member is important enough to go in a WP page, and my opinion doesn't count? - Peregrinefisher 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is simply not notable or encyclopedic to include even the most minor cast members. —Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. You keep saying that you "want to do this and that" and this is your reasoning for dismantling the Season pages in favor or individual episode pages, but I have yet to see anything on the individual pages that supports the claim that it can be an article by itself. Why don't you do this, step back and go work on the Pilot (Smallville episode) and one of the other pages that you created. Get those two pages into the condition that YOU say can support an article. Then, we'll come back and discuss those pages in comparison to what could be on this page, or what could not be on this page, whatever the case may be. I say 2 episodes, because the "Pilot" is too easy, you should be able to easily find plenty of encyclopedic content to support that page, because it's the Pilot and it got more coverage than the rest. I can honestly see the Pilot and some other key episodes, like the 100th episode actually being able to support itself with actual encyclopedic content. I say do another episode because I want to see how much verifiable, encyclopedic content you can find for some plain episode that doesn't have the significance of being the Premiere or the Finale, or the 100th episode. This will give every an idea of what kind of things can be found for these pages. I'm talking real encyclopedic content, not trivia you dig up on IMDb (i.e. Coach Arnold was possibly named after Dan Lauria's character on "The Wonder Years"). The pages must conform to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. If you can prove that it can be done, especially to some run-of-the-mill episode, then you'll have a case to redirect the pages. Because, right now you haven't proved that these episodes can actually follow the rules of Wikipedia and still support themselves as articles without requiring to be merge with something else. Bignole 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first six are pretty much ready to go: Hourglass, Cool, X-Ray, Hothead, Metamorphosis. All it takes to make an episode to large for the season page is External links, Guest cast, Plot, and Featured Music.  I don't know what's so hard about that. - Peregrinefisher 20:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all there is? I've looked at them. You have an expanded plot for a 40-minute show (unnecessary, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show), what is the relevance of listing every song that appeared in the episode? How is that not fancruft(already on the season page anyway)? The point to listing every guest actor, even if they only appear for 2 second on the show, or listing the regular cast every time, even if they don't all appear in the episode? What external links? Linking to TV.com for every episode, when it can be accomplished by linking to the season once? Again, what is on your episode page, is already on the Season page. The big differences are that you make an entire section for 5 songs, and 2 guests, and an infobox for every episode that contains the same information on the Season page. Obviously if we can fit 22 episodes of the same information onto 1 page, and barely break 30 kb (when you it isn't even suggested to separate pages until you get to 50kb), doesn't that tell you right there that those articles cannot support themselves. See, this isn't a fight of what's right or wrong, or better or worse, it's a fight about what YOU like against what Wikipedia says. Bignole 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Transition to individual pages

 *  I moved this section down so it fits better chronologically. I was all ready to respond before I read the other comments by Peregrinefisher -- trlkly 

I'm starting the transition to individual episode pages as specified in Individual episode articles. This page can't handle detailed information for each like Pilot. Wikia is not a substitute, it should only be an external link. Please keep responses brief. - Peregrinefisher 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep doing this? You don't get your way so you go to another page, or start another section to try and get a different response. The information that you want to include shouldn't be included anyway. You ARE NOT following the parameters for creating an article about a tv show based on a fictional universe. You are creating articles that detail each episode with quotes, huge plots, music and useless trivia. Try actually working on something before you try and change it to your way. Bignole 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki Links
My links to the Smallville Wikia were deleted without discussion on the basis that external links... should be kept to a minimum; however, links to the Smallville Wikia re not external links, they are interwiki links as described at Help:Interwiki_linking. "Links to open wikis" are listed as links normally to be avoided "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I think that Wikia has a substantial history of stability or a substantial number of editors. Whether or not the same can be said of the Smallville Wikia is a matter of opinion, but it is my opinion that the pages I linked to are good pages, and the links to the episode pages are appropriate and beneficial. -ErinHowarth 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest that you add a SINGLE link to the bottom of the page, rather than a link to every episode. It's excessive and we've dealt with this issue on other seasons talk pages. CovenantD 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * External links need to be put at the bottom, one per external website. Maybe the confusion is that wikia is special because Jimbo Wales started it.  It is special, but we can't give it preferencial treatment.  There's a wikia link at the bottom, that's appropriate.  The wikia links need to be removed from the other season pages as well. - Peregrinefisher 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I'm proposing the merger of all Smallville episode pages (EXCEPT the Pilot), to their respective season pages. I'm working on new season pages, and I'm using the Smallville season companion books for sources. I have enough info for the pilot (see User:Bignole/Small sand for how much I've done with the pilot), I may have enough for Metamorphosis and Tempest. I don't know about the latter two, because I haven't sifted through all the dilly dally of useless info that is in the books. I can say that there isn't enough info right now, on any of the articles to meet the criteria of individual episode articles. I propose to merge them all, and when all the info begins to unfold on the season pages (you can see the link I posted to see how it's going so far), that it be assessed from there. The problem is that even with the limited info in production for most of the shows, there is even less in regards to reception of those episodes. The Simpsons (season 8) has reached FA status, and I think that with these new season formats we can get, in the least, all of the seasons up to GA status (hopefully FA status).
 * I oppose any such merge. Seems counter productive to myself, also remember WP:NOT and I see no benefit to merging into one large article as per WP:SS. Plots are encyclopaedic content, that alone is enough for me to support an episode article. Matthew 07:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, plots are non-free content, because we are replicating copyrighted material, and all these episodes are just plots. Quotes go to "Wikiquote", and I've even seen you remove "featured music" from pages . That leaves nothing but the plot. That can be covered on one page, especially when I have some actual behind-the-scenes information that will be there for the entire season. But, I never expected you to support it, you pretty much oppose anything I suggest . Also, remember size is based on "readable prose", which is not the number that appears on the edit screen (that counts every character on the screen).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose everything you suggest? Please show me. I've not really seen many suggestions from yourself. Also, please show me where I've removed featured music. Matthew 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I apologized. I confused you with two different editors. It was TheFilmaker who was removing music from the HOUSE episodes. The other was Peregrine. I apologize again, that was my bad memory.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smallville hasn't got a bunch of excellent editors charging to improve as many episode articles to GA as they can like The Simpsons WikiProject, and there is also the notability criteria to consider. So if you can't really work at it for quite a while with making articles with enough content for so small a subject, I would suggest a merge. Alientraveller 11:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing about merging episodes: If each episode hasn't enough info for anything more than Stub-class, then it seems prudent to merge them all together. The only problem with this comes up with WP:SS, as mentioned by Matthew. Cliff smith 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand Matthew's concern, but the point is that we have no idea of knowing how big the season page will get, or could have gotten when the episode articles were created. They were done in such a rush that the season pages never had a chance to actually get expanded. Instead, both suffer from being articles that basically only contain expanded plots. Plots should only be expanded when you can find real world information that can be used along with them. People open an edit window and immediately see "44kb" (or another size) and think "oh this is getting too big". But article size is based on readable prose, and HTML, depending on what you are doing, can take up a lot of space. Right now, the season 1 page that I'm working on is about 21kb long, but only 10kb of that is readable prose. So the actual article size is 10kb, not the 21kb that includes all the coding in the tables, or the headers, or the huge infobox. That is why I propose the merger so that we can expand these season pages and see how large they will become. If any one particular episode becomes too large then we can break it off. But we shouldn't break them off just so we can write up a 500-600 word plot for each one.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some episodes can maybe be more than just plots, especially those that had spin-off "chronicles", notable events/characters show up (thus, more reviews/info on ratings and production) and stuff like that. I don't know what should be done. Whatever you think works best. Davey4 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Format
Also, so that it's a little more clear, express your opinion of the new season page format that is linked at the top. The above discussion is more in-line with determining mergers, and doesn't specifically ask about opinions on the new format. Tom acknowledged his acceptance of the format (but making sure that I brought it here first), Cliff did as well, but I'd like some more formal agreements on this talk page first. (see User:Bignole/Smallville seasons for the format)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This sounds good to me. It will make the same information more manageable to our readers. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The new episode list looks great. Davey4 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, the new format will help in the problem with all the non-free images. Right now, those season pages have an image for every episode, and if someone wanted, they could come in here and removed them because there is no critical commentary on the page. The same goes for the individual episode articles. If any of those admins that run the "Reduce non-free images" Club saw the individual episode articles, they'd all have their images jettisoned too, because the only thing there is a plot that isn't sufficient enough to satisfy the criteria for non-free images. I've already seen them do it to film articles that had a film poster, but there wasn't anything on the page beyond a brief plot.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wow, this looks so much better! I think the amount of white-space in the original may have fueled the "separate episode articles" concern. I especially like the linked titles, which can go to separate articles (when such articles are warranted) without having to reformat the page every time one is produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Trlkly (talk • contribs)


 * DONE - In finally finished putting all the prose into place. It needs a good copy/edit for wordiness, I'm sure, and for better word choices in general, but it's pretty much all done. I have a few more sections to go through, but they will most likely be used in clarifying certain points, as they are specific sections on the effects. The episodes are pretty much all done.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've merged the page to this one, as there were no objections. Now that that is there, I'm going to redirect the first season articles, as there is no longer a reason to have them since this page pretty much has all that information and loads more.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville music

 * Moved from User talk:Tone

Hello, I'm not seeing what part of WP:NOT music fails -- so I've reverted your edits. It's OOU information, and certainly isn't indiscriminate. Feel free to bring it up on the discussion page if you feel differently, so that consensus may be achieved. Matthew 12:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's one of the subpages, wait... I found it. It's written here: Television episodes. I should've been more precise. It is at least unencyclopedical and bears no significance. Shall we move this discussion to a talkpage of some article? --Tone 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody has apparently just added that, recently. As it states: "Original song lyrics for a television episode breach copyright. References to featured music should be supported by reliable sources to establish notability. Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory." (a primary source is a reliable source, the episode is source), opening a discussion sounds good to me. Matthew 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The establish notability is the one that bothers me. Ok, there is a song or two by a reputed author in some episodes but how does this improve the significance? For a discussion, I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. --Tone 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've often found that music plays quite a significant part of an episode (often aiding in building a scene). Admittedly I've not seen past season one of Smallville yet... so I can't comment 100%. But it does seem relevant to me. I'd prefer it if we could get some secondary sources for the information as well. Matthew 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussion -- I'd much rather gain consensus on the issue than edit war, and I'll start one after I return in about five minutes (if one hasn't already been started). Matthew 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've informed him that consensus was reached there, and that is he could turn it into encyclopedic prose then that was ok, but I feel this section already covers it. I have also informed him that he has reached his 3 reverts for this 24 hour period. Also, I've already gone through the only 2 commentaries for the first season, for the pilot and the second episode. There is no mention of the songs beyond "that is a good song, and they are usually difficult to contract" on the entire two commentary reels. The makers obviously didn't put any emphasis on it. Also, "help building a scene" isn't relevant when you don't know what song was in what scene.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple list doesn't hold encyclopedic value. Matt says it helps build the scenes, ok, find third party sources that discuss Smallville's use of music to build scenes. Otherwise, that's just a personal opinion, that doesn't even help when you don't know what scenes go to which music. As of right now, it's simple trivia.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinions are irrelevant to the article, as they won't be listed. I would expect Smallville's music has been discussed, however. I'll have a look around -- some examples may strengthen my argument. Matthew 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone's opinions are irrelevant to the article, not just yours. here's a source that mentions that most of the artists try and contract with TV shows because it helps their album sales. You can't simply have a list of music and say it's encyclopedic. Where is the value? A song name? This isn't a fansite.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are stating when you talk about artists contacting the shows. You then talk about fansites, please stick to the core issue: listing music. I quickly find a verifiable secondary source with a Google search (click). The source is reliable, as per WP:RS -- authoritative and has a history of stability. Matthew 13:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kryptonsite is an external link, and a fansite. They list all the songs for us (as they wouldn't be normally included as just a list). There is no encyclopedic value to them. Secondly, Krpytonsite hasn't updated their list in awhile. Have you found a secondary source that discusses the use of music in those episodes? You're simply creating a directory of songs to episodes. And yes, I'm searching alongside you. I'd like to see the music section expanded to include reasons why they choose songs, or at least some interpretations of what the songs do for the show. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a directory, that can be found on any fansite, or IMDB.com.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Uh-huh, "Kryptonsite is an external link": Well, what was you expecting :-\? Being a fan site doesn't disqualify a website from being a RS... your average Joe fansite isn't a RS, though. Even if they haven't updated their list, that doesn't disqualify it from being a valid source for the episodes it has listed. Matthew 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, good. We have a reliable source (to some degree). I've checked the talk pages, seems the problem was rised once before but with no comments (Season 1 talk). The fact that songs appear in the episodes benefits to the singers and to the producers, presumably. Still, I don't find the fact that some song was featured in a particular episode significant for the episode as itself, but it might be a good idea to expand the Music section in the Smallville article. There, I find appropriate to mention that the episodes usually feature contemporary music hits and give some examples. --Tone 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Expanding the music section with some of the more notable examples works for me. Matthew 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDb contains the same list, and is probably updated with season 6 songs. The point isn't just verifying what songs were in the episodes, but why they were there. I read in The Stanford Daily, that Smallville may have/had the highest number of music artists per episode of any show. The problem is that the author is like "I think I heard somewhere", and I have yet to find the original source (which could have just been a friend on his). I think that would be good to have, because it discusses this marketing tool of using all these songs in one episode. I didn't say it disqualified KS, I said that it being there already gave us a link to a comprehensive list of every song on the show, as does IMDb. But that isn't what Wikipedia is about. As I stated, Wiki isn't a directory for songs.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Good. Do we have a consensus? Of course, we can bring more people to the debate if you think we should. If you have time, could you expand the section some time in future? Funny, I know the series only briefly and I've seen just a couple of episodes. I came across the articles coincidently and corrected them. I didn't expect such a debate :-) Anyway, it was a constructive one, after all. --Tone 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching my 'work' butt off, but I haven't come across people discussing the importance of the music as a whole to the series, not even on an individual episode basis, which would help me expand the episode pages some more. Though, I'm limited to what I can view at work, a lot of the larger news organizations are in subscriptioned areas.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability
Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for fail notability guidelines, including the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. Might I suggest these articles are improved with real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Trivia, quotes and overly long plot summaries should be removed. You might consider merging any notable information onto the list of episodes or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That issue is easy enough to fix. I'll probably take a crack at it eventually. Matthew 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if it was so easy to fix I think there wouldn't be a problem on 90% of all episode articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't a problem with 90% of episodes articles -- there we go, issue resolved! Matthew 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd do the count and prove that wrong, but when there are thousands of episodes in existence with their own article, I'm not going to waste my time. There are 40+ articles for Smallville in existence, and right now only 1 of them actually meets criteria. So, that makes (if we stick to just 40) 97% of them problem articles. If we were working in statistics, this article would the sample of the population. But we aren't, so I'll just reword my hypothesis to say that at least 90% of the Smallville articles have problems.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

State of article
This article, at present, is an a terrible state. Rubbish images, messy format, invalid citations, etc. I'm going to do some work on it in due course and make it more legible to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. Matthew 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm almost finished with the format I already proposed above (where you neglected to comment for over a month, and where others have agreed on it's new style).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather I did not notice that discussion... your proposed format does look like an improvement, but I can see some downsides. Matthew 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which are?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For one I only see a short synopses of the episodes, with no space for an expanded plot. Also a lot of the information is from a single source, you can't just simply replicate a book onto Wikipedia -- that would be a copyright violation. It's also a bit messy -- but it's certainly an improvement. Matthew 16:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When it comes to production information, using one source is not as much a problem as one source for interpretations. It would be the same as using a DVD commentary (which I did use for the two that existed, so technically it's 3 sources). The information being used is merely the interviews from the people, I don't use Paul Simpson's person opinions of episodes, and a lot of the information is replicated on the DVD commentaries for the pilot and the second episode. If you can find other sources for it, great, but most likely they'll be quoting those books. I have taken the synopsis information under advisement. There is room for expansion, I just don't think we need information the size of what would be on an individual article when there won't be that much of for that episode to begin with. I can see them grow a bit, but I don't think they need to be the size of what's on the season 6 page. If you look through my sandbox, since I have episodes separated, some episodes are really weak in the information department. Also, a lot of the time I'm explaining the scene in relation to the information. Gough and Millar might mention some CGI work that was used for an opening shot. Well, when you are watching the DVD and they are doing commentary, they don't need to explain what is happening in the scene, you're watching it. That scene may be too details to include in just a plot or synopsis, and works better if you are including real world information around it, as opposed to three sections below it. So there is also some of the "make them synopsis up top, and explain the scene, if necessary, next to the content that is describing it".    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 25, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: This section shouldn't be kept unless it's expanded or referenced (preferably both) (Done).
 * 2. Factually accurate?: More internet resources would be helful. At the moment, about half the refs are from the same book, which makes it hard to verify. Need refs for this section
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: ✅
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: ✅
 * 5. Article stability? ✅
 * 6. Images?: ✅

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy  UCP 00:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewed version (for my reference):


 * Only production information is cited in the book. I don't think there is anything wrong with citing a book. It isn't my fault if someone cannot easily access the book, and books are generally preferred. I also use the DVD commentaries, which are not easily accessable. As for the recurring characters, what's wrong with it? Referenced how? Do you want proof that those actors appeared in those episodes? What refs are you looking for in the plot section? The titles and air dates? The information in the plot itself? It's a primary source that is insinuated, the only thing I can do it probably cite the episode for you. I'm not sure what you want other than that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to No original research, books are among the most reliable sources. This one is a collection of interviews. It isn't available online. Since the book isn't self published, but authorized by the studio, I don't see an issue with it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, books are preferred, but it'd be nice if at least some of the information cited in the book is backed up by an internet source. It makes it easier for everyone, at it shouldn't really be that much extra work.
 * As for the recurring characters, yes, sourcing the show is acceptable, and encouraged. And I see you've done this, which is good, so I've checked that off.
 * This just leaves some sort of referencing for the episodes section, which can be done by citing the show. Giggy  UCP 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and put the episode citations in. (done) But, as for the production information, not much to go on. Other than IMDb, which I refuse to cite when it comes to "trivia" (which is where they keep their production information) there isn't a lot of interviews with this level of detail on the internet. I've checked. At least not coming from anywhere other than fan sources. I understand your apprehension about not being able to easily check what a book says, and I get the same way when I visit other articles, but I work with what is available. When it comes to production info, the only thing I've come across are the official companions for each of the seasons, and the DVD commentaries, which I used also. If it was that easy, I wouldn't have bothered to buy the companions...then again, there were a pretty good read. Lots of stuff I couldn't use, but they seem to be the only source that contains enough interviews with the cast and crew to find out how they made the episodes. I don't think it's any different then Tyrannosaurus which is almost nothing but books and journal sources. At least I only have 15 sources which are not urls.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and see no other reasons why this can't be passed then. So I've passed it!  Giggy  UCP 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing questions
In the Production/Writing section (in the first paragraph), it says "The problem was not fully resolved at the ending of "Cool", as Sean Kelvin (Michael Coristin) is frozen inside of a lake, and his fate is not certain." To the uninitiated this seems like a non-sequitur. Does it indicate there's an exception to the Belle Reve plot device? Jim Dunning | talk  18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This particular instance was an exception. In reality, it isn't an important sentence. It was merely stating that in this episode the "villain" didn't kill themself, nor did they end up in Belle Reve. If you think it's slightly unclear, it's probably ok to just remove it entirely.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Is the "cool" ref tied only to the Cool episode, or does it support the whole paragraph?


 * Whole paragraph. The statement about the exception with "Cool" took place on the same set of pages.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote table
Just regarding the quote table with the "As [Lex] touches one of the flowers," don't you think the background colour doesn't blend in with the rest of the page. It would look really good if you change it to the colour of the table of episodes.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a quote box as anything other than either blue or grey. I would think that if it was that rust color of the episode table that it would be distracting. I've changed it, let me know if you think it looks distracting though.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about suggesting this color change myself a couple of days ago because I like color themes, but since it is such a minor issue and probably a personal preferance, it could go either way. – sgeureka t•c 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, which do you prefer? If more people prefer the blue (or even the grey box - which is a different format altogether), let me know. Right now I'm indifferent to the new color, so I could go whatever way the majority want.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually like the new colour, and that's not just because I suggested it! It blends in now and looks better.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like color themes, so I like it to be orange. But this is nothing I would lose sleep about, so whatever works best for you, Bignole, go with it. – sgeureka t•c 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it'll stay then. ;)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page structure
I was having a look through the comments for the FA nomination page, when I noticed a user wrote that the info was being neglected by the large episode table. I kinda agree. If you look here, you'll see a terrific example of how nice it looks with info first. The table itself on the other page is much more modern and nicer; less bulkier too. Please consider my suggestions.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  12:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I followed the standard for film and television articles, which is that the plot comes first. The reason being, you need the context to understand what they are doing. I used to believe that page structures should be based on when they happen (i.e. Production, Plot, Release, Reception, Awards), but I've come to acknowledge the necessity to understand what the production is talking about. Everything that exists below the plot is not be "neglected". It's completely developed. If someone doesn't read it that is their issue, they probably wouldn't read it even if it was at the top. If someone wants to read an "article", then they read the entire thing. If they want to read the plot information, then that's all they read. The Table of Contents is right there at the top, so it's clear what information is on this page, and where exactly it is located.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I see you probably aren't going to change your opinion anytime soon, so I'll let it go. But could you please change the table, and make it like the one here. The current one is VERY bulky and really doesn't look good. If it's not too much trouble, of course. Thanks.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bulky? I consider the Lost one bulky. Compare the top bars, where the Title and Airdate information is. This page's is a lot slimmer than that one.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you talking about the code size, and not the appearance size. Because, other than the coding size, they are virtually the same table. The main differences are that we don't list a "Featured Guest", because Smallville doesn't always have 1 single guest star...they don't always have any guest star for that matter. That, and this page has a color trim with the individual episode details, which I like, and also keeps up the theme established on the LOE page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. Keep it.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect colon usage
Please do something about the following sentence:


 * Episodes would evolve from basic questions such as: "what if someone had a crush on Lana, and acted on that obsession"; "what if someone found out Clark's secret"; "what if someone else had Clark's powers?"

You're not supposed to use a colon after "such as". . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Kohsmilt (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm concerned about this sentence:


 * A big part of the Smallville series relies on the effects they deliver, whether digital, physical, or special make-up effects.

"They" has no antecedent. Someone should rewrite this part. (I'm sorry if I come across as picky. Just think of it as constructive criticism.) Miss Kohsmilt (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A third point, relating to the "Reception" section: Entertainment Weekly and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette should both be in italics. Thanks, Miss Kohsmilt (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Adjusted.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised in Smallville season 1 FTC
Copied from the Smallville season 1 FTC, please continue the discussion below the box - rst20xx (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * The ratings are in the process of being added to episodes and I would add production codes to be comprehensive/encyclopaedic.
 * Try to mention any notable cast appearances from people not in the pilot. Kelly Brook's four episode arc springs to mind.
 * Tollin/Robbins Productions & Warner Bros. should probably be mentioned as producers
 * The only other things are to get references consist, so for citeweb use "first=" and "last=" fields to give "Surname, Forname" like the book ref and to remove bold links to satisfy WP:BOLDTITLE.
 * Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as production codes go, TV.com (which is part of EPguides.com) is considered as reliable as IMDb. Production codes for most shows are difficult to accurately attain. I've also seen the codes as 1.01, 1.02, etc. Where are you wanting to add Tollin/Robbins and Warner Bros. exactly? They aren't the "producers", as that is a specific title for a person. They are merely the production companies involved. I don't recall too many articles that list all of the production companies involved in a show. I'm also not sure about the boldface. Are you asking to remove the boldface from the episode titles in the table? Or, are you referring to the lead section? The only thing I can find closely talking about the lead in relation to the season 1 article is: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be in boldface". If that's the case, then "season one" is recited verbatum in the body of the article (many times), so it would be bolded.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just used epguide as it listed them all at once, they are listed individually here, Ep 1, Ep 2, etc. The production companies would go in the production section of the season, and seem to fairly standard practice in featured seasons . As for WP:BOLDTITLE "Do not link words in the bold title" i.e. the word smallville in the lead
 * Do you see a problem with those production numbers? There is one number here, and a completely different number here. The second number, though from a more reliable source, has no actual value (neither does the other). It doesn't tell the reader anything they need to know. If it's whether they filmed the episode in one order or a different one, well that is covered in the production section. It seems to be a useless bit of information about the episodes, and one that is difficult to verify.
 * As far as Tollin Robbins goes, where in the production would you like that. It seems to be an obscure statement about what companies fund the show, which is probably good for the general Smallville page, but not so much for the specific season (or even episode) articles. As far as those other pages go, you're comparing a list page to an article, which is formatted different, and contains different info. If you look at those season lists, they are doing just that, listing everything they can about the show (often repeating info each season) in prose form.
 * I fixed the link to Smallville that was being bolded.
 * I just noticed your Kelly Brook comment. There isn't a casting section (it's covered on the main page, as well as the pilot, and the Characters of Smallville), so I don't know what you would do with Kelly Brook. Just like "listing" actors in a section (which has no real value), just listing "notable guest stars" has no real value. Her name is in the plot section (which, btw, you made me realize that the plot section never resolved her final appearance on the show...and I just took care of it), and she isn't covered in any reliable, third party sources (not even any primary sources like the companion novels either) beyond a "Kelly Brook portrays Victoria Hardwick" statement. Otherwise, she would have been given a section at Characters of Smallville, instead of a name listing in the list at the bottom of said page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problems with the numbers, check again they are the same. I am well aware that the cast and production companies are covered elsewhere. My point is that they are an important part of the season and as it stands would not be covered within the season topic. A featured topic needs to be "covering a subject comprehensively." Also I have made the refs consistent. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the number now. I still stick to the same belief that it is a useless number. As for the company, how is it an important part of the season itself? It's an important part of the show, but not to the season itself. Also, being comprehensive does not mean including everything, regardless of how miniscule or non-related it is to the topic. Tollin Robbins and WB are companies that provide money, it is the people that work for them that actually decide things for the show; anyone important enough to know in that regard is already noted. Back to the cast part; important part of the season? Eh, she was a bit player in 4 episodes. She was never heard from again, and she really did nothing to develop anything in the show. She is mentioned in the plot section. Apart from that, that's all there is. You cannot (and should not) create an entire section to just list actors names that one deems "notable to the season", just because there isn't any real world information about their roles on the show. That's placing undue weight on their performance, which obviously wasn't notable enough to get recognized by reliable sources independent of the subject. As for the refs, I don't use "first, last" dividers because they take up more space than simply using "author" and placing their names in the "last, first" position. The same with the "authorlink". Why add three sections when you can accomplish all of it with a single section?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Could a few more pictures from footage be added? There's only the case and a picture of his hand 0.o Smallman12q (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is bound by the fair use policy on copyrighted images. That means we can only use images when they are absolutely necessary, and not simply as decoration. As such, there are no other images that are necessary.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but its a bit sparse on images...just wanted to point that out...Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Adjusts to life"
Adjusts to life after what? He was a baby when he arrived, and has no memory of life on Krypton, doesn't he? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "adjusts to his developing superpowers", since he wasn't born with all of them fueled and ready to go.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Smallville (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moviehole.net/reviews/20031226_965.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704144317/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason1.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928171824/http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/pastawards.html to http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/pastawards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210040426/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403195232/http://allyourtv.com/awards/awardsteenchoice2002.html to http://www.allyourtv.com/awards/awardsteenchoice2002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smallville (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011185036/http://the-trades.com/article.php?id=908 to http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=908

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Smallville (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905164918/http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/filmtv/2002/tv.html to http://www.ascap.com/filmtv/2002/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928033517/http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=14098 to http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=14098

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smallville (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120709065145/http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/102001/10282001/427249 to http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/102001/10282001/427249

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Smallville (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161020002526/http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000452/2002 to http://imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors_USA/2002
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914020939/http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000452/2003 to http://imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors_USA/2003

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)