Template talk:Smallville

Spoilers?
Doesn't having the characters split into "Past" and "Present" kind of give away some of the plot? Is there even a reason to separate them? Besides, the actor playing the chacter that died in season 5 is still listed in the main credits (as of Vengeance), so it might be to early to say that he is gone for good. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That is true. It is a spoiler. And I am kind of curious as to why that character is still in the opening credits... perhaps it is a little too soon to really say they're gone for good. Emily 16:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Smallville Allusions
Why was that page deleted? It says it was defunct but why? --70.225.186.158 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs more detail
This template should be expanded to include things like the Smallville: Chloe Chronicles, LuthorCorp, Wall of Weird, Smallville (comics) etc. Davey4 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actors
Apparently there was a TfD for the actors of Smallville, which was closed as a merge to this template. My first problem is the fact that the TfD was not advertised on any Smallville related page, or WP:TV, as it should have been. My second problem is the result of a "merge" (which is typically not what TfD is for, plus I question how 2 "merge" votes become the consensus when 3 other people said delete flat out) to a page that was not aware of the discussion. Finally, my problem is with the inclusion of the material. This is a template for all of the articles that are only related to Smallville the show. These actors are not only related to Smallville. We don't typically include a "cast list" in a film/television nav box. Otherwise the list would be incredibly long (as can clearly be seen here). The original template should have been deleted flat out, as the actors do not need a nav box to begin with. The assumption that you need to know who Jensen Ackles is when visiting Tom Welling's page is a weak one, because the character was on the show for 1 season and didn't do anything significant. He also is not notable because he was on Smallville.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bignole, I will agree that the actors needs to be on the template. I have something similar on a template I created. The actors, though how unsignifigant they were, deserve to be put in a "Starring" section, NOT an "Actors" section. Putting all the series regulars throughout the show should help navigation.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Help how? This isn't a template for them. Most of them are established actors before Smallville. Would you create a template for every show they've starred on? There is a reason the template was deleted itself, because we don't list actors together that show only a menial association with each other. John Schneider has no direct connection to Sam Witwer. We don't include actors on film navs, why would we do it here?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We will be listing series regulars, which have signifigantly larger roles than anyone else on Smallville. Thus, they are important. It doesn't matter if they were established actors before the show or if they are not alive anymore. No, I would not make a template soley for the actors, I would make one with the episodes, seasons, exc. (like this template), and add a starring section. Speaking of John Schneider, he is in my other template, and even though he left the show after the first season of it, he was a season regular.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Again, Jenson Ackles was a "series regular" but didn't really have a significant role in season four. If you removed him you still had the same story arc taking place. He wasn't even included in on the story arc till the last few episodes because he was leaving the show. Then you have Aaron Ashmore who, up until the finale, portrayed Jimmy Olsen. The character is significant, but on the show he was barely even present. It's an unnecessary list, given that all of the actors are listed on all of the pages that they are relevant to. Again, we do not do this for film nav boxes, and we don't do it for the majority of TV nav boxes. This seems to be more about accommodating a template that never should have been created in the first place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought navboxes were for connecting articles relating to a certain subject. Not those only relating to a single subject. The actors are integral to the show. Without actors there would be no show! Yes, the list needs to be trimmed, but I don't think their mention should be deleted completely. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trimming the list leads to favoritism with characters/actors, and having it as a "series regular" catch all will include many people that don't really need to be listed. The actors are integral to making the show, yes, but you don't list them in a nav box. Otherwise, what's to stop you from listing all of the directors (they're just as important), or the writers, or the executive producers, or Mark Snow, or Remy Zero, or Entity FX, or Superman (the character), or Clark Kent (the comic character)? I could go on. You can please six-degrees of separation with anything. Minus the last two I listed, everyone else is just as connected as the actors. There is a reason we have all of those people listed at Smallville, because the nav box would just grow exponentially if we listed them all and playing favorites with who we list (whether in a specific section or by what sections to actually include) is not only unfair but creates a conflict of interest. Who gets to decide which sections are important enough to include. That's why the template never included those "behind-the-scenes" players before - which includes actors, since they are both in-front of the scenes and behind the scenes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, what are you going to do about House, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, 30 Rock, Friends, Firefly, The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.? I see you reasoning, but this is a discussion you should be bringing up at the project. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct, this is probably something that needs to be addressed on a larger scale either at WP:TV or WP:MOSTV (given that the later deals with style guidelines).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to WT:TV.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Books
Book:Seasons of Smallville and Book:Smallville (season 1), are seperate books with different scopes, much like Book:Seasons of The Simpsons and Book:The Simpsons (season 1) are seperate books with different scopes. Both should be linked, as well as any new books related to Smallville as they get created. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No they are not. Seasons of Smallville lists all of the seasons. If you click "Season 1" on that page, you get the same page as "Book:Smallville (season 1)". All we need is one master page, you are not providing "new pages" for the template. You are simply providing a page that provides a PDF version of pages already linked. We do not need multiple links to pages that already listed. Show me where it says they have to all be listed. Also, please follow WP:BRD. You have been reverted by two separate editors who disagree with you. Unless you can show some policy that says every individual book page should be listed in the template, then I don't agree with including a link to every individual page. Otherwise, you'd have to link to the episode pages that are listed, and the character pages. It's all clutter. There's no point to have them. You should have a master page that lists all of the individual pages that have books, and that's it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you click "Season 1" on that page, you get the same page as "Book:Smallville (season 1)." No you don't, books are collections of articles that can be printed or downloaded. If you print Smallville (season 1), you don't get the same things as printing Book:Smallville (season 1), so no this is not the same thing at all. And yes usually it's good practice to lump everything in navboxes, including episodes. See Lost episodes for an example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, when you click "season 1" in "Seasons of Smallville" you don't get "Book: Smallville (season 1)"...but why shouldn't you? Why should you even have the books listed on the template anyway? They are not separate pages of Wikipedia. They should be individual links on each respective page. It doesn't make sense to clutter a template with pages that are not separate. Otherwise, I could make the argument to include the different language versions of each page, a link to WikiCommons, a link to Wikiquote, a link to so many other things. There is no relevance in the nav box for them, because the nav box is for navigating between pages, not one stop shopping for books. Those book links should be listed individually, not cluttered on nav boxes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "They are not separate pages of Wikipedia." Yes they are...? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No they aren't, not in the sense that the show anything new. They are only separate in the sense of providing a different look at the same page. In other words, they're only as separate as the "Printable version" of the page that appears to the left in the quick links. Which, btw, also already includes a link to the book version of the page and a PDF version of the page. I've realized that this disagreement is apparently wider-spread than just you and I. I've started a discussion at the WikiBooks home page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in sub-headings
Pinging users who have tried to implement the same change I did earlier today regarding moving links to the sub-headings rather than separate entries in the list. I've just realised other users did so after being reverted. , plus an IP, over several years. We've all been reverted by. I think the consensus is clear. Matt14451 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bignole has own issues on pretty much all subjects he regularly edits. It feels bad saying that because I think he's a good editor but it's true.★Trekker (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, what a shame. Matt14451 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First, having discussions about me and how I edit articles is not only irrelevant, but uncouth. Comment on the subject, not the editor. Second, when you link like that in the header, it makes it appear as though "Episodes" and "Character" are being linked. Not the Smallville related pages. Second, this nav box isn't cluttered and there is no reason to actually push links into headers when they cleanly fit on the nax box main section and are clearly more appropriately titled to their respective pages. You say a concensus is clear, but the only argument that ever gets brought up is other templates do it. Remember, consensus is about the argument, not the number of people. Ten people saying "I like it this way" does not automatically mean that's a consensus. There isn't a guide that says you have to do it that way, but there is a guide on how to pipe links appropriately. Now, these are headers you are linking. Per WP:HEADER, we shouldn't be linking in headers. To quote: "Headings should not be Wikilinked. This is because headings in themselves introduce information and let the reader know what subtopics will be presented; Wikilinks should be incorporated in the text of the section." -- Yes, this is directly referencing articles, but the principle still applies to nav boxes as they are operating the same way. They are providing a section header which then lists information related to it. Per WP:PIPE, it's best to be as transparent as possible when linking. Linking "Characters of Smallville" as simple "characters" in a header is NOT as transparent as linking directly "Characters of Smallville" in the section it resides in. Same is true for the LoE page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I started the conversation to be about the content, mentioning you as the user who has reverted us all. replied accusing you of ownership of articles.
 * Nobody thinks "Episodes" and "Character" is being linked in this situation. WP:HEADER article is about tables, not navboxes, so isn't relevant. Headers are different in tables in articles and navboxes. There is no specific policy so the opinions of the majority rules. Why don't you have a problem with every other similar nav-box? Matt14451 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:HEADER doesn't include the text Headings should not be Wikilinked. This is because headings in themselves introduce information and let the reader know what subtopics will be presented; Wikilinks should be incorporated in the text of the section at all. I just checked. And it's not that it was taken out in a recent edit—so what guideline are you referring to? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't catch that. Even less validity for argument. Matt14451 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the wrong link, as apparently "WP:HEADER" goes to "WP:HEADERS" and not to the expository page for the MOS that I pulled it from. Here is a regular link to that page here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying but that doesn't talk about what we're talking about. Headings are different to this situation. Matt14451 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty common for the headers to link to their respective article. So a "Episodes" header would link to "List of x episodes". If this really needs to come down to a vote, then I support the change. --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is "common usage", you well know, is not always what should be done. There have been a lot of things throughout Wikipedia that were "common usage" for quite awhile before someone stepped in. Again, the argument I hear is "other pages do it", not that it is the suggested practice. In fact, there are more guides that suggest not doing it that way, as I pointed to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a thousand times better to not constantly repeat words.★Trekker (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A thousand times? There is not "repeating" of words. Unless you're talking about the repetition of "episodes" and "Characters" in each of their article headers and the section header. I cannot imagine that this setup is somehow bogging down the system in repetition to the point that we need to remove 2 words. It's more transparent, which WP:PIPE specifically says to be. You may go "no one is going to think 'Characters' goes to the basic 'Characters' page." - but I stopped thinking people assumed basic common knowledge a long time ago.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And why should we pander to stupid people?★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell if you're trying to insult me or readers, but either way that was probably uncalled for. What exactly is the argument for putting links in headers (or a naturally thin nav box to begin with) other than "other nav boxes do it"? I've pointed to various guides that suggest keeping links out of headers (doesn't matter that they page is for articles, the principle is the same), that say make pipe links as transparent as possible ("Characters of Smallville" is more transparent than just "Characters", which can go anywhere), and not to mention it's actually cleaner looking when you don't have a couple of random blue links in the header section next to non-linked items.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well "cleaner looking" is nothing but blatant POV, as far as I feel it looks far worse. Avoids repetition is a 1000 times better and simpler. It also separates different types of articles.★Trekker (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying "1000 times better". I'm not sure how you're coming up with that. You can argue you don't like the look, that's fine (I only added that at the end as an opinion based thing). As for "avoids repetition", repetition of what? Nothing is repeated. You have a section header and then you have the articles that go with that. It already is separated to different types of articles. Seasons, episodes, characters, miscellaneous. That's separated. Not sure what you're referring to. Again, it just comes across as "others do it", "I like it", and nothing supporting that notion in any guide.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you for real having a hard time grasping what I'm saying or are you trying to piss me off so you can't continue your ownsership of everything you ever edit? You don't even know the guidlines of navboxes as shows by your removal of the articles from the Halloween navbox long ago.★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just that doesn't like the look,  is currently alone in that opinion with many other users disagreeing with it as indicated by their changes. The words "episodes" and "character" are unnecessarily repeated. Matt14451 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What guideline on navboxes do you think I'm not knowing? When I removed which things from the Halloween navbox? Again, your arguments seem to be "I just like it". What exactly is the "unnecessary repeating" of the word "episodes" and "characters". You're both actually arguing that because a header says "Characters" and then a section, which contains individual character articles, has a page called "Characters of Smallville" that it somehow is unnecessarily repetitive? You want to talk about nitpicking just to justify a cause?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to have a conversation with you, all you do is ignore what people are saying or seemingly (maybe pretending to) not understand what people are saying. The Halloween navbox was the situation months ago when you removed my aditions and insisted that the navbox should only include official media, which is bunk, navboxes are for connecting related articles, not franchise overviews.★Trekker (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the Halloween navbox as I'm not familiar with that situation. We're not nitpicking. The characters section should have the main page wikilinked with only character articles within the section as per every other navbox. Matt14451 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is at WP:NAVBOX that says headers in navboxes should not be linked. In fact, most of the examples listed there of navboxes have headers that  links, including one that is super-recognizable Policy list and another one I assume is well-known in that discipline Philosophy sidebar. So... beyond the consensus here, and the lack of any policy or guidelines forbidding it... we should be linking  headers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are more guides that suggest not doing it that way, as I pointed to. - I'm sorry, but you pointed to no guideline that talks about navbox and disallowing links in headers. Either do that, or understand that so far you are alone in your position and the community consensus is against you on this issue. Please don't make this something that it shouldn't be. --Gonnym (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)