Talk:List of Smallville episodes

message: I'm thinking we should replace the Kryptonsite screenshots with caps that don't have an advertisement.  The painful thing is that the best way to replace screencaps is to remove them, and then let someone replace them. - Peregrine Fisher 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they've given permission to use them, but if you can find a replacement that looks the same without the watermark that's cool. I could probably go through the seasons on my computer (when I go back home Monday) and recapture each of the images and just upload them as newer versions. What do you think abou that?   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good.  Another way is to remove them, and let people replace them when they see an empty slot, if you're feeling lazy (like i am). - Peregrine Fisher 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been busy with school and work, but this is my spring break. If you want to go ahead and remove them you can. I'll try and get on recapturing them all before the end of the week.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kryptonsite screenshots 

message: We need to do something about the size of this article. It's 71kb, which creates quite a bit of lag. I think we should look to some other "Lists of episodes" pages for a format that will help trim the size down. The Simpsons have 18 seasons and are at 63kb (not to mention a Featured List). We could move Smallville's DVD information over here, and follow the Simpsons' format for the listing of the episodes.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying the Simpsons format is acceptable.  List of South Park episodes is also a featured list, and it didn't go the condensing route, though. - Peregrine Fisher 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be condensed. I'm basing it on the fact that I get some lag on my state computer, and their internet and processors are better than my personal computer (which isn't slow itself). I'm working on a simpson-esque format in a sandbox, but I think I'm going to try and add a couple columns to the tables, because I think we can get away with a bit more information than they can. I think it's the images and the paragraph plots that are bogging it down. You provided a South Park link and they have the same size as us, but far more seasons than we do. Also, I think if we follow The Simpsons, we can also solve that other problem we had about a list page and a season page coexisting, because The Simpsons lists all the eps in their basic form which is just a pure list of data (title, number date), and provides links to both season pages and episode pages which give more detail in each succession.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I finished the new format. The colors can change is people want them to, I was trying to match them to the DVD boxset colors for each season. User:Bignole/List of Smallville   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need some feedback on it, so that I now how to tweak it. The page is rather large for a show that only has 6 seasons under its belt.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bignole/List of Smallville looks pretty good, but it doesn't fit on my screen width-wise.  I think we should leave out writer/director since they'll be one click away.  The colors are pretty good, except the top bar is a bit too dark, at least on my old monitor.  If it looks good on yours, I guess keep it.  List of Third Watch episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes do it pretty well, I think, so you might look at those.  I don't suppose you've changed your mind about individual episode pages?  Anyways, I say go for it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it in, and then, just like "copyediting" others can tweak the colors. As I said, I was going for the color (on the main bar) of the DVDs. As for wide, I have it wider just for spacing, i can tweak that. The only reason I'd like to keep the Writer/Director is because it's more "technical" data that a plot would be. I'll try and shrink them, and if it's not thin enough you can adjust it after I move them. The adjusting is at the top of each table (width=1000px), which I'm going to put down to 950px and you tell me how it is. As for the individual episode pages. If you can get them to look like this article or this article, then I have no problem with it. I think we can link to the episodes in the season pages, and if we find enough information on a particular article to warrant a new page, that's great. But there is no behind the scenes information on any of those ep pages that exist currently. It's probably something you'd have to by those Smallville Season Companions" to find, but I'm sure that 70-75% of them will never have enough information citable information.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Try the links to each season, the precede each of the seasons on this page. For instance, Smallville (season 1) contains the plot information for season 1. You can click each successive season in the infobox of those pages, or go to the bottom of the page and click them in the box there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I was just wondering if the directors of Fanatic(episode 516) - Mike Rohl and of Arrow(episode 604)- Michael Rohl, are the two different people or if the name Michael has been shortened to Mike? eZio 07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, same people. I'll change it to "Michael".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael and Mike Rohl 

message: Frankly they look *disgusting*, they're in violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and also add limitations to the amount of information that could be contained. I intend (as season one is already done) to begin creating individual pages soon. Addendum: Where have the gorram screen captures gone? Matthew 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you start working on the Season pages. Your gross disregard for working with others is beginning to bother me. Look at the MOS for television articles. Individual episode pages are the last step, and that is after they have been broken into season pages. Individual episode pages that contain nothing but unsources trivia do not meet wikipedia's requirements for creating an article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean "unsourced trivia"? I'll put your message down to blissful ignorance, because if you knew me you would know I'm quite the trivia eradicator. You shouldn't speak of what you do not know. Peace out, Matthew 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you are upset that I changed the format of the page. You had a time to voice your opinion of that, as I came here months ago with this. It's now a featured list, and no one but you expressed this type of opinion about the page, or that it violates any MOS. It doesn't add limitations to the article, it limits excessive size. The article was twice the size it is now, for a show that had a 1/3 of the seasons that The Simpsons have, or half of the ones that South Park has. It's now divided up into a list of the episodes, coupled with just date-esque information, and is then broken down by seasons. If you can provide information for individual episode articles that look like Pilot (House) or Aquaman (TV program), then that's fine. But episode articles that are nothing but plots and trivia do not meet article requirements. If you are such a "trivia eradicator", then why do all those articles still have such information? Try sprucing up what's there before you go running out and creating 100 episode articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More ignorance (tsk), I actually like the layout - very much, thanks. Also, those articles are in bad shape as nobody has bothered to fix them up - perhaps I'll do it when I feel the desire. I'll happily put this list up for review though if you insert user submitted sources again. Matthew 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's being redirected right now because we don't have what we need to separate it from this page. Right now, we don't have any episode titles or airdates (except the premiere date) from any reliable source. Thus, what's on this page would be identical to what's on the season 9 page. Once they start releasing the episode titles, we'll be able to move everything and leave behind an episode table here.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Not a stupid question at all. It's kind of what I was alluding to. Right now, since we don't have any episode titles or airdates beyond the premiere, we'd have nothing but a blank table here, which wouldn't be appropriate to have. If we create a season page for season 9, it would basically look identical to what's already on this page, because we wouldn't be able to put a table here or on the season page. Since they would look the same, there isn't a reason to separate them. Once we get a few episode titles so that we can start a table on this page, we'll separate the prose information and put that on the season 9 page when it is created. This might help: Here is a link to the first edit of the season 8 page. See how it already has a sourced episode table started, with a synopsis of the first episode? That was basically this same time last year. The only difference between this year and last year is that this year the show will start 1 week later, and thus we'll probably have to wait an extra week or so before The CW releases episode titles/synopsis/airdates. I'd say, before the end of next week we'll probably have something the episode descriptions that will allow us to separate the table and leave something on this page that isn't just a duplication of the season page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallville and season pages 

message: What's the source for all the episode air dates contained here? So that it can be added to the article. Matthew 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only removed the one, so this can replace it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's a good citation for the lead. But what about the other episodes? This looks like it could source the other episodes. Matthew 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read it (I'm at work), but if you believe it would be a good source for the other episodes, please add it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Because we only had verification for that one episode, which made us assume that it was a special occurrence and those worth separating out. If you have verification of the entire season, then I say we revert back to the original US airdates for all (give that it is an American show) and use a source that verifies that it has aired on Wednesdays in Canada to note that in prose at the top of the Season 7 section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's US specific for Smallville because it's a US show.  Doctor Who's airdates refer to UK airdates.  Basically, it's the original airdates of the original country. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates 

message: Why aren't you putting the episode titles that have been revealed by KryptonSite??? Who care if they may be wrong! And if they are, you can just change it when we find out the real titles. There is no point in fussing so much. And what's going to happen if you write down a title that probably isn't going to be wrong? It's really not the end of the world. (Wikirocks2 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the policy on verifiability and the guideline on reliable sources, we do not add information that cannot be cited reliably. Kryptonsite is not considered a reliable source in this matter. Currently, the only reliable source we have that updates all the episode titles and airdates is TV Guide, and they don't post anything until they get the official write-ups from the networks themselves.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to Season 7, is there a reason it hasn't been added to the Seasons table?JeffHCross 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What table? The DVD table? There isn't enough information to report.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is KryptonSite not considered a valid source? I would certainly consider it to have a "reputation for accuracy" as specified by WP:SOURCES. I cannot recall a time when it has been wrong about episode titles. Kidburla (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fansite, that gets a lot of its information from scoopers. Though the information is generally accurate, there is no way to actually verify the information as authentic (hence why places like MSN and TV Guide wait until the CW officially releases the titles). Things can change when you get information based on "scoops".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 7  Titles 

message: All seasons show Director and Writers in this order, while 7th season shows it reverse (Writers and Director). I think should be a good idea to switch, to avoid confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.254.5 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Allison Mack hasn't been switched in the columns. 24.86.193.35 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I forgot to scroll down and swap her over.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column Patterns 

message: Why does BigNole have the authority to decide what is allowed and what isn't?  The episode information provided by Kryptonsite is always accurate, and they have proven themselves over the past few years to be a reliable source.  I say we put the episode titles as they are provided because frankly the page looks ugly with all the "TBA"s.  Plus, from what I can tell, it's BigNole constantly undoing a bunch of different people's edits.  Seems the majority thinks it should be used.  Ocdmuch (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy does not equal reliability. Please see WP:RS for what is considered reliable. Kryptonsite is a fansite. The only information used from them is direct interviews, where they identify who they are talking to. Scooper reports, are not reliable sources, and that is what Krpytonsite uses. Whenever they pose "the official write-up", so does MSN and TV Guide, which are better sources to use. My actions follow WP:RS and WP:V.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Titles, Air Dates

message: As "Society" and "Legends" have been combined into what is being referred to as TV movie, Absolute Justice should be italicized. However, a couple other editors seem to disagree, so I'd like to open a discussion on it. Ωphois 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being marketed as a "2-hour movie event", but it's still just an episode.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Justice format 

message: so you can't write 2009-10 until anew show is aired yet you can list shows that have not aired yet. i don't get it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is, we are noting that there are episodes planned to air in 2010 when we list episodes with an airdate then. But the header itself is to chronicle when episodes have actually aired. None have actually aired in 2010, with the exception of repeats.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

text: How? The header isn't designed to talk about the future, it's designed to reference the present. No episode has aired in 2010. The reality is though, that there are some scheduled to air in 2010. But if something happens, and they don't air then we can never say that the season ran from 2009 to 2010. We cannot ignore the fact that there are episodes planned, and just not include them simply because they haven't aired.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Airdates

message: Is it just me or is there something wrong with the list of the ninth season? It says that "Warrior" is the 11th episode and airs on Feb. 12th, but that is one week after "Absolute Justice", the 12th episode. Isn't "Warrior" supposed to be the 12th episode?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.83.169.98 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now fixed. Ωphois 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates of "Warrior" and "Absolute Justice" 

message: On Smallville's list of episodes page, there is some wrong information for Season 9? i want to change it, but there is no 'edit' button. Help!! Thanks.
Tunapup (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to "Absolute Justice" being only one episode, then no, that is not incorrect. Otherwise, you can tell us what the mistake is, and we can fix it. It is currently semi-protected, so only established users can edit the page for the time being. Ωphois 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: But it is wrong factual information. If the CW ordered a 22 episode season, then how can "Absolute Justice" be only 1 episode? Also, somebody needs to get rid of the TBA between "Conspiracy" and "Escape". Look, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to get the information fixed. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.54.10 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The CW's own website only lists "Absolute Justice". They don't list it as two separate episodes. The CW ordered 22 episodes, but that was before they decided to combine two episodes into a single episode. The fact that they combined 2 into 1 does change the fact that they are still getting what they paid for. It's just not how they originally intended. That said, it's still just one episode. Unless the DVD comes out an lists it as two separate episodes, it appears we'll end up with 21 one individual episodes, with one of them being 2 hours long.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a single presentation, but it still counts as two episodes. Quit playing semantics. Warner considers the series as having 218 episodes, that's the Guinness Record for most episodes for an American sci-fi show, and it only works out that way if Absolute Justice is two episodes. That's the problem with Wikipedia sometimes, is that people get so caught up with little nitpicky details about a definition that they lose sight of the bigger picture.Vader47000 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Single broadcasted episode created from 2 productions. Warner has it as 1 episode for Season 9's DVD.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? "Encounter at Farpoint" was a single produced episode originally broadcast as one episode, and later split into two episodes, and it counts a two episodes on Wikipedia. Absolute Justice is clearly two episodes for the purposes of episode numbering. That's why iTunes lists it as Parts 1&2, as does the Smallville Wiki. The DVD liner notes are for presentations within the context of that season only.Vader47000 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the notes. The DVD menus as well actually say one episode.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that. Just because they call it one episode for the simplicity of their menu doesn't mean we have to count it just as one. Especially since Warner's official press release for the complete series lists 218. So clearly that 21-episode count for season 9 only counts within the context of season 9, not the series as a whole.Vader47000 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I edit a page that I know has wrong factual inforation but has no 'edit' button? 

message: Just asking out of curiousity:  Why was the color "drained" from the list? Jimknut (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What color are you referring to? If you referring to the color in season 9, there wasn't any. If you're referring to the lighter tones that used to appear on every other line for each season table, then you'll have to speak to the person that changed the table. Personally, I liked the way the color scheme looked on the original tables.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, Bignole.  Yes, I was referring to the lighter tones that used to appear on every other line for each season table. I, too, liked the way the color scheme looked on the original tables.  Perhaps the person who made the change will give us a response some time. Jimknut (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm know that because the page is transcluded now, it would probably be impossible to have the alternating color tones. As each season section is being pulled from the season pages, it would look weird to alternate the colors on the season pages. If we chose to include an additional line on them, then they wouldn't alternate here, and would be a lighter tone for each line (as opposed to lighter tone, white color, lighter tone, white color, etc...). If that makes sense.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: Alright.  I can understand the logic of Absolute Justice, on some level, being a point of contention.  Never mind the fact that House met it's 22 episode requirement for FOX with a two-hour premeire event that really only totals out at 21.  Or The Office twice this season going to an hour for 24 episodes, and still being credited with 26 for NBC in spite of neither hour ever being shown as two seperate episodes.  Lost has 16 episodes, but they're making the 18 requirement for ABC.  Even CW seems to be satisfied that their 22 episode requirement has been filled with AJ.  And all sources are treating this as standard.  No reports this season of anyone going under production.  Except, of course for Two and a Half Men, who rolled back to their production number of 22.
It seems quite apparent, at least to me, that the hour (or half, in the case of The Office) is the standard by which an "episode" is measured by the networks, the industry and the media, and Guinness could do no less under the circumstances.  And lest we forget, AJ was written and directed as two seperate episodes.  Still has two production codes.  If you're going to obsess over semantic hairs, you may even have to consider that it's not even an episode at all, if it qualifies as the "movie event" the network touted it as.  That would make the record come in at episode 21.
Seems to me the safest thing to do for the sake of verifiability is to dump the deadline date, and do as the reference article did; simply mention that it will happen during the season.  That's my two cents, and as far as I want to debate the matter.  I throw it to the wolves.  Thoughts?  KnownAlias  contact 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's no rush to adjust the episode count of season nine until the DVD comes out and we see how they finally decide to package it, I don't think we need a "it will be completed on this episode" deadline. The sources don't say that...except the ones that have popped up recently and are clearly copying Wikipedia's page (i.e., it reads verbatum). I think it's fine to leave it out until we know for sure how they will package the season. As, technically they did "produce" 22 episodes for the season, as per the contract, the CW just chose to merge two of them into one. So seeing as that was the CW's decision it couldn't fall on the producers to make a "23rd" episode just to satisfy the 22-ep contract. The CW might still consider it 22 episodes, and mark "AJ" as eps 11 and 12 in the booklet, or they could just say "Containing all 21 episodes, and the two-hour 'Absolute Justice'..." Won't know till they figure out what they want to do.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Just a note, there have been a number of hour-long series that had two-hour specials as episodes in their own right, as well as half-hour series with hour-long specials that counted as episodes (not two but one).  Of course, these eventually wound up being cut in half for syndication, but that's beside the point. DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brian & Stewie" from Family Guy is a recent example worth noting, but it only has one production code (though even here you can argue the second half hour was filler material).  On the other hand, "Something, Something, Something, Dark Side" has two.  Fine, if it's not counted by the hour, it is counted by the code. And AJ has two of 'em. Further besides the point.  The point is, do we, without knowing if it's the 19th, 20th (or 21st) episode, pull the deadline date?  I'm a yes, BIGNOLE has no objections.  Any dissenters? KnownAlias  contact 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Plus, I was just thinking; even my arguements are on how the CW will view AJ with regards to the count, which I just realized isn't relevant.  It's how Guinness will view it that matters.  I actually don't think we're going to know the answer to this one 'till the CW starts advertising Smallville as the longest running Sci-Fi series (they won't bog it down with little details like "consecutive", I'm sure). KnownAlias  contact 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Record Breaking Episode 

message: There is apparently some disagreement over how the dates in the headers should be displayed. Personally, I have not concern about either way. My question, "Is there anything that says it should be one way over the other?"   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:YEAR doesn't descretely say "Use parenthasis" or "Don't use parenthasis", but it does favor the EN Dash. "Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year." If we go by that sentence, then my question would be do we use the dash or the slash. ChaosMasterChat 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we used parantheses with EN-dashes? So, it would look like: "Season 9 (2009–10)"???   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's currently on the page uses ndashes, so not sure why that was even brought up. Parenthesis make more sense, the year is not the title of the season, which some shows have, were the format is "Season X: Name of the Season (Year)". What's currently on the page, and was on the page, is perfectly acceptable and there seems to be no reason to change it. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only difference is actually the use of "2009-2010" instead of "2009-10", which I think YEAR suggests should be used as you only need to put in a full year for the second number if it's a different century. Hency my proposed compromise above.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, though I don't exactly see why we can't get rid of the parenthesis altogether. ChaosMasterChat 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header Dates 

message: Currently the Region 4 date for Season 7 is wrong according to most sites it was released 4 March 2009 in Australia (rather than May 3). Some examples are JB Hi-Fi (http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/dvd/dvd-genres/action-adventure/smallville-season-7/409474), Devoted (http://www.devoteddvd.com.au/shop/product_info.php?products_id=49305) and Sanity (http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2120389/Smallville_S7_M15_6dvd). Although Ezy DVD lists March 30. I'll admit I haven't registered nor do I know how to do complicated footnotes. So I hope someone else can make the edit. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's less a sourcing issue and more of a typo. The dates were all converted to an HTML code, and someone must have put in the wrong month. According to EZDVD, they list "March 3" and not "May 3"....so it was probably just a typo someone had.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Although that is good information, we typically will only use vendors when sourcing already released products. Vendors do not always have the actual release date, but more of an estimated...and sometimes they provide specific estimations based on previous years. Amazon has changed upcoming dates multiple times for products simply because they hear it might be out around a specific time and then it gets moved. If we can find a news report that lists the future date then that would be better. When the date passes, if we haven't had any news reports talking about the future release date, then we can use the vendor because it'll be more accurate as to when it was released.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fetch often lists things first (not always) and then Ezy DVD or Devoted follows next (sometimes they're first). Also Smallville Season 9 has been classified by the Australian Classification Board on 7 December 2011 (http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/5b6ebdff7f5b9a24ca2575ca00062226/351d826779b749a7ca2577f200580c9c?OpenDocument). I will point out for the past three years it has been released in March. Because of your objection I looked up the different sites again and found it listed 30 March 2011 (http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2194021/Smallville_S9). So I'm thinking maybe list it as March 2011. Until more retailers list it especially 2 months before as that's when they usually know. Would that be acceptable? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's probably when it will be released, I'm merely saying that the general consensus when it comes to using vendors as a source of information is that we don't use them for future releases because of the changeable nature of vendor information. It isn't a "me" issue, but a community gripe with using vendors for future dates.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that although vendors in Australia tend to have the correct information 95-99% or some stores even better unless there's a shipping problem (eg. JB Hi-Fi; they often don't list things online until a week before). Also they are my only known source of DVD information. Because do you know of where these announcements show up in Australia? As the only place I know of are the vendors. If there's somewhere else tell me please (I've seen anime forums but Smallville isn't anime). I'll note at the moment Ezy DVD has only listed it as a future release. Maybe when they list a date it is likely to be true. I know it's probably pointless to say it. Even though I'm not sure there is another kind of source. Unless you count magazines and they often don't have everything and may not list it online plus aren't perfect either. Nothing can be. So why not accept imperfect information and update if it changes? Isn't that what the edit button is for? Especially as they usually get it right (again it's probably pointless of me to say this). -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in Australia, so my default browser doesn't go to Australian websites. Any news source that mentions a date is fine, whether that's a magazine or an online news source. Forums we cannot use because they are not considered reliable. It needs to be a place that has editorial oversight (someone reviewing the content before it goes out to check its validity). If say some Australian news organization cited JB Hi-Fi for a date, then I'm fine with that because it means that they are citing them and not us. We just cannot cite them directly before the actual release because of the possibility that dates are often estimations ahead of time.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea is basically could the information from vendors be considered acceptable if three or more of them agreed? Surely that might be good enough. By the way the forum I mentioned was the DVD manufacturers (of anime in Australia) forum(s) with someone from or for the company announcing it so it wasn't just any ol' forum.  - Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't about if you have a bunch saying the same date. It's about no one reviewing the information before it is posted. There isn't "editorial oversight" on vendor websites because they aren't a news organization and don't have to have such a thing. That's why when it comes to future releases the community doesn't like to use vendor websites (they really don't like to use them period because they're vendors and are there to sell a product which is a conflict of interest for Wikipedia, but they cut us slack when it comes to past dates because often they are the only ones that ever provide those dates).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any of you guys seen clips from FOX News? I've seen it via The Daily Show and if that's considered reliable then I'd be amazed. Not to mention that it has editorial oversight. Just because someone wants to sell you something does not make it unreliable. Especially when being as accurate as possible when to expect things are your bread and butter. I get it's probably pointless here to say it. I also happen to think if three of them agree then it not likely to be a coincidence (although one should be enough if there are no differences). I'll try to find other sources but I don't get the bias against people that need to try to be accurate (about it showing up) to sell something is somehow considered unreliable. As they even update if the date changes. As I said; then someone can edit if that happens. Which isn't the end of the world or Wikipedia when editing happens. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: My point wasn't that FOX or The Daily Show are reliable (both are funny; one intentionally). My point is that just because something is a news source doesn't make it reliable. So why are they meant to be considered better than something that wants you to buy something and in order for you to buy it they have to try to be as accurate as possible as when that will be. Although even there sometimes there needs to be updates. When that occurs the edit button is used. Again not the end of Wikipedia. -Angeloz123.2.138.148 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out, one is principally interested in sales, and will update the information if it needs it, whereas the other is interested in the facts, and will only print it if it is verified (or at the very least, qualify it as tentative or speculative).  You're right that it won't end Wikipedia, and we do, in fact, update information all the time, but the purpose of the Wikipedia project is to be an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball.  We strive to provide reliable, proven facts to the best of our abilities.  Relying on speculative or preliminary information just because that's what's available is not keeping with the project's policy of verifiability. KnownAlias  contact 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another site (Big W in Australia) just added 2 March 2011 for Season 9. As well as Dstore (it admits it might change) and also cdwow. Lastly Atlantic DVD (Australia). So that's quite a bit of coincidental "speculation". Oh well never mind. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 4 DVDs 

message: I'm curious about one thing.  Why is it that someone who has directed/written for Smallville in past seasons, is always has their name linked again, the first time they direct/write for the next season?  Two examples are Geoff Johns and Tom Welling. 
I thought once they directed/wrote for one episode, no matter when, that they didn't get their name linked again. GiantTiger001 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual season pages are transcluded so that when the data is added or changed on the season 10 page, the same information is added or changed on season 10 on the main episodes list.  So the reality is, each writer/director is linked only once on each season page, the first time, and as a result, linked at the beginning of each season on this article.  Can't be avoided.  KnownAlias  contact 02:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directors/Writers 

message: Couldn't help but notice that The CW's press release for the complete series DVD set specifically states that it will contain all 218 episodes. Does that mean they're counting Absolute Justice as two seperate episodes now? Should this re-open the discussion about whether or not it should be likewise on here? Just curious. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how they're counting the actual episodes themselves, as the discs would be more accurate than the press release since one does not necessarily go hand in hand with the other. It also means they are counting the finale as 2 episodes, yet the official description for the finale says "episode" and not "episodes". So, clearly they still cannot agree on anything. Regardless, the question would really be do we change the way we're counting it because a newer version counts it differently than the original version? Assuming of course they do count it differently. To me, that would be like changing the runtime in the infobox of the Blade Runner series to the most recent cut of the film. Too much confusion surrounding these episodes. It would be so much easier if they simply stopped combining things.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the real litmus test how Absolute Justice will be treated in syndication, where it will most assuredly be split into two episodes? It's like how the pilots for the Star Trek shows were made as two-hour single presentations, but count as two episodes (and are listed as such accordingly). You already have the solution up for Absolute Justice, just kind of half executed. List it as two episodes but add the footnote about it being presented as one on the DVD. Duh.Vader47000 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that isn't a possibility, the problem is that when you count episodes on the DVDs it actually says "21 episodes" for season 9. It doesn't say 22 episodes.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reverting a valid correction based on what a DVD booklet says? The DVD also lists Absolute Justice as a "Double Episode," which is another way of saying "two episodes." Also, the DVD booklet is a representation of the presentations within the context of that season set only. Within the context of the show as a whole, it's two episodes. It's clearly intended to be interpreted that way, which is how Homecoming is actually the 200th episode. It's also listed as "Absolute Justice Parts 1 & 2" on iTunes, which means it's two episodes. I really don't get the fervor for defending a 217 number that simply isn't correct. The Smallville Wiki gets it right, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't as well. If you insist on saying there are only 217 episodes of Smallville, I suggest adding a separate column for produced episodes. But the main article should say 218. That's what Guinness recognizes as the record for most episodes by an American sci-fi show. Vader47000 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual count on the DVDs themselves is 21. They have the record because they produced 218 episodes. That is accurate. But they broadcasted at least 2 (4 if you include the finale) as a single episode. We already have a column for produced, it's called the "Production Code" section; that already indicates that the episode was filmed as 2 entities.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They broadcast them as single presentations. And the DVD is internally inconsistent since it calls it a "Double Episode." If they produced 218 then the main page should say 218. It's confusing otherwise since most other sources say 218. Vader47000 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: As for consistency, the Warner press release for season 9 said 21 episodes, so clearly they are only counting that within the context of season 9, and they aren't using the term "episode" the way an episode guide would. They are just simplifying it so the average viewer doesn't have to think too hard about it. Trust me, I know some of these people who write the press releases and create the DVD extras. They're not the type to overanalyze the issue like we are.Vader47000 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete series press release 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on List of Smallville episodes. 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/20140718105253/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516042311/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528005920/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110030736/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100306_09 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100306_09
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rZ7W3jUV?url=http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042023/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202122853/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/23/top-cw-primetime-shows-september-15-21/5293 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/23/top-cw-primetime-shows-september-15-21/5293
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005090016/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/19/top-cw-primetime-shows-may-11-17-2009/19087 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/19/top-cw-primetime-shows-may-11-17-2009/19087
*Added archive https://archive.is/2012.05.23-234654/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619131409/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001090113/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/27/friday-finals-supernatural-up-dateline-down/65397 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/27/friday-finals-supernatural-up-dateline-down/65397
*Added archive https://archive.is/2014.08.12-083815/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/
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) 11:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Smallville episodes. 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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015043550/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/12/dollhouse-premiere-18-49-rating-increases-to-a-1-5-via-dvr-hopeful-or-futile/30214 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/12/dollhouse-premiere-18-49-rating-increases-to-a-1-5-via-dvr-hopeful-or-futile/30214
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) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Smallville episodes. 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/20110714064931/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/sep02/sep23/4_thurs/news3thursday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/sep02/sep23/4_thurs/news3thursday.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115075127/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/791637 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/791637
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218020556/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/802858 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/802858
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) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of Smallville episodes. 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/20091019203010/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/794728 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/794728
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013015104/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/804202 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/804202
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007043510/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/804203 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/804203
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131065239/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/807392 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/807392
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322223049/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/811459 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/811459
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407150402/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/817619 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/817619
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) 11:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified