Talk:Smallville/Archive 1

message: Why is there no section on the distinctly homoerotic overtones in Lex and Clark's relationship? As they share those long, tense pauses after Lex has just posed a difficult question which skirts close to uncovering Clark's ture identity - surely most viewers can see the analogy for unacknowledged homosexual love? I'd be interested to hear anyone's thughts on this. --82.44.21.151 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe a section regarding the Lex/Clark relationship in this manner is pertinent to the article. As a viewer of Smallville, I personally have never noticed any supposed overtones throughout the series, though I am aware of other individuals' credence in the notion. Regardless, I don't believe it holds encyclopedic value for this article because it is not an established idea in the Smallville series. I know of other mediums whose fan bases have similar relationship questions (the Harry Potter series, for example, comes to mind); however, these respective articles do not divulge them. Angleterre 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homoeroticism?

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

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

message: Yeah, I don't really feel like logging in right now, but this is just an anonymous comment... lousy article. I know there are Smallville FANATICS out there, where are they? This article is pathetic and told me nothing about the tv show. Seriously. And yeah, the buncha images for the opening credits — silly! And yeah, garish. 24.196.19.87 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, at the very least some general trivia (even about the huge amount of stars and guest stars from the movies, including Annette O'Toole) wouldn't be dismissed, it's far from the worst, but definatly can use a lot of data.--Kinglink 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a comment

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

message: I've removed the part of the article that claims the Kent farm is in Cloverdale. Cloverdale is a part of Langley; basically, the western/southern part. (Actually, I may be wrong about this, it might be southeast Surrey. In fact, I think it *is* SE Surrey.) While this is where the city scenes are filmed, this is not where the Kent farm is located -- it's still in Langley, but much too far east to be considered Cloverdale. However, rather than correcting the location of the Kent farm I've removed it -- it's a private residence, after all. --Steven Fisher 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cloverdale, officially, is within Surrey's city limits but I guess some can say it spills over to neighbouring Langley as well. Personally, I consider it part of Surrey, as the "spillover" area in Langley is normally referred to as, well, Langley city. The Kent farm is definitely in Langley district (not to be confused with Langley city) though. The surroundings look too farmish to be Surrey, in my opinion. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent farm location 

message: Question: I've seen what Clark can do on the series (Smallville) like throwing a tracter several miles, seeming like no more than a momentary blure when running, and making Super-Jumps, but I was wondering if anyone had any specific details about his abilities like the most he can lift, fastest he can run/fly in the Smallville Show like they have over in the article about Superman's Powers. Does anyone know?
:I don't think they have put a limit on his power, they really haven't tested it (at least as far as the fourth season).  In addition he's just gaining power, if you know of how the power work, he's like a battery so he's gaining them, he hasn't even reached the power to fly.  His speed isn't full force either, because at times he can run as fast as the flash but he's noticably slower.  I also don't believe he has the superbreath (cold breath) power yet either.--Kinglink 17:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Clark's Powers 

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

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

message: For an example of a properly attributed image see . Note it has a breif descripton of the image, including the episode its from and tv show. It tells you what website it was obtained from and gives you the exact page as a link. It tells you who owns the copyright and has the correct license tag. And most importantly it explains why i think its fair use in the article, in this case it illustrates the main plotline of the episode (cartman having an anal probe) and helps people identify cartman.
All of those things are required for fair use.
Theres no rush in tidying up the pages but as i mentioned before it needs to be on a to-do list for smallville editors.
Bignole you mentioned kryptonsites logo. sorry but thats inappropiate, the site should be properly referenced but that doesnt including using its logo. I have no idea what the sites logo looks like and neither will the average person, not to mention logos themselves have copyright issues wikiproject fairuse would go bananas. Just stick to text and links. Discordance 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I remember reading that if you have the permission from the copyright owner then it was ok to use the image, but, only if you have the permission of the owner. the logo is simply the sites name "kryptonsite". I have seen other pages that contained pictures with other website logos on them. I would have to assume that they had the express permission of the copyright owner to use said logo. You can go to my TALK page to see where he left permission. If you need an email addy to verify I have two that he left me ( I just erased them so that people trafficing through my page wouldn't send erronious emails. What I am saying is that if we get a picture from that site, since we now have permission, we do not have to crop the picture and remove the logo that was placed on the screencapture (since every picture we use comes from the episode itself, with exception being the top picture that usually is the DVD cover). Obviously we would still have to say what the picture is and where it came from in the upload section, just that now we can leave the logo, if there happens to be one there from kryptonsite.com. Bignole 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be true for seasons 1 - 4, but, this is Season 5 and is an ongoing season. We update accordingly. The screencaptures they have are from trailers for the upcoming shows, not promotional photos (though they do receive promotional posters which one can be see at the top of Season 5 page). The only question is where to get the trailers for the upcoming episodes because sometimes they receive captures from trailers that have not aired yet, but, most of the time they have someone that captures the trailers that air right after that night's episode. The only difference with finding an unaltered photo is that it will probably be captured by a different person and thus it would probably not be the same photo. If you find the same photo on the net of a screencapture on more than one site it is either because the capturer is selling the photos or because other sites are stealing the photos. That is the problem with screencaptures. But, Kryptonsite usually acknowledges the people that supply them with the photos, but, the name is usually and alias. Bignole 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images

message: I took the bus to Cloverdale today and snapped several cell phone pics. While not high quality, I think those pics would be a neat addition to the filming locations section, however if they take up too much bulk, then feel free to move them to another page or something. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a really good camera phone if the pictures came out that well. I don't see what they couldn't be incorporated into the page. If there was a reason why not, I could only imagine that it would be because there is another page devoted to Smallville locations. But, I don't know of any. Bignole 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? My friend actually said those pics are pretty poor quality even for a cell phone camera. I'm just surprised nobody thought of taking some pics of the Cloverdale locations, as there are plenty of Vancouver-area Wikipedians around here. (EDIT: I'm going to see if I can get to the building for Smallville High in the near future. It's not that hard to get to; it's in a residential area of Vancouver proper, and not out in the Vancouver rural areas like Cloverdale.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Added a previously-orphaned photo of City Central, which was used for the LuthorCorp headquarters for season 3. This is also a cell phone shot but it's pieced together through 6 different shots, because the building is so huge... --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that the images are great.  It fits into that section perfectly.  However, some may say it is a little to fancrufty (is that a word?), but since the article is fairly short anyway, I hope that wouldn't be a problem. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Bad for a cell phone?? Yeah right. It's not HDTV quality, but it's a cell phone it should not be. Unless you had some 3-400$ cell phone I wouldn't expect it to be awesome quality. It's in focus, contrast is good and you can make out everything. Keep up the good work.Bignole 12:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can, try adding more columns to the gallery so that they fit the whole page from right to left, then it will flow better (structure wise) with everything. Bignole 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, there's no way of doing that with the current <gallery> format, although I can try converting it to a regular table. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought about that myself, just setting up a normal table with pictures in the cells. Bignole 18:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Kent farm is a private residence. I think you'd be best off leaving that one alone. --Steven Fisher 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but of course the location won't be revealed publicly. Just a photo of the outside (which you see on the show anyway). There's no way in hell I'm going to reveal the exact location of the farm (or even close to it) because of like you said, it's a private residence. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You would have to find the article. The only thing that I know is that Loeb and all other exec. producers have stated that Smallville is not Superboy, reimagined. In my opinion the statement is correct. It is about Clark Kent, not Superman, and the adventures he gets into while discovering his purpose on Earth. Bignole 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming locations' images 

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

message: I'm not trying to heckle or be disrespectful, but I believe that Ausiello and kryptonsite.com have established that Zod will be in the season finale: http://www.tvguide.com/News/Ausiello/AskAusiello/default.htm?rmDate=03292006
Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but does that constitute speculation on my part, Bignole? Or does the fact that Jor-El and (possibly) Zod won't be in their own actual bodies in the episode discount their actual appearance on the show?
====Question: Will we be seeing Zod or Jor-El this season on Smallville?====
Ausiello: Yes, they'll both pop up in the season finale — but they won't be who we think they are. And here's another finale superscoop: Lois and another major character will end up on an airplane that's locked in autopilot — and there's only one person who knows where it's headed. (Hint: He looks like a platinum-topped vampire we once knew and loved.)
rlee1185 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Ausiello has been wrong on many occassions and kryptonsite did nothing but provide that exact same quote that you just did. There has been no further report about Zod or Jor-el making an actual appearance in the episode. Also, as characters go, we treat it just like we do episode number, because anything can happen between now and when the episode airs. So, we don't say there have been 110 eps until there has been, because something could happen and the episode could get yanked for no reason at all, and never air. Is that likely, no, but wikipedia doesn't deal in probabilities, they deal in certainties. Technically, Jor-El has made an appearence since Season 2, when we heard his voice, but we are talking about physical presence and no one has confirmed either of them for the finale. If they are in the finale why hasn't a casting rumor been sent out? Bignole 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the education, Bignole. I'm still a newbie that's learning the ropes.  rlee1185 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone that has been posting for over a year, I'll take that last comment as sarcasm. Bignole 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, seriously, if you notice the quality of my posts, you can tell that I'm still a newbie. I don't post very often, and when I do, there's always some room for improvement. I'm honestly not being sarcastic.rlee1185 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, don't worry about it. Just, when you go to make an edit about a show's future make sure the sources have more information that can verify what you are going to say. Bignole 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Zod

message: Ausiello: Yes, they'll both pop up in the season finale — but they won't be who we think they are. And here's another finale superscoop: Lois and another major character will end up on an airplane that's locked in autopilot — and there's only one person who knows where it's headed. (Hint: He looks like a platinum-topped vampire we once knew and loved.)
rlee1185 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Ausiello has been wrong on many occassions and kryptonsite did nothing but provide that exact same quote that you just did. There has been no further report about Zod or Jor-el making an actual appearance in the episode. Also, as characters go, we treat it just like we do episode number, because anything can happen between now and when the episode airs. So, we don't say there have been 110 eps until there has been, because something could happen and the episode could get yanked for no reason at all, and never air. Is that likely, no, but wikipedia doesn't deal in probabilities, they deal in certainties. Technically, Jor-El has made an appearence since Season 2, when we heard his voice, but we are talking about physical presence and no one has confirmed either of them for the finale. If they are in the finale why hasn't a casting rumor been sent out? Bignole 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the education, Bignole. I'm still a newbie that's learning the ropes.  rlee1185 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone that has been posting for over a year, I'll take that last comment as sarcasm. Bignole 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, seriously, if you notice the quality of my posts, you can tell that I'm still a newbie. I don't post very often, and when I do, there's always some room for improvement. I'm honestly not being sarcastic.rlee1185 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, don't worry about it. Just, when you go to make an edit about a show's future make sure the sources have more information that can verify what you are going to say. Bignole 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Will we be seeing Zod or Jor-El this season on Smallville?

message: Most of these areas need to be slimmed down. The "History of the Show" section really needs to be slimmed down, and also broken into sub-sections. The pictures of the "real locations" need to be fixed and put back in, or removed altogether. There is no point in having a partially complete table of pictures. Bignole 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Overview reads almost stream of consciousness at some points.  Definitely needs trimming.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. All of that could be created into it's own page "Bringing Superheroes To The Small Screen" or something like that. Bignole 00:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that the History section, overview, and new Series History section are looking much much better. With the help of Wisdom89, who has gone back through and cleaned up punctuation and grammatical errors, we have managed to eliminate a lot of the information that was not directly related to the show, and take what was already there and reword it to sound more efficient. Bignole 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hope you don't mind, I made some changes to the history bit. I have the series bible and have interviewed/spoken with people who were involved with the Bruce Wayne project. More can be found at http://www.kryptonsite.com/brucewayne . Alfred Gough and Miles Millar were never involved with Bruce Wayne, though Tollin-Robbins Productions was. No one was officially cast in the project. --69.111.36.56 08:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, Overview, and the rest 

message: "You keep claiming that there is a dispute about Smallville being based on Superboy/Superman. There is no such legal dispute. They have not claimed that, nor has a lawsuit been filed."
As far as I can tell, you keep saying this not because there isn't a lawsuit, since there certainly is, but because the lawsuit doesn't use the exact words "based on".  Claiming that Smallville is derived from Superboy, claiming that Smallville is about Superboy, or claiming that Smallville infringes the copyright of Superboy are all other ways of saying that Smallville is based on Superboy.  The use of the words "based on" is irrelevant. Ken Arromdee 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the lawsuit? All sources say that the Siegels have yet to final another lawsuit (that would go to a jury, not a judge) on behalf of whether Smallville is their property as well. The only lawsuit was about who owned Superboy (please read your own links). Second, saying Smallville infringes on the copyright is not saying that the show is "based" on Superboy. Please look up the words if you do not quite understand their meanings. The reason that Smallville "may" infringe is because the town wasn't mentioned until Superboy #2, thus it could be interpreted that the town is part of their ownership. Second, it has been mentioned that Clark "may" be a representation of Superboy. Nowhere in there has anyone said that the SHOW may or maynot be based on Superman, other than writers of magazines that try and interpret what a "potential" lawsuit "might" entail. Bignole 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh, I already gave you a reference.  "Still to be resolved is the question of whether Smallville—now in its fifth season—is actually infringing on the Superboy copyright. No trial date has been set in the suit, which was filed in 2004"."  It's been filed. Ken Arromdee 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does your one site have that, when my references say that they haven't filed a suit. They haven't filed a suit because WB is still working on getting the appeal for their ownership of Superboy. They haven't filed a suit yet because WB has warned Mrs. Siegel that they will revoke her benefits if she chooses to file against the ownership of Superman and it's deritives, which they see Smallville as a deritive of. Better yet, with no trial date, or a verdict, the ownership of Smallville still falls under WB, and Superman, thus making it whatever they want. Unless ownership of Smallville changes hands, and the character of Clark Kent in the show is found to be Superboy, then there is no argument for "fact" against WB. As of right now, the legality of Smallville and Clark Kent fall on WB, not the Siegels, and you cannot legally say that Smallville is based on Superboy, nor Clark Kent for that matter. Who owns Smallville is what is potentially up for grabs, the key word being potentially. The point is that Smallville is currently owned by WB and they decide (as they did when they first introduced the show) what it is based on and who the characters are based on. Only if a jury finds in favor of the Siegels can the sentence be changed to express what is legally correct. Expressing two opinions is not encyclopedic, because it isn't fact, it can't be proven. What is proven is that WB currently holds the rights to Smallville (town and show) and unless a jury finds that they are in copyright infringement of the Siegels' ownership of Superboy, and that Smallville (town and show) falls under their ownership (as it wasn't stipulated in the actual lawsuit that was settled in 2004), then WB is still legal owner of show and town and can stipulate exactly what each is. At this moment in time, Smallville is a deritive of Superman, because no jury or judge has found it to be otherwise. I'm sorry, but there is no case to support changing what the show is "based" on, but I implore you to create a section chronicling Smallville's journy so far, and potential journey through the legal world. Bignole 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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