Talk:Smallville season 4

Overview

The overview needs to be overhauled. As with the other seasons it contains too much information. It is like reading the episodes, only placed all together in one paragraph. It should only contain the major plot arcs for that season. Bignole 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot

Hello folks. When OrphanBot removes an image, it should be treat as a final opportunity to rescue them by adding appropriate information on the image description page. Restoring them back to the article without rectifying the mistakes/missing info does not help. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rescued Image:Smallville season4.jpg The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AwesomeBignole 11:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Season Pages or List of Episode (individual Ep pages)

All editors, please see discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes Bignole 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Naked Clark

Bignole, you say "sorry, him being naked is not important". I'm not really interested in fighting about it, but I have to disagree. This is the first time that Clark and Lois meet, and I think it sets some of the stage for their future relationship. (I know it got me a chuckle in Fade when the tables were turned.)

Looking at it again, it might not be important enough for the Overview, but perhaps it could go in Crusade.

Thanks for the comma fixup in Bound. Jordan Brown 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to insinuate that her finding him naked in a cornfield, or him seeing her naked in the shower is what causes them to have a relationship later in life? I removed it because it wasn't an important detail that was going to alter the plot any. If it reads, "Lois finds Clark in a cornfield", I don't think adding "naked in a cornfield" is going to change the meaning any bit. And, as you said it "gave me a chuckle" is probably a good reason to not include it. You wouldn't want to point out all the jokes thereby ruining it for others. That was my reasoning behind it (and also because you wouldn't place it in paranthensis with an exclamation mark even if you were to include it). It wasn't personally against you or anything like that. Bignole 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Don't worry, I didn't interpret your comments as a personal attack.)

No... I'm suggesting that first impressions are important. Lois's first impressions of Clark are based on finding him naked in a corn field, acting even weirder than Clark usually acts. Most people meet this relatively normal fellow and then find out there are odd things about him... Lois met somebody really odd and then found that he sometimes acts normal. Can this *not* impact their relationship? Jordan Brown 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but her impression wasn't about his nakedness, it was about the fact that she believed he was struck by lightning. The first thing she says to Martha wasn't about his being naked (though she made a joke about it), but more about the fact that she believed he was struck by lightning. The problem is with trying to assume what was going through a fictional character's mind when something happens. I don't think the fact that she found him naked in a field would impact their relationship anymore than when she was possessed by a spirit and had Clark take her to the prom, in pink no less. Bignole 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, OK. Like I said, disagree but not interested in fighting. Jordan Brown 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bart Allen == The Flash

I found a citable reference equating the two, so I cited it and did. Let's talk about it over at Talk:Smallville (Season 5)#Equating Smallville characters with DC characters where I did the same with Aquaman. Jordan Brown 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Commencement

I read that this episode took up a 90 minute time slot in the US. Was this episode really long, or was there a whole lot of ads (over 40 minutes of them) added in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.83.3 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

This is not a forum, please make sure to keep your questions to improving the article. But to answer you, the episode was just over 60 minutes, with 30 minutes of commercials.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Love Potion in "Devoted"

Did anyone get the "love potion" featured in episode "Devoted"? I saw something like a propane with a phenyl group in Carbon-1 and an amine group in Carbon-3. Albmont (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jes Battis Articles

So is Jes Battis a financial benefactor of wikipedia or something? You lot sure seem to like to quote him and link his articles, no matter how tenuous of a relationship they have with the subject matter. Do us all a favor and stay a Free Encyclopedia instead of attempting to treat us like idiots by promoting a certain philosophy or endorsing a certain viewpoint, whether overtly or implicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebrand24 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Jes Battis is a professor who wrote the article. Secondly, Wikipedia is neutral, which means that it provides ALL viewpoints not just your idealistic ones. Third, the website itself meets WP:RS, which also means it meets WP:EL. Given that there isn't a "Themes" section in the article, it's perfectly legitimate and preferable to put a link to the article in the EL section if it contributes to the comprehensibility of the subject. It does. The fact that you simply don't like what Battis writes is irrelevant. I don't personally find any merit in his theories, but the fact remains that it's a peer reviewed journal from a published author who has his PhD in the field of sexuality and television.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I'm glad someone else agreed with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebrand24 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, so it is OK to be used in the article or in the EL. Whether to do so is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are 4 links in the external links section. 1) The official site. 2) A link to an episode guide. 3) A link to an external wiki about Smallville. and 4) a link to an article discussing the sexuality of two central characters. The first three are links to general sites about Smallville, however the fourth link is to an article about a very specific interpretation of a minor theme in the Smallville season. The article about the season does not go into any depth about specific issues like this, and no other external links are to sites this specific. I think the link has no place here because of its tight interpretation wrt the article, and the other external links. The reason I think it is spam, is that links to the same website (along the same theme) appear(ed) on the articles for a total of 5 of the 9 seasons, in similar circumstances. If any specific episode of Smallville deals with the sexuality of the main characters, then these links could appear there, but not in articles as broad as the main articles about each season.
Note, I am not arguing about the reliability of this source. Martin451 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First, linking to 5 our of 9 seasons isn't spam, because if you read the article it's about those five seasons. An Admin already told you that it wasn't WP:SPAM, so either you aren't sure what spam is or just don't care. Per SPAM, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Considering that Jump Cut is a journal, not a product, and Jes Battis isn't selling anything, it's not considered spamming the article. The fact that the article is about a specific theme is irrelevant. It's still about Smallville. Per WP:EL#What Should be Linked, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." - The article doesn't condemn Smallville, it's merely an analysis of homosexual subtexts within the show. If you consider that negative--or positive for that matter--then there might be some other issues going on. It's linked in the EL section, as I've said many times, because there currently is not any "Themes" section on the season pages (mainly because there are not a lot of overt themes on the show). It would not be appropriate to write a section based on one person's opinion. That would be considered undue weight. As such, it is perfectly appropriate, and generally encouraged that a link to the material be placed in the EL section of the article. If you look at WP:ELNO, you'll see this source does not meet any of the 18 criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something that I hear a lot at FAC may apply here. Reviewers will say about further reading, "if it's such a good source, why didn't you use it". Why not just include a one sentence summary of the source in the article, and put it in references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it would be a section that never gets developed and would fall under WP:UNDUE by creating a section for one person's opinion. As an EL that doesn't apply, because we aren't applying any weight to the article because we aren't actually commenting on it. It's merely listed as an EL for further reading if a reader wants it. If more sources on the sexuality in Smallville can be brought up--more than just a one-sentence mentioning that appears to be the trend--then great. But until then it's best serves as an EL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say don't use it as an EL, or work it into the article. Not sure why it has to be a whole section. There's a debate at Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2 that reminds me of this. The gist of it was that every fictional universe gets a "they're gay" treatment if it becomes popular enough, so you have to be careful about WP:UNDUE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not use it as an EL if it cannot be worked into the article. That's kind of the point of the EL section, is it not?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it be worked in, again? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the comment about a "Themes" section. Just be creative, and put it wherever. I've been crazy enough to add a bit of hard to classify info inot the (gasp) lead, even. That's probably not the right place for this, but a spot can be found. Is this some sort of FLC vs. FAC thing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not right now it isn't, it's just about preserving a link to an acceptable article that talks about something the Wiki page doesn't. I've seen very many sections in articles get dismantled because of undue weight. At this time there isn't anything on this page, or any of the other season pages that talks about themes on the show. Not even on the FA season 1 page - which is rather bloated with information already. It can't go in the lead, because that isn't what the lead is for. Plus, just having one person's opinion whether in a section of its own, or as a paragraph in another section (which there are no other sections on this article right now) would either be inappropriate or irrelevant to the section (depending on the action). The EL section is the most appropriate place for it, until/unless other stuff about sexuality can be found. Everything I find on sexuality typically tends to be focused on Buffy, and Smallville gets lumped into a group of shows that "continue the trend". The sources never actually talk about the show, they just do the fly over to say "hey, they do it too".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) How about in a Reception section? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've given my opinion. I saw the request on the TV project's talk page. Do with it what you will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Bignole, I don't have a problem with homosexuality, that is not the issue. If you look at this you will see why I think linking this site five times is spam, and as you say he is a researcher at the same university as you. Why do you need to add these links to five different seasons? If you really think this warrants a mention on wikipedia, then why not on the episodes (if any) that deal with these issues, of somewhere like here., instead of just adding lots of external links. Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I said he is an assistant professor who has a history of writing books and articles on the subject. I never said he goes to the same university as me, because (1) I finished all my college work (2) where I went he doesn't teach. The reason I like them on five different seasons, as I have told you repeatedly, is because his article deals with five different seasons. If you actually look at the pages being linked, they are the pages of the article that deal with those specific seasons. I.E. Page 3 of that article talks about seasons 4 and 5, so that's the page that gets linked. I can't "link them to the specific episodes" because there are no pages for those specific episodes. Why would I add a link solely to the LGBT page, when someone reading about Smallville isn't going to automatically go to that page. As far as your 7 warning signs, let's go by them individuals:

1) I'm not selling a product, nor promoting one. None of these opinions are mine, as I did not write the article, nor do I buy into his personal theories.

2)There is no place to "contribute" this information, because there isn't a "Themes" section. Secondly, these are not "facts". These are personal analysis from this specific professional.

3)Doesn't apply at all, because again it isn't being used as an article source.

4)Doesn't apply, because I'm not making an article for anyone.

5)The link isn't added to the top of the list, but to the bottom (i.e. it isn't being treated as "the best thing to read:); I'm not adding any "blurbs" about how great this guy's article is; I'm not mentioning his name in every paragraph of the articles; I'm not adding it to many articles. I've added it to 5 articles, and those 5 articles are specifically mentioned in his paper. By your definition, if 5 is "many", then I'd assume you plan to remove IMDb from every film and Television page, since it's on every one and that's certainly more than 5. Given that it's only 5 articles, and they are in direct--I repeate, direct--relation to the linked page that is in their EL sections, that does not count as spamming.

6)You're the only one that considers it "spam". Others have differing opinions on how it should be presented, but so far you're the only one that considers it spam.

7)It's not part of my signature.

Personally, I think you are wiki-lawyering this issue. Putting 1 link, which isn't being used to promote anything, on 5 separate pages that are directly connected to it is not spamming. The link isn't spam, and the manner in which it is added is not spamming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with homosexuality, and I am not wiki-lawyering. I am not the only one who has problems with the amount of links to this site, see the comments of Firebrand24 above, and the edits of IP 66.14.104.80 .

1) If these opinions are not yours, why are you so keen to edit war to keep them in? As you said on my talk page "It's a journal I found through my university website"

2) This is not a link farm, should everyone who has written articles about smallville have links to them included?

5) Adding many links to the same site or product/ to many articles. Well this is what it looks like your have done.

Martin451 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm keen on keeping them because I feel that, in accordance with WP:NPOV, every viewpoint should be covered. As I have said, there isn't a section to hold the info, thus a link to the article is acceptable and a preferred alternative. "Finding them in my University search engine" does not mean that I went to school where he teaches. I assume you are familiar with the online library search engines.

2) If there are articles about Smallville on subject matters that cannot be covered in prose in the article, then yes. But, I have a feeling that if you found more articles written about Smallville, and they could not be placed somewhere in the article that would mean that they were probably written about the themes in the show. As such, if you found more articles written about the themes in the show, we would then have something to put in prose and thus your argument here is moot.

3) I added 1, that's uno, link to 5 separate articles. That 1 link contains information directly relevant to those 5 specific articles. Again, no matter how you slice it that is not spamming articles.

As for "Firebrand24", I have a hard time believing that they aren't the actual IP in question, considering they both refer to the inclusion of the article as "idiotic" and make claims to "keep the Free Encyclopedia". Just the same, they didn't claim anything about spamming. What they did was express their opinion that they don't like what the article says about Smallville. So, I repeat you are the only one saying it's spam. You even had an Admin say that it was not spam, and no one at the WikiProject you posted to has come in to agree with you that it's spam. So, my question to you is if you aren't wikilawyering, why then are you so keen on removing the link?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would remove it simply because the site has a specific agenda that does not in any way further the Wiki article or any discussion or research that the article should lead to. It might be different if the link was about something the creators of the show consciously intended. Lisa mynx (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The website has no agenda. The website is an online peer reviewed journal. The article doesn't have an agenda either. Battis isn't saying the creators intentionally made Clark and Lex repressed homosexuals, nor is he trying to make you believe the characters are gay; he's pointing out the hidden subtext in their actions. As I said in my email, why would a perfectly acceptable article not be thought twice about when used in an actual section on themes now be second guessed in an EL section where you cannot even read this person's opinion without click the link? Themes written about by scholars often are unintentional themes. The fact that Gough and Millar didn't intend for them to exist doesn't change the fact. The same reason why the homosexual subtext in A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge wasn't intention, yet is still just as valid to point out (which it often is by professionals).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we will just agree to disagree and let others chime in and a decision will be made one way or the other eventually. I just think the neutrality of Wikipedia is being pushed a bit here-- someone has an agenda, either the person who wrote the site or the one who put the link on Wikipedia or both. But I can understand and respect that. Lisa mynx (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What agenda would that be? I put the link there, even though I don't agree with anything he says. Since WP:NPOV says we need to be objective, and look at all sides, I think not acknowledging that this article exists would be contradictory to NPOV. You left me a message in my email that unless the theme is intended then it isn't relevant and should be removed. So, why have this page: Batman#Homosexual interpretations and legal threats from DC Comics? I'm sure the homosexual interpretations of Batman and Robin were not intended. Here is an entire page devoted to interpretations of the film Fight Club, which is primarily about themes that were not intended by the author of the book or the director of the film. They are academic interpretations, just as this is an academic interpretation by Dr. Jess Battis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to make a crusade out of it but I would also support the removal of those as well-- just because someone infers something not intended doesn't make it a valid point. Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree and I am leaving this in the hands of others. Lisa mynx (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break

The link is fine. Ideally, it should be incorporated into the article prose, but if that's not possible, it's a reliable source and perfectly acceptable as an external link. I've seen this happen on a number of other articles; fans don't like seeing any outside interpretations - even those made in a reliable source - acknowledged in the article, especially if those interpretations don't agree with the canon or the writer's intentions. How Smallville has been received and studied in third party sources is relevant on Wikipedia, whether fans agree with it or not, so this link should remain to provide that real world context.  Paul  730 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rating Average?

At the top of the article it says the rating average is 4.4 million but on the seperate episode count it is overall much higher, atleast a quarter of a million higher. Are the seperate episode ratings not accurate or is the overall one not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.18.233 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we can never actually tell if when the calculate the average for the whole seaso if they are using the overnight figures, the Live+7 figures, or the Live+7+DVR figures. It kind of throws everything for a loop, because whatever they are using it's the same for all of the shows because they are ranking Smallville based on that figure. Since we don't know which we they are using, we're left with just listing the figures that we have sources for on an individual level.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrograde Amnesia in Episode 19

Hi all,

I changed a little bit of the description to Episode 19, where Clark gets amnesia. I added a definition for retrograde amnesia, along with a source, as I felt it was a better description for what Clark suffered. However, it appears that I cited the source wrong in WikiCode, so I will revert the article back to its previous state until I figure out how to cite that source properly. Once it is back up and you feel that this edit is completely unnecessary, feel free to remove it or give feedback. I thought it was a more accurate description since it provided the specific type of amnesia that Clark suffered from. Thank you! JustinC7 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the episode uses the term "retrograde amnesia", so it wouldn't be appropriate to use that term and then explain the term. At best, we would just link to amnesia and move on. It isn't relevant that it's something specific that isn't specifically discussed as part of the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, nice work on Wikipedia! I didn't know that you were responsible for most of the Smallville content on here. So what you're basically saying is that what I want to add is too specific and isn't really worth the mention? I plan to add it again because I need to cite sources related to cognitive psychology for my university course and amnesia is one of those things. I'm trying to add small details about amnesia to things I've seen on shows and movies, such as this episode of Smallville. Feel free to remove it when I add it back, as I will still get credit on my assignment for my contribution here. (I'm a Wiki noob, sorry!) JustinC7 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your college course allows you to cite your own edit to Wikipedia? That seems odd. As for the removal, you can (and should) just self-revert the action. Again, the episode doesn't use that term, and putting it in would be considered original research. Not to mention, giving a definition of the term isn't something you would do in a plot summary for a show/movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Change of plans; I'll just drop it. Have a good one BIGNOLE. JustinC7 (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)