Talk: Community Portal

Wiki Maintenance[]

Quote: "Links to redirects need to be removed after an article is moved. Please help rename all the references to Red Ship so that they point to Kara's ship. Please help rename all references to Clark so that they point to Clark Kent".

All done except links from user- or talk-pages. See [1] and [2]. --Weas-El 16:37, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "Please help rename all the references to Clark's ship so that they point to Kal-El's ship."

Nearly done, only two remaining... They are reported to be found in Template:Article of the month and Template:Article of the month/doc, but I can't find them... :-))) Neither in these pages nor in any included templates. --Weas-El 09:55, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Templates again[]

I noticed that Template:Spoiler kind of hurts your eyes to read so I started working on a new one and that gave me the idea to re-design all the article message templates so that they all match. Here is what I have done so far. What do you guys think? - Adam (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Story Arcs/Themes[]

Template
Examples - changes colors for different story arc and automatically puts the article it in which it is used into a category for articles in that category (an idea I stole from Marikology).

I need somebody to decide on a name for these things (story arc, plotline, etc.) so the main pages for each plotline can be put into a category. I also would like suggestions for more story arcs.

Story arc sounds a little more narrative than "plotline" which soulds a bit industrial, like "template", so that's my vote. Also, would the template be on episode pages, or other articles? Is there a way for people to see a list of all the episodes included on the template? (Like, when I get around to creating the article about Clark's vial of blood, can someone see the template on that particular page, or just on episodes that chart the arc?)Marikology

Story arcs I have so far

Destiny
Appearances of green kryptonite
Amnesia
Lana's necklace
Lex's obsessions
the story arc surrounding Clark's vial of blood

- Adam (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the Stones of Power, the escaped Zoners, the Level 33.1 meteor freak army? Marikology

Story arcs[]

I love these templates!

I agree that "Story arc" is a great name for this, and I like the idea of restricting it just to episodes. I have a question about some of the examples above though: some of them don't refer to story arcs as much as they do to other stuff (like Appearance of green kryptonite or Lana's necklace). What do you think of starting off using Story arcs to characterize story arcs, and then considering expansion over time?

Regarding specific Arcs, I like the ones Marikology mentioned! Also, Bizarro's a good one... and also, Chloe's meteor power... and maybe the Justice League? --Kanamekun 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Story Arcs it is, then.

I'll remove the appearance of green kryptonite and Lana's necklace arcs from the template. I just had them up because I saw that other users were interested in them and for testing purposes.

As for the categories that the episodes using the template are automatically placed in, they are currently just named by the story arc, (an episode covering the destiny story arc is now in Category:Destiny) but I think they should be changed to something like Category:Articles within the Destiny Story Arc. The actual category pages haven't been created and they are added to the pages from the template, so changing would just require editing the template once, which I'd be happy to do. Thoughts? - Adam (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some story arcs to the template.

Marikology, articles that use the template box will automatically be put in a category for whatever story arc is chosen. (e. g. any article containing the syntax below will be put in Category:Justice League because story=justice)

{{Theme|normal
| story          =justice
| float          =
| previous       =Run
| next           =Siren
| descrip align  =center
| description    =Clark joined Oliver's team and they blew up one of Lex's 33.1 sites. It was awesome.
}}

New main icon[]

I think Image:Wiki.png is in need of a facelift. It also gets pixelated at larger resolutions. Here's my suggestion: - Adam (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am fine with the current logo/icon, but I see what you mean about it being too small. I have attempted to create a larger version of it while keeping it as similar as possible to the current logo. Even though my Photoshop skillz have faded from what they once were, I that it looks like a pretty decent replica. Flash0816 05:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks a lot better; great cleanup! The things that still bother me about it are that the word Smavllville is huge in comparison to everything else, which makes sense but looks kind of weird to me...and the word wiki is in a different font. I've also never been to fond of different colored shields. - Adam (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the original one, but I agree that it should be bigger. Great job, Flash!

Adam, I think the word Smallville is better big cuz I'd rather have the Smallville logo stand out than the Superman shield IMO. If you want, I can change the size of the Smallville text and/or change the "wiki" font to the same font as the Smallville logo. like the blue shield because I think it looks good behind the red and yellow text.

I just tried to upload the bigger version of the logo to the filename Image:Wiki.png but I can't cuz the page is protected. I think an admin has to do that. Flash0816 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Multi-Page Merger Proposal[]

I propose that all of the LuthorCorp Projects dealing with anything Kryptonian be merged into one article with the original pages being used as redirects. I have created a rough draft on my sandbox. What do you think? --Adam Arredondo 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm undecided. Can you give me some benefits of merging all the pages? I think merges are more appropriate for articles with similar information, not just because they are all in the same category. Also "LuthorCorp Kryptonian" projects sort of makes my eye twitch cos LuthorCorp knows nothing about Krypton, so they're not Kryptonian by design, more like by chance. Marikology 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that LuthorCorp Kryptonain research would be better suited as a category and not an article. Many of the articles up for merging have little to do with each other besides being in the same category, as Marikology said. Flash0816 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the article title. Any help on finding a better name would be great. Maybe even combining the articles in a different way would be better. But leaving them as they are seems strange because most of these pages are very short despite being complete. Combining them would make for a good sized article and provide an appropriate place to cover the evolution of Lex's growing obsession for unexplained phenomena and his/LuthorCorp's focus moving toward its destiny of complete obsession with and enmity toward Clark Kent. --Adam Arredondo 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought about creating a sub-category. I think that might be the best option. The obsession thing might be better suited in a new page like Kanamekun's perspective idea...but that's a separate problem altogether. --Adam Arredondo 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category approach is working nicely (and a sub-category is clever, if we can come up with a good name for it!). Maybe we could also draw out some themes, and flesh out the Category:LuthorCorp projects description at the top of this page? I would be disinclined to merge these pages though - I'll explain my reasoning in a separate post below!

Merger Philosophy[]

I've been thinking a lot about some of the recent proposed mergers and why I haven't embraced them as much as I would like to.

I think when it comes down to it, some of the proposed merges seem to be more "conceptual" merges - where the merged pages would have a conceptual commonality. One example is the proposed merger of the Kal/Kal-El articles into a 'Other Versions of Clark Kent page. The uninhibited Kal personality doesn't have much in common with the militant Kal-El personality. But conceptually, it's undeniable that they are two alternative personalities of Clark Kent. As an abstraction, a page like that would highlight the conceptual linkages between Clark's various personalities.

I think conceptual merges have split the editorship here. In the Other Versions of Clark Kent merger discussion, the split was 3:3 between merging the Kal-El article with Kal versus not merging at all (2 people rightfully pointed out that the Kal-El page itself might not have enough content to justify not being merged into Clark's page, which is totally a fair point). But in any case, I haven't seen a conceptual merge yet that's been embraced by a clear majority of us editors here (I haven't been here that long though, so I could totally have missed one before my time).

I am more a fan of the "pragmatic" merge, where we merge articles that share a lot of similar content on their pages. So for example, I thought the merger of the Kal article with the Red kryptonite article came off really nicely (although when I look at that merger discussion, I see that some of these same issues were raised). But in any case, the merger was pretty clean and straightforward, and I think the resulting Red kryptonite article is something we can all be happy with? (Although it sounds like some of us would prefer it be merged even further, with the Kal-El article - hopefully though, nobody objects to the first merge between Kal and Red kryptonite).

In any case, this is what's at the heart of my mixed feelings towards the proposed LuthorCorp Projects merge above. I see the value of calling out conceptual commonalities somewhere. I just don't like to do that in a merged page between two pages that don't share much content between them.

Is there any way we can split the difference, and flesh out the LuthorCorp Projects commonalities on a single page... while still linking to the individual pages? Kind of like the recent Belle Reve expansion, which I totally loved... it had a great Staff and Patients section which briefly summarized the individuals in each group and linked to their pages. And in addition, it had some other great sections too which called out some of the commonalities between the patients and staff. And at the end, it linked to a "complete list of Belle Reve Patients", which was done with a category.

Could an approach like this be a possible compromise for conceptual mergers? --Kanamekun 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Belle Reve approach for conceptional commonalities. I'll get to work on a rough draft for a LuthorCorp Projects article like this in my sandbox. --Adam Arredondo 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are articulating exactly something that we're having trouble with. I have been opposing the recent conceptual merge proposals, but I can't say that I oppose all conceptual merges because I myself merged a bunch of stubs (All those fields and bodies of water) into the Smallville town article, and the Kawatche article has a bunch of related stubs as well. But I can't describe why these seemed okay, but the recent ones don't! I agree with Kana's compromise that an article to discuss the commonalities would be useful. I think that Adam's article he's working on could be a nice page in and of itself while still keeping the individual pages. I am a fan of making Category pages also legitimate articles and not just pages of lists, so I would like to see that information on the category page, but I don't know if everyone agrees with this. Marikology 05:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unused Promo pics[]

Any suggestions as to what I should do with the dozens of promotional pics that are unused on the wiki? I suppose people could use them on their userpages... Marikology 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: I think you should save unused images from character photo shoots, such as [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Even if images like these aren't included in any articles, I think the promotional pics category has a nice gallery of promotional character images which I have enjoyed looking at. On the other hand, I think you should delete unused official episode stills such as [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Once the episode has aired, I consider episodic promo images as nothing more than oddly-cropped screencaps. Flash0816 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Plural Names?[]

Plural names- Page names with plurals need to be moved and the links changed to prevent redirects. Examples- Kents, Luthors

Hey, I was wondering what this means... should the Kents article be renamed as Kent (or the "Kent family")? --Kanamekun 23:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed "Kent family" to prevent plurals, but I'm actually pretty indifferent to the subject. (Afterall, we have Cars and Birthdays and I don't see a way around not having these plural.) Marikology 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the pages being named the Kents and the Luthors... in this case, the plurals seem ok? Since you mentioned being indifferent, I'll just go ahead and remove them from the list for now. Thanks! --Kanamekun 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Marikology 12:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem reports[]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to re-introduce people to a feature Wikia has; "report a problem". I don't know if you've seen it, the idea is to give people another route to contact admins, especially people who don't know what the edit button is for.

You have a few reports at Special:ProblemReports. You can click on the problem ID number to take you to a page that shows just that report. You can click "i" to get the full text of the report, and you can click the icons to mark it as "fixed", "closed" or to flag it for Wikia staff. You can also send email to the person reporting the problem, maybe a good way to draw in new contributors!

I hope you'll give it a go, we really hope this will be a useful feature in helping you get in touch with your confused users. Let me know if you need help!

Manticore (talk)

Wikia Janitor

14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh.... is that how the feature works?! I've been trying to figure that feature out for a year or so :-).

Most of the reports don't really seem to be very useful. Is this something you guys have gotten a lot of mileage out of? --Kanamekun 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some wikis use the feature extensively, others have chosen to have it disabled. Like normal wiki pages, the feature is open to abuse, so problem reports like "CLEAN UP THIS LINK, NOW!!!" can be closed if they're meaningless. You might also choose to move content problems to the article's talk page. -- Manticore (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters versus Recurring characters[]

Right now, we have three categories for Characters (these descriptions are from the pages):

Minor characters play are key to many plotlines in Smallville.
Recurring characters are key to many plotlines in Smallville. These characters appeared in more than one episode of Smallville.
An alphabetical listing of the present and former main characters of Smallville.

Ok well the main characters one is pretty straightforward: if a character is in the opening credits, they're a main character. But what about Minor versus Recurring characters? I've noticed that some characters are put in both categories... I had been thinking Minor characters were in only one episode, while Recurring characters are in more than one episode.

Is it possible for a character to be in both categories? --Kanamekun 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Transition[]

Hi guys!

My name is Nathan and I'm a wikia helper with the entertainment team. Since your wiki's main page ads will be turned on in the next week, I've come to help you transition to the new style of main page that will be necessary to support them. So here's a draft of your main page that won't break when the ads go live. I changed the colors to look a little more like Clark's alter ego. (Enhanced the Red, Moved the yellow to inside the header text, and deepened it). If you have any questions or would like some help tweaking it further, you can reach me via my talk page. :)

Thanks!

--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I really like the layout. I think with the new layout though, we are also getting rid of the "you can help" box and the "superman news" box, so how will that change? Also I don't like the thicker bars, they need to just be one line. And the colors look totally blah. The color discussion has been brought up before and the current ones are the ones the comm decided on. But other than that, Thanks so much for volunteering to help with this! I'm hopeless at layout issues. Marikology 02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the new design looks pretty good, although I could take or leave the thicker borders. I love how it reflects the blue/red/yellow balance of the logo. I'm not personally a fan of huge yellow text boxes; they're kind of hard for me to read actually. Also I guess I just think of superman more in terms of blue and red with bits of yellow. -- Wendy (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So I took out the thicker borders and the "you can help" and the "superman news" boxes. It looks like there's some space in the right column below the 'main categories' where you guys could throw in something else if you wanted, maybe like a random image generator? I've also seen 'Did you know' or 'Contributor of the month' boxes. What do you guys think?

I did change the yellow because I was having trouble reading the content as well, and to be honest, it gave me a little bit of a headache. What if we played up the yellow text in the headers? It might be very cool to have it written in the same font that's in your logo image. I'm up for any ideas, but we want to get the two-column setup up and working before the ads come on and break your current one. The blue and read are the same colors as now, btw.

There's also not much color in the skin, so if you wanted to move that yellow to behind the Search/Main Links/Upload Image-Help boxes on the left, that might just be enough of the yellow to satisfy those who voted for it, while not interfering with user's ability to read the text. Just a thought. :)

--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea with the yellow, like I said, the color issue comes up periodically, so maybe it's time for a change. I think changing the font would also look good. I'm still seeing thicker headers on most of boxes, though. As for the new space, we could make the Pages to Check out vertical, and leave out the Episodes and Characters listings because those are on the sidebar, and that could do until we decide on a new one, and get someone with mad skillz to make us a new box. Marikology 02:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey everybody. The ads for the front page went live today, so I've made Nathan's draft live. Any adjustments that need to be made can either be done in the Sandbox version or the live version, it's up to you guys. I just wanted to make sure that the front page didn't remain all broken-y. Also FYI, ads on content pages will be going away for logged-in users this week. So there's a cool thing to look forward to :) —Scott (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering but why is there a place on the mainpage for main categories when there is also a place for categories in the sidebar? Reddo 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is only a place for categories on certain skins. The default skin doesn't have one. Marikology 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having issues with the layout. My widescreen laptop looks okay, but on a standard screen, there's a large space above the featured article. I think this will be fixed if the left column is a little more narrow so it will align with the top of the screen. I'm going to play around with it in the sandbox and see if I can fix it. Marikology 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried mading new version of the main page, I moved some stuff around to get it to flow a bit better, you can see what it looks like on my talk page Reddo 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The one on your talk page has the featured article in a skinny column directly under the ad, with a huge mass of white space to the left. Then the other boxes underneath are the width of the page. (does this make sense? Do you need a screencap?) If we could get the "Welcome to the site" message to be on the left of the ad, then the featured article under that (the width of the page), I think it'll look good. I'm okay with the other boxes, except the text on the News box shouldn't be centered. Marikology 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ETA- I tinkered with it a bit. I moved the main categories box to the bottom. I want to have the categories in two columns but I don't know how to do this. Marikology 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have to say I'm not sure what you mean, it has a lot to do with what resolution your screen is set to. I tried putting the categories into 2 columns and it didn't quite look right so i thought what if we add them to the box above it and came up with this

Pages To Check Out

Characters

Places

Episodes

Other

Special Pages

Categories

Reddo 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! It's me again. I had to come in and switch the order of the columns on the main page, and I noticed that you guys had shuffled things around a good bit. Did you need any help with that? Right now I see, some stuff above the columns, the left column, the blank right column, and then some stuff below the columns. The code isn't meant to work with anything above the columns, so if you see some funky breakage, that's probably the cause. Let me know if I can help. :)

--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Subheaders within Sections[]

There have been some revert wars going on re: whether or not we should use bold subheaders within sections in various articles.

First, a quick thought: please don't engage in revert wars. If there's an underlying issue we can debate as an editing team, please open a discussion here. Ongoing revert wars are a waste of time for everyone involved.

Beyond that, let's settle the issue once and for all.

Should we have bold subheaders within sections? Are they helpful or distracting?
If we do have them, how many should there be within a section? Should we restrict them to every ___ episodes? Or to ___ per section?

Let us know what you think! And please refrain from personal attacks in any discussions. If we can't maintain a civil discourse as an editorial team, then we can't expect others to follow suit. --Kanamekun 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that sub-sections inside sections are useless and distracting. Also they clutter of the page, plus sometimes the sub-sections have spec/spoiler info in them. One season section is plenty enough. Elbutler 01:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You just don't have a clue. People visiting the site will read endless amounts of scripts on each season and not have a clue what is really going on because they don't know what storyline it is. Also it doesn't clutter the page they are normally every 4-5 episodes or so some maybe longer some maybe shorter but for characters who ahve long gaps during a season it makes even more sense because visitors will think, hey what's gone on eya this person is missing loads of stuff.Nicholsy 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, calling the sections "useless" and countering with "you just don't have a clue" is not respectful towards each other.

I saw both of your comments on my talk page. I just want to say that I don't believe personal attacks or showing disrespect is ever justified, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if one person is being rude to the other... that doesn't justify being rude back.

If you can't stop arguing and engaging in revert wars, we'll have to ban you both from the wiki. Please keep that in mind when editing.

I am curious for other people's perspective on subheaders. I'll reach out to Marikology and ask her if she has time to weigh in. If anyone else out there has a perspective, please weigh in! --Kanamekun 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am voting against bolded subheaders. I don't think they make the page any more useful or easier to navigate. They are too arbitrary and are basically one person's interpretation of the important plotline. Eventually, other users will decide that some plotlines are more important than others, and rename them, incensing the first author, until every section has a new bolded subheader after every sentence. As far as not knowing the storyline, I don't really see how they help this, when the sections have pretty susinct summarizations of the storyline. Marikology 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and am also voting against bolded subheaders. They haven't been helping me read the articles more easily, but I thought I might be an exception. I am open to having them, but not nearly as many as we've been seeing added to the articles. In general though, it sounds like there is a broad consensus that they're not helpful... so it sounds like we've made a decision. we'll let the discussion go on for another day or so, and if no one raises a new/solid reason why we should keep them — we'll make it a policy to remove them. --Kanamekun 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well i believe they are a good way because look at Brainiac's page he ahd so many stroylines in Season 5 it was unreal but it makes for easier reading beause the sypnosis on his Season 5 sectino is all over the place. This is also kind of similar in Season 7 as well but not so much in Season 8 as he has been dormant for 9 episodes.

Davis is another quite good example as first of all he was wanting to find out what happened, then we saw what was happening, then his origins were revealed and this leads to the next storyline which is pretty exciting.

My theory on it is that it should only be applied to main characters and also very major characters like Brainiac, Bizarro and people like that who have important roles within a season and have different stroylines.Nicholsy 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been 24 hours, and it's three votes against one, if any other user has any objections or ageements speak now. Elbutler 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been two days, and it's time for the admins to close this discussion. Elbutler 12:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't felt a tremendous need to close the discussion because it was overwhelmingly in favor of not using bolded subheaders in plot summary, and because there haven't been almost any bolded subheaders added to articles this week. Also, there's not generally a rush – we don't want to make hasty decisions.

That said, there's a clear consensus for now on how to handle this. We'll avoid bolded subheaders in plot summaries as a matter of policy. --Kanamekun 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In other media and physical appearance[]

While we're discussing stuff that caused an edit war, what abou in other media? For quite some time me and Nicholsy dueled it out about te in other media in the Dan Turpin article. We also reverted each-othes edits to physical appearance. So we're going to decide wether or not any of these sections are worth keeping, the civilized way. Here's my opinion.

In other Media: When i added the in other media section, it was because Dan has only appeared once in television, but Nicholsy kept removing it as well the early life section. I think this section needs to stay and i have a reason this time, there's an "in other media" section on the Lois and Clark page covering their relationship in the tv shows and movies. In my opinion, if the "in other media" section is not irelevant, then the "in other media" section on Lois and Clark would have to be removed too.

Physical appearance: Nicholsy started to add sections to articles called "physical appearance" which in my honest opinion isn't very relevant either, but he would replace "in other media" and "early life" with this.

I don't really think physical appearance sections are good idea because it is hard to describe objectively how a person looks very well, besides what isn't obvious in their character shot. I vote to nix them, but I don't really have a strong opinion of it either way. Marikology 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that i've casted my opinion, it's your turn Dave, Marikology, Kanamekun, and all the other users on the site to voice your opinion. Elbutler 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I actually created the first "Physical Appearance" section, I think. I found it to be a useful new section, since prior to it I hadn't noticed patterns in peoples' outfits (like how Bizarro wore the opposite colors to Clark). I think maybe Bizarro was the first Physical Appearance section, and then we tried it out on Davis' page. I thought there was a P.A. section on Tess' page, but I don't see it there anymore.

I haven't started adding Physical Appearance sections to the other main characters, because I'm not sure what to say about them other than that Lana had red highlights in her hair for a few seasons and Lois is wearing bangs in Season 8. Also, was kinda easing into the whole Physical Appearance section to see if anyone had a major objection to it. I'm hoping that it's worth trying out for a month or two, to see if it's a useful new section.

Regarding "In Other Media", I don't have a major objection to it if the character has never appeared in the comics. --Kanamekun 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree if the character hasn't ever appeared in the comics, an other media section is useful. If they have, I do not believe other media sections are particularly relevant because they are not source material or original incarnations of the character. I believe the Lois and Clark pages has one because the two major media portrayals (Comics and movies) have basically opposite outcomes, and Lois and Clark on Smallville are currently not a couple, whose outcome has yet to be determined, so they are rather caught in the middle of both portrayals. But page conformity is important, so I vote that we don't have other media on any page, and add other portrals as a bullet point or external link in a notes section. Marikology 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am voting against the In Other Media section as i feel it is irrevalant to the articles of characters as they are not an origin source and are an author or writers interpretation of the character so Smallville's version can't be used as it is not original.

Physical Appearance i am voting For' as i believe these to be quite nessecary for characters who have noticable features on them and are not blend in characters such as Dan Turpin. Characters like Bizarro, Brainiac, Doomsday, Clark, Lex, Zoners people like that should have them because they have noticable features. Also i ahve jsut remebered Green Arrow, Cyborg, Aquaman, J'onn J'onzz, Impulse, Angel of Vengance, Blakc Canary and the Legion because they all have features.Nicholsy 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another example! The Metropolis article has an "in other media" section, if the "in other media" section is so irrelevant then why is it everywhere? If you remove the "in other media" section, then you have to remove the ones from Clark and Lois and Metropolis. Elbutler 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Videos?[]

There have been a lot of copyrighted videos embedded in the wiki lately, so we should probably come up with a policy. I'm inclined to not allow it; most of it is clearly ripped content and it's a violation of copyright policy. I mean, in a perfect world... the wiki would have tons of video and we could embed every scene. But since the content is clearly copyrighted, it feels wrong (to me) to allow it. Thoughts? --Kanamekun 05:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure as well. The images are a different matter because they are low-quality and small, but at the same time, the YT videos are not that good either. If we do a bit more research, I'd support a policy against copyrighted videos. Marikology 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Switching to the new parser[]

Hi,

We are currently making preparations for the next wiki software upgrade. While we expect this to have little or no effect on most wikis, it may cause some pages on this wiki to render poorly. To help reduce or eliminate these issues, please see the Central Forums for more details.

Thanks - sannse (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Character[]

I have some ideas for changes to Template:Character, how about we add a species section, that will help identify humans and aliens. For the Clark Kent infobox it would say Alien, for Chloe Sullivan it would say Human, and for Shelby it would say Dog. What does the community think? Elbutler 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So you think there should be a "species" value? Interesting. I'm not sure what I think of it just yet, but in the meantime, I will move this to the talk page of the template and open it up for discussion. Marikology 19:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a Smallville Wiki crisis![]

I've been somewhat shocked to learn that many of our Season 9 recaps have been plagiarized from TV.com, TV Rage, or TV Guide!!

With the help of SuperBlahBlah, we've removed a lot of the stolen recaps and also added a new {{recap}} tag to the top of pages that need a recap.

Here is a complete list of Season 9 episodes that are in desperate need of a recap:

Since people have been pasting in the stolen recaps, our wiki editors haven't been bothering to write new ones... and now we are really behind.

Can you guys help out and each write one recap? Maybe if we tag team them all, we can get Season 9 back up to speed.

Please let me know if you have time to do an episode recap - and also, if any other episodes have stolen recaps. Thanks!! --Kanamekun 02:38, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much to Kal-El, HoneiVladmir and a few others for adding so many original recaps! :-) --Kanamekun 18:45, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Point of View?[]

I'm having trouble finding any true policy pages. In particular, I want to know about the point of view of characters. They are mostly written from an in-universe point of view, but occasionally I see snippets that remind the user that they are fictional. Is this desired? I personally don't think it should be. --trlkly 00:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

ETA: I think some of them may be left over from being copied from Wikipedia. If you're like most wikis, you don't want to be a Wikipedia clone. --trlkly

Most of our pages should be original. We're definitely an in-universe wiki. Our policies are here!

Is there a particular page you want us to take a closer look at? Just let us know! --Kanamekun 06:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC)