Talk:List of Smallville episodes

Kryptonsite screenshots

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Size

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)

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)

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)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where to get the Prod. Code for Smallville? I'm sure I could eventually find out, but if you or someone else knows off hand that would save a lot of time.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Someone had spent excessive time making a summary of each individual episode of Smallville. There is no summary anywhere that is as inclusive as the ones I had read (I hadn't read all of them, regrettably) . They were quite descriptive and added interesting information. Now they appear to be gone and have not been replaced with anything at all. Even if there are format and content issues (after all perfection is a never ending quest...) shouldn't there be an improvement to replace what has been removed prior to removal? Is there any way that the removed or non-linked information can be accessed? NoRoomForEmotion 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Michael and Mike Rohl

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)

Nope, same people. I'll change it to "Michael".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Smallville and season pages

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Hey, I was hoping someone could help me, I was going to make a season page for season 9 since it is beginning in a couple of weeks. I normally have no problem creating season pages (apart from adding pictures so when one becomes available for this season someone please add it!) but a page entitled "Smallville (season 9)" has already been created but it simply loops back to the list of episodes page. Does anyone know how to fix this either by letting me know or sorting it out themselves - which would probably be better as my wikipedia talents are a little limited. Thanks Dallum89. 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ahh ok thanks for letting me know. One more question though, couldn't the stuff thats been written about season 9 on the episode list page be placed in a season page? I only ask because the other seasons only have an episode table on the episode page and not any paragraphs about the season? Sorry if this is a stupid question! Dallum89. 23:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.64.21 (talk)

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)

Got you ok. Thanks for the link to help explain things. Dallum89. 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.125.57 (talk)

Airdates

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)

You only removed the one, so this can replace it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The article notes Fracture as having aired first in Canada, however the entire season seven has been airing in Canada a day before the American broadcast. Why is only Fracture mentioned?? 1808Productions (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

perhaps the airdates could be called airdates US or something, it's a bit US centric not to.

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)

Season 7 Titles

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))

P.S. I'm not trying to be rude or bossy or seem retarded or anything, I'm just expressing my opinion.

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)

Related to Season 7, is there a reason it hasn't been added to the Seasons table?JeffHCross 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What table? The DVD table? There isn't enough information to report.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Column Patterns

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)

Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Allison Mack hasn't been switched in the columns. 24.86.193.35 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to scroll down and swap her over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual episode articles

Since there is only one episode article: the pilot, I think we should make a few more, mainly premieres and finales. I am sure there is enough real-world info out there to make them. If anyone agrees, please reply, and if you don't, please reply. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't, because I've looked. The only real world information for them isn't enough to justify individual articles (that's why the first season article was written the way it was). Few Smallville episodes are every reviewed by professional reviewers, and when some are it is usually only by a single (sometimes two) entity, where there isn't enough information to justify a split from the season article. You have to remember, this isn't the parent article for indidvidual episodes, the season articles are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, to justify a split from them, you'd have to have significant coverage from sources independent from the subject, and I already know (because I own them) that the only real world information you're going to find is going to come from the companion books that the network commissions (which makes them non-independent). Once in awhile, the show itself will appear in a trade magazine, where a single episode might be recognized for something particular, but again, there is usually never enough there to justify splitting that episode article off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I was so hopeful in creating a few articles, and that just crushed my hopes. Well I guess there's no space in Wikipedia for the average editor. :-( Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reviews for "Tempest" (season 1 finale), that would be great. I've searched my little heart out, and purposefully didn't put the production info for that episode in the season 1 article because I wanted to spin it out on its own. The way its looking, I'll have to put it in, unless someone else can find reviews for the finale. You have to remember that Smallville is on an obscure network (for the WB and now the CW) and they are not equivalent to the media hounds of CBS, NBC and ABC, whose shows get coverage from all over the place. If Smallville averaged 10 million viewers, like some shows, I wouldn't doubt there would be media coverage outside of the source, but it only averages 4-5 million. That might be great for the CW, but comparing to other primetime shows, it sucks. That's why only very select episodes ever stand out on their own with reviewers, and most of the time reviewers choose to review an entire season after the DVD comes out (hence another reason why I developed the season articles are they currently are).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah I see. I'll do my best to try and find reviews, but since an editor like you couldn't, then the chances of me finding any is next to zero. All the best - Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found some random sites, but they're not great:

• http://www.mania.com/smallville-tempest_article_34656.html - Tempest review, not sure if reliable enough
• http://www.buddytv.com/tvshow/page/smallville-review-1.aspx - Random reviews, nothing on Tempest
• http://www.tvdvdreviews.com/smallville1.html - Not much, but you could say: Jonathan Boudreaux of .... called Tempest one of the series' "strongest episodes." He said it a "slam bang season ending cliffhanger", and that it "centered on human characters, with Kryptonite taking a backseat."
• http://www.thefutoncritic.com/rant.aspx?id=20030109 - Futon Critic, calls Tempest 15th best episode of 2002. For some reason, I think you already have this :S Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have that Futon Critic bit in the season article. BuddyTV reviews typically don't have much to say. I might be able to add that Jonathan Boudreaux to the season article, since we have stuff about the pilot, it would be good to have something on "Tempest" to tie up that more nicely. The Mania one looks good, but we'd need a bit more than just two (if you include the Boudreaux in a separate article). We can't have two reviews, both talking about how great this episode is. It would lack neutrality.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are is another positive one:

• http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason1.php - Very short reviews for each episode, though Tempest got an 'A'. Also has some extra info on show and DVD.

Sorry, but I couldn't find any negative ones. I'll try later, but I've seen thousands of episodes where they have no negative reviews, or any for that matter. We can't expect to have neutrality if there are no available negative ones. Oh and one thing, could you be able to make the episode in your sandbox? Thanks - Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a blank sandbox, so I could recreate the episode in there. As for the DVDVerdict, there's nothing there to write about Tempest with. We can't say, "DVD Verdict gave 'Tempest' a grade of A." It means nothing without context. There was one good thing about that page though, it's got a comparison between Buffy and Smallville, which would be good for the main page. Anyway, I'll recreate the "Tempest" episode in my sandbox when I get back from work today (which won't be for about 9 hours), and we'll weed out any decent reviews for the ep.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all I had to do was revert my last edit, because I never deleted it from the sandbox completely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks good so far. You mentioned you had production info? Could you put that in? I would add some of the reviews, but I take it that you want to do it. Well good luck! [Not that you need it] Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 11:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, lol, I put it here because you showed an interest in building it up (hence the "we'll weed out any decent reviews" comment). This will be a joint effort. I have to leave for work now (already late), but I'll try and go through the book I have for "Tempest". Unfortunately, there isn't any episode commentary on the DVD (which sucks), so as of right now all the production info is going to come from a single source, which isn't great, but it isn't the end of the world either. You work on finding reviews and we can discuss whether some aren't worth mentioning on the sandbox's talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. I'll try to find as many different random reviews as I can, though it is pretty hard. Have fun at work! :P Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we not make the individual pages without having reviews? Im just wondering because alot of other tv shows don't have them - for example Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a page for every episode and the usually include a more detailed plot (which is good considering we can only put a couple of lines in the episode list), any production info and who is starring in each episode which can easily be found on the dvds through credits and commentaries.

We could also have sections for trivia and arc significance which can easily be added to by anyone has seen the particular episode. Trivia can include random facts we discover in the episodes for example "this episode is the first to feature red kryptonite" etc. As well as sections for music and cultural references if they are relevant for the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.4.131 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ALL articles must meet WP:NOTE, and about 98% of the Smallville episodes don't meet it. A lot of other TV shows should not actually have them, and are creating them despite failing WP:NOTE. Not all of Buffy's episodes are notable, and need separate pages, but at the same time that show does have more notable episodes than Smallville. The Simpsons probably have more than any. The reality of notability is that it really isn't about what's noteworthy, but what's been written about. Shows like House, The Simpsons, or Grey's Anatomy get written about by reliable secondary sources more than Smallville because they are on primetime networks. Smallville is on The CW. Smallville utilizes season pages (see the season links on this page), as the overall seasons get more coverage. Some episodes have articles, but most don't. That's just a pitfall of being on an unrecognized network.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode Titles, Air Dates

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)

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)

Absolute Justice format

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)

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)

Airdates

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)

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)

okay that just seems really strange logic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

The television season is known as 2009-10 season regardless if the show airs in 2010 or not. If the show never aired another show new or rerun its last airing would have taken place in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See how other shows handles this [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Airdates of "Warrior" and "Absolute Justice"

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)

It is now fixed. Ωphois 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I edit a page that I know has wrong factual inforation but has no 'edit' button?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not just the notes. The DVD menus as well actually say one episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Color

Just asking out of curiousity: Why was the color "drained" from the list? Jimknut (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Record Breaking Episode

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Header Dates

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)

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. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'm fine with that, though I don't exactly see why we can't get rid of the parenthesis altogether. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Region 4 DVDs

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)

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)

Hi again I'll admit I don't understand the complicated codes in the DVD and Blu-ray section. So I'll type the information here. According to a site Season 9 DVDs and Blu-rays will be released 2 March 2011 (DVD - http://fetchdvd.com.au/index.php?titleid=104433 & Blu-ray - http://fetchdvd.com.au/index.php?titleid=104428). I hope that's alright. - Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(←) I think you're kind of undermining your own point with that last one...you're right that, if you base it on the Daily Show, Fox News appears utterly unreliable. In fact, there are people who, in spite of Jon Stewart's insistence that it is just jokes, treat the Daily Show as a reliable news source. There are even people who support the veracity and accuracy of Fox News and rebuke the Daily Show's liberal bias even as Stewart lays claim to only being an entertainer. There is a difference in being a news organization interested in facts, and one interested in a liberal or conservative agenda, or for that matter, a punchline. There is also a difference in being a third party publication who makes it's reputation on the accuracy of it's information, and a first party vendor only interested in piquing interest in sales, who's more than willing to correct unreliable information so long as the word is out. It's up to you if Fox News or the Daily Show is more reliable, but as far as Wikipedia sources, we're more vested in those whose main vested interest is in the facts. And that requires an editorial process. KnownAlias contact 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Episode numbering

If both the network and the producers agree that "Homecoming" was the 200th episode, that it only makes sense that that's how we should number it.
Accordingly, the numbers back to "Absolute Justice" should be corrected to show that it was in fact two episodes. The footnote would of course be rewritten to cover the DVD relaese having different numbering than the network and producers.
—MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a mathematic issue. The DVD, which the network produces, lists "Absolute Justice" as a single episode. Simple math says that "Homecoming" cannot be the 200th counted episode. It's considered the 200th "produced" not the 200th "broadcasted" episode. That's the difference. That is why we have a note explaining what happened on both season 9 and season 10 pages. The season 9 page reflects the actual numerical broadcast, and you'd have to skip a number for "Homecoming" to be listed as the 200th broadcasted episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it there are not two, but three relevant groups 1) The shows producers, 2) The WB network, and 3) Warner Home Video. The shows producers made two separate episodes “Society” and “Legends”. The WB network aired them back-to-back under an umbrella title as “Absolute Justice” and Warner Home Video then gave them one number on the DVD.

This would be all well and good if everyone later called “Isis” the 200th episode; but now the shows producers and the CW network agree that “Homecoming” was in fact the 200th episode (ignoring or dismissing the DVD numbering).

Based on that, it seems to me that we should give “Absolute Justice”/“Society”/“Legends” two numbers so that the table agrees with the show's producers and the WB network in emphasizing original production numbers over DVD numbers. The related footnotes would stay, but rewritten to explain why production and Network numbering are different than the DVDs.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

They didn't air "Society" and "Justice" back-to-back. During the post-production phase, they literally joined them together as a single episode. The network is merely not ignoring the fact that the producers have "produced" 2 separate episodes and are accepting "Homecoming" as the 200th "produced" episode. The numbering in the episode table represents "broadcast" numbering, and not produced number. That is why we have a production code section, because that represents the "produced" numbering and when you count that in the episode table that shows "Homecoming" to be the calculated "200th episode". If Warner Bros says it's 1 episode, which it technically is, then we cannot renumber things to fit our own agenda. No one is coming here pitching a huge fit that "Homecoming" is listed as 199 instead of 200. That is why there is a note right beside the number explaining.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Directors/Writers

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)

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)

Complete series press release

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Series overview table

I have added a "series overview" table to conform with the guideline WP:TVOVERVIEW. As almost all "list of... episodes" pages have this type of table, I don't think it's controversial to add one here. Yes, this list hasn't had one in the past... that's not a sufficient reason to prohibit consistency with other LOE pages as well as preferable summarization and navigation. I do not buy User:Bignole's claim that a series overview table is "unnecessary" just because it is not required. It is certainly an improvement here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

To me it isn't. This page does not contain any plot summaries (they were all moved to the season articles), thus you are literally dealing with tables that contain nothing more than dates and titles. The average reader is not going to have trouble navigating this page to find out how many episodes there were, or when seasons started and ended. An overview table here is truly redundant, because it is literally repeating information AND repeating the setup. The only thing you have managed to do is get rid of the Neilsen information at the bottom of the page, that had more information. In this case, it isn't a benefit. In addition, if my "it's had it for years" isn't an argument, then neither is "almost all pages have one". It's not a requirement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You've made that argument in past discussions, Bignole, but there is a wider consensus supporting using series overview tables. Because the "Nielsen ratings" table you are defending here is also so similar to the series overview table, I also don't understand see why conforming to the guideline is so contentious for you. And talk about redundant information- why do we need to repeat premiere/finale ratings twice in one page? That's the only information missing from the series overview table.

"Almost pages have one" because of a guideline per broad consensus. As you know, WP:TV discussed, revised, and approved the WP:TVOVERVIEW guideline together, and while I had some objections to some aspects, ultimately that guideline was a compromise. Taking a stand against series overview tables after they have been broadly used and endorsed goes against Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take a stand against the table overall after that, I'm saying that it is not needed here (on this particular page). The MOS does not demand it on every page, and as always editors for a particular page can choose not to include an aesthetical piece if desired. It is better suited on the main page of a show, and for articles that have not split off into season pages. The reason being, when you split off into season pages you lose all the plot info and are just left with basic tables. That means, there's far less to navigate through and there is no need to have a secondary table. In this particular case, you have a table of contents, then the overview table, and then the tables themselves which contain nothing but dates and titles. It isn't like Arrow where you have 3 seasons of plot summary so far and take up more space and are harder to navigate within the season tables. The idea of redundancy that you and I discuss is about where you want to accept it. I'm willing to accept a brief redundancy in ratings information when it is next to more expansive information not already on the page (e.g., timeslot, rankings, viewership average, etc.), but you want the redundancy in the episode count and premiere dates, with no other new information. Your desire to add the overview table is based solely on the idea that you can (because the MOS allows for it), not if you should or if the page benefits from it. Not every page needs an overview table. In addition, you're talking about a significant change to a featured list page, as you want to add a new table and get rid of others. I don't believe that an overview table is beneficial here, when this tables have already been stripped down to their bare essence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no mandated requirement for a series overview table on List of Episodes pages. Inclusion is left up to editors on individual pages. That said, there have been numerous attempts by multiple editors to add a series overview table since at least March 2010 with only one editor opposing the tables. If we were to gather all of those editors into one discussion, I'd be surprised if there was not consensus to include the table. During the series overview table discussions we did decide that tables should be located on the LoE page and transcluded to the main article. There is a table at Smallville, which is not transcluded, and that is contrary to what we decided, so the table should really be here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It was decided to transclude it so that it wouldn't need to be duplicated, not that having it on the main page requires that it be on the LoE page. Again, we're talking about an LoE page that has already been stripped down. There isn't a real need for an overview here when the tables are already bare bones and easy to read (depending on your basic resolution, most tables can occupy one full screen). The point of an overview table is that it should help summarize a series when it is difficult to navigate. That isn't the case when all the information from this LoE page has been split off into season articles. There is less need to summarize this page then there would be a page that has 5 years of plot summaries extending the length of the page and making it more difficult to keep track of basic information. The only argument for inclusion is simply "because we can", which has nothing to do with whether "we should", especially when you're talking about changing the setup of a featured page by adding a new table and ditching another one that is more valuable. (BTW, I haven't been the only one to remove the table if you actually go back into the history, and several of the "adders" have been IP editors or editors that edited briefly a couple of years ago and not since....only a few are regular contributors to Wikipedia)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You can say that about many many other List of episodes pages too, and during the past discussions at WP:TV I recall you saying that. Consensus disagreed with you on that point, and I don't see why this list should be an exception to the guideline we built together. I just don't see an argument here that you haven't brought up before. No one said "Because we can," you are arguing against straw man positions. We are enforcing a guideline built around consensus that provides consistency to Wikipedia TV articles, easier navigation, and added information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's funny. Scrolling up on this talk page, over years and years I see Bignole speaking to other editors about why he has reverted edits / restored his prior edits because of policies and guidelines, which "aren't required." You are very aware that guidelines stem from and follow consensus, so it's still unclear to me why you're fighting WP:TVOVERVIEW at this list. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are enforcing a guideline? Enforcing would mean that it is required, when it is not. You haven't provided an actual argument other than "the guideline says so". If I was fighting against TVOVERVIEW, why would I put one on the main page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Either you are intentionally reading my and AussieLegend's responses selectively, skimming over the relevant counter-arguments to you, or (assuming good faith) you really haven't read the counter-arguments above ("consistency to Wikipedia TV articles, easier navigation, and added information" – in addition to the broad consensus for the tables). Similarly, you indeed are fighting against TVOVERVIEW because in the case of Smallville it does not recommend putting a table on the main page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I addressed your "arguments" above, so there wasn't a point to reiterate what I said. I will again say that "easier navigation" is an argument that is not accurate because there is a table of contents. If there needs to be an overview table, then it shouldn't be more than what is on the main page (which is what I can agree to). As for OVERVIEW doesn't say put one on the main page....it actually does. It says start it there, and if you have one on the LoE page then just transclude it (to save space).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"If a separate List of episodes article exists, the series overview table should be presented at the top of that article below the lead, in a section labeled "Series overview", then transcluded to the episodes section at the main article." It says to have a series overview table on the List of episodes page and then transclude it to the main article. It doesn't say "if you have one on the LoE," it says there "should" be one on the LoE and then transclude it. It is very clear. And your actions are in opposition to that guideline. Also, this page and Wikipedia does not operate by "what you can agree to." It's run by consensus. I hope you can respect the work and discussions we had about TVOVERVIEW over those several months because "I don't like it" is exactly your argument here (and your edit summary that the list has "survived years without one" – aka preserving the status quo – is not based in anything other than your bias). -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

First, you are misreading "should be presented" as a mandate to have. That is not the intention of that wording. The wording is meant to tell an editor where to place an overview table. You are misunderstanding the wording of that section. As for "what I agree to". That is my trying to find a compromise with you that is still within the guideline (if you look at the page, it shows you what a basic table looks like). I'm saying that the Nielsen table is far better at the bottom than merged into the overview table, especially since it is more elaborate than would appear in an overview table (your edit wanted to get rid of it outright, which is a major change for an established featured page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)