Jump to content

Talk:Chloe Sullivan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 11 discussion(s) to Talk:Chloe Sullivan/Archive 1) (bot
Tag: Replaced
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
Line 16: Line 16:
|topic=television
|topic=television
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Television|class=GA|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Television|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Comics|DC-work-group=yes|class=GA|importance=low|Superman-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comics|DC-work-group=yes|importance=low|Superman-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Fictional characters}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Chloe Sullivan/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
}}
{{archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}
{{archive box|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|minthreadsleft=4}}
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Doomsday (comics)#Smallville|Doomsday}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|3|Hachette Book Group USA#Warner Aspect|Aspect}}|m04}}


== Powers ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
theres an interview with allison mack and she explains that her power is called Empathy.
shouldn't that be added in the information under the picture? heres the video link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2gwlVxPoS7o <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Beachdude0213|Beachdude0213]] ([[User talk:Beachdude0213|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beachdude0213|contribs]]) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Chloe Sullivan]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=704106739 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:YouTube is not a reliable source, plus the fact that they generally post copyrighted material that is taken down when the owners get wind that it is on YouTube. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927021423/http://www.mania.com/50679.html to http://www.mania.com/50679.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
But the youtube account belongs to The CWSource. [[User:Beachdude0213|Beachdude0213]] ([[User talk:Beachdude0213|talk]]) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Wouldn't it make a little bit more sense to call her power something like "Empathic Healing" or something because empathy is really a fairly small part of her power <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.104.172.179|75.104.172.179]] ([[User talk:75.104.172.179|talk]]) 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:No, because that isn't what they call it. By "they" I mean the producers who have identified it as just "empathy". [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
Yeah but either way, shouldn't we put something about healing after empathy? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.104.172.179|75.104.172.179]] ([[User talk:75.104.172.179|talk]]) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:You mean: "Mack further defines the power as the ability to heal others by taking their pain and making it her own."? It's already in the article, it just isn't in the infobox because they don't call it "Empathetic healing", they call it just "Empathy" and later describe it in better detail. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on [[Chloe Sullivan]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=778778702 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::As someone who isn't totally familiar with the character's powers or how they work, why don't we put "Empathy" on the article, with a link to the relevant description at [[List of comic book superpowers]] or [[healing factor]] or something? [[User:Paul730|<small>'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;Paul&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Paul730|<small>730</small>]] 03:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011011444/http://blogs.trb.com/network/cwsource/2007/09/cw_source_exclusive_allison_ma.html to http://blogs.trb.com/network/cwsource/2007/09/cw_source_exclusive_allison_ma.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C271%7C81889%7C1%7C%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C271%7C95620%7C1%7C%2C00.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::That's the problem with the name, the producers inaccurately labeling it "empathy" when even their description doesn't match the true definition. You could link it to "healing factor", but I think that there would be confusion because of how they chose to identify it. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
YouTube is not the source in this case, it's merely the web host for the material. The source is Mack herself. As for the issue of copyrighted material, even if it weren't the CW's own channel, links can be updated. If the copyrighted material were an episode of some TV show, then that TV show could simply be cited itself as the source. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 05:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
== Chloe in DC Continuity ==


== External links modified ==
This statement is at the top of the main page: "DC Comics had announced that they would introduce a comics version of Chloe Sullivan to the mainstream continuity of DC Comics in Superman #674 and 675 in March and April of 2008, but the plan fell through.[2]" However, when I followed the link, nothing of the sort was said in the article. In fact, here's a quote from the linked article: "Will the character of Chloe on Smallville be pulled into DC continuity? Idelson: It’s something we’re trying to do next year." (This article was from 2007.) So it sounds like it's still very likely to happen. So is the statement on the front page inaccurate, or is there another reference that indicates that the plans fell through? -- [[User:Tom H12|Tom H12]] ([[User talk:Tom H12|talk]]) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Well, the latest information I've seen about her inclusion in the DC continuity is from January 2008, so I think it's safe to say that she won't be included after all. The whole paragraph needs a rewrite though. [[User:Fishhook|Fishhook]] ([[User talk:Fishhook|talk]]) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[Chloe Sullivan]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=783734006 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
==Comics Characters Created in Other Media==
*Added archive https://archive.is/20100118170718/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=139973 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=139973
Someone keeps adding Chloe to this list. She has yet to appear in comics however (see above for the abandoned plan for a DC Comics version). As such, she does not belong on the list, unless we are counting ''Smallville'' comics. This is tentative though as it's an adaptation of the show, rather than adapting the character into a comics publisher's canon (as with the other entries to the list). Believe me, I love Chloe but as of right now, I'm not sure that she fits within the scope of the list. [[User:Rajah1|Rajah1]] ([[User talk:Rajah1|talk]]) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:I don't think the category limits it to "mainstream" comics. A comic is a comic, whether it is an adaptation of the show or not. I could have sworn that those ''Smallville'' comics were like the young adult novels, which had separate stories and were not direct adaptations of any particular episode. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Comic_book_characters_originally_created_in_other_media&diff=209327902&oldid=209038698 Obviously someone did think that was a restriction], but I think with such a defined addition to the category, that probably should have been talked about first, because it is clearly in response to "Chloe" appearing on the list. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 08:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Hmm. I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's toes. My point is that the ''Smallville'' comics are an adaptation of other media. As such, wouldn't they be in the same category as comics based on, say, Conan, Dracula, James Bond, Star Trek, etc.? Those don't fit within the scope of the list (if they did, it would be massive and would stray from its original concept). Until Chloe appears outside of a form of ''Smallville'' or its adaptations, I'm not sure that she fits on the list either. But I admit, it's a slippery slope since she's on a media adaptation that is itself based on a comic. [[User:Rajah1|Rajah1]] ([[User talk:Rajah1|talk]]) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


== The Supergirl episode information needs a citation question. ==
==Other Meteor Power==


Hello,
I'm curious as to why there is no mention of the continuity error caused by Chloe being affected by kryptonite in the season 3 episode "Truth." She inhaled a krytonite laced gas and gained the ability to make people answer her truthfully. However later it is revealed that she was already a meteor freak from an early age. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.71.9.48|71.71.9.48]] ([[User talk:71.71.9.48|talk]]) 05:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I was reading through the page and noticed that it had "citation needed" under the description of the ''Supergirl'' episode where she is discussed in the plot. I'm not the original author or anything, and I have no personal ties to the information itself, but I'm wondering what kind of citation it would need? I'm mostly confused because doesn't the ''Supergirl'' episode itself verify the information?


Basically, I'm just wondering as an occasional Wikipedia contributor, how a citation is placed on something like this? I've seen things like this on other pages dealing with crossover shows and it has always confused me a tad bit. Do people use the episodes as citations? Do they link it something specific? I know there's no linking to script sites because, from what I know '''and''' understand, they are actually plagiarized due to the use of words written by other people. In the future I'd just like to be able to contribute and correct things the right way on things like this if I see it as needing a citation on other pages as well.
:What continuity error are you talking about? Where does it say that you can only have one meteor power at a time? [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate any help someone could offer me about situations like this and how they are handled!
==WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required==


[[User:Sabriel974|Sabriel]] ([[User talk:Sabriel974|talk]]) 06:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


:It would if it was a plot summary on that particular episode. When you identify plot information on a character page, you need to cite where it is so if someone needs/wants to verify it then they know where to look. Someone shouldn't be forced to watch 25 seasons of ''The Simpsons'' just to find the one episode where they mentions specific statement X. Thus, you use the [[Template:Cite episode]] to provide an in-line citation for the specific piece you're referencing. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria]]. For further details please contact [[WT:COMICS|the Comics WikiProject]]. [[User:Comics-awb|Comics-awb]] ([[User talk:Comics-awb|talk]]) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for explaining that to me. It makes much more sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation and clarification.

::[[User:Sabriel974|Sabriel]] ([[User talk:Sabriel974|talk]]) 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

== [[Metahuman]] ==
Why is it that whenever I add Chloe Sullivan to the "DC Comics metahumans" category, they keep taking that off? She ''was'' listed in that category before, so why isn't she now? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nintendoman01|Nintendoman01]] ([[User talk:Nintendoman01|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nintendoman01|contribs]]) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The people who keep an eye on that probably think that only characters appearing in comic books should belong in that category. Currently, she's only appeared on television and on the web. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

::Metahumans are people born with abilities (though they may not exhibit them until later in life). Chloe was not born with her ability, she contracted it from the meteor rocks later in life. That is why it keeps getting removed. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:::That's not fully true. In the comics, "metahuman" is the typical term for ''any'' [[superhuman]], whether they were born with [[Superpower (ability)|superpowers]] or got them from some freak accident or other external source. In my opinion, Chloe should technically belong in that category, especially since most other original characters in DC Comics TV shows (such as the [[DC animated universe|DCAU]]) who are superpowered humans are listed as such, even if they haven't personally appeared in the comics themselves as of yet.
[[User:Nintendoman01|Nintendoman01]] [[User talk:Nintendoman01|talk]], 6:40, 13 November 2008

::::Then the definition to which the category is actually listing it should be changed, as it doesn't say that there. So, I would start a discussion on the category talk page about redefining it (don't just change it to suit your needs first). Until then... [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chloe's Middle Name ==

In Season 7, episode 2, of Smallville, entitled "Kara", it is mentioned that Chloe's middle name is Anne. While yes, this small piece of information is for the most part inconsequential, it is still a part of her character. Most people don't go by their middle names, but they are still a part of what forms a person's initial identity. True, Chloe is a fictional character and therefore her encyclopedic article should be treated as such, but it is a reasonable conclusion that if such information is known and verifiable, it should be included. For most character articles, if the character's full names is known, it is given. Her middle name is also included on her Smallville Wiki article. So the question stands as thus: Should Chloe Sullivan's encyclopedic article include her full name (including her middle name) or should this piece of information be considered trivial or unimportant? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bellascully14|Bellascully14]] ([[User talk:Bellascully14|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bellascully14|contribs]]) 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Actually, the only time a character's article would include a middle name is when that character is known by that middle name. Like [[James T. Kirk]]. Otherwise, you won't find any featured character article that just includes a middle name simply because "it's known". Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it is important enough to note. Chloe's middle name is trivial. It doesn't help you better understand the character, it doesn't add anything to the article (if anything, it makes it seem like it's either something she goes by, or we're treating her article like a real life person's article). She wasn't "born" with that middle name, because she wasn't born. It's an afterthought. Technically, she married Jimmy and is theoretically known as "Chloe Olsen", but given that she's only known as "Chloe Sullivan", we don't actually change her name. This type of trivial information is best left for [http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/Chloe_Sullivan her Wiki page]. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


::In response to the comment "you won't find any featured character article that just includes a middle name simply because 'it's known'": Actually, there are plenty of Wikipedia character articles that do include that information. A few examples include: Bella Swan's (from Twilight) Wikipedia article, which cites her full name as Isabella Marie Cullen (even though she is rarely referred to as Isabella and her middle name is mentioned once); Dr. Temperance Brennan's (from the Kathy Reichs series) article includes her full name (even though her first name is rarely used in its full form); Clark Kent; Homer Simpson; Indiana Jones; Vito Corleone; Harry Potter (any character whose full name is known); J.R. Ewing (Dallas); and many more (I can cite more if needed).
I agree that Chloe's name shouldn't include Olsen because although she and Jimmy were married for some time, he was in the hospital for almost the entire time, so he and Chloe didn't actually get a chance to consummate that marriage. However, her middle name (although only mentioned once) is a part of her character. It may seem trivial, but it adds a certain depth to her character that makes her more realistic (even though, yes, she is fictional). The whole purpose of a fictional character is to give that character human qualities that can be compared to those of other characters and to those of the viewer/reader in order to get across some sort of message. By including Chloe's middle name, it gives Chloe a more realistic characterization, and allows her audience to relate to her on a deeper level. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bellascully14|Bellascully14]] ([[User talk:Bellascully14|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bellascully14|contribs]]) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::It's a trivial part of the character. It has no importance in understanding who she is as a character. I also said "featured article" All those articles you mentioned are ones that have not been formally reviewed with respect to our policies and guidelines. It is not Wikipedia's stance to "give a character more realistic qualities so that the audience can relate to her". Her middle name wasn't even mentioned until seven seasons into the show, and it's never been referred to since. How much more trivial can you get for character info? That's about as important as noting where her family lineage hails from. It's trivial. We don't include the fact that Lana's ancestors come from France, because it's trivial and doesn't add anything to the article. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I would say that if it's verifiable, and it would be one word or sentence in a pretty big article, and...it would make a newbie editor (I'm assuming based on their red-linked user page) happy to include it; then include it. It's something that is trivial, but controlled more by editorial decision than RSs or NOTE or whatever. If this is a problematic user (and I'm assuming they're not), then that's another story. We need to make WP as welcoming as possible, and maybe this is a chance to make it a little more welcoming without really damaging anything. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 05:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I understand how accommodating a new editor by allowing something trivial, and that would normally be cut from articles actually solves anything. Being verifiable isn't a catch-all for information. She isn't called "Chloe Ann Sullivan". She's never been known by that name, nor is it something that's even newly attributed to her. It was a small blip in a single episode. The same thing happened with [[Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)]]. She was given a surname in a video game that featured the character, but it was something add much later, and is not something the character is known by. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Just to point out, the reasoning for including it by BellaScully doesn't even make sense. They say that they don't think her name should be "Olsen", even though she was married for half the season, but that a middle name that was spoken once by a different character is somehow more important? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 05:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Nagging thought here... and I think this comes from the either season 1 or 2... but wasn't the character refered to at some points as "Chloe M. Sullivan"?
::::::Beyond that, I'd go with keeping it simple here - how the character is credited in the original airing of the show. Including "Ann" and/or "M" is a little bit cumbersome and off putting. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::[http://www.facebook.com/people/Chloe-M-Sullivan/100000027292987 This "Chloe M. Sullivan"]? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I know, I tried a web search and saw that. Problem is the nagging though came before the web search. It's something I've associated with the character all along. Something to do with her full title as editor of the school paper or byline credit at the ''Planet''. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:I've always thought this kind of info should be covered in a '''Full name''' field in the infobox. Yes, it's a slightly trivial, in-universe piece of information, but omitting part of the character's ''name'' from the article does seem remiss. [[User:Paul730|<small>'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;Paul&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Paul730|<small>730</small>]] 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::But it's not her "full name", because she's had different middle names. Should we put "Chloe M. Ann Sullivan"? Buffy doesn't list "Anne", and Faith doesn't list "Lehane" for the same reasons. They're probably the biggest definition of triviality when it comes to a character. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::If there's a continuity error regarding her middle name, list both (separately) and source it to the specific episode. The ''Buffy'' articles don't do this but I think they should, I just haven't bothered changing them. You have an '''In-story information''' section in the infobox, but the character's ''name'' doesn't qualify? That seems like the first thing that should be there, IMO. [[User:Paul730|<small>'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;Paul&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Paul730|<small>730</small>]] 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Because her middle name isn't an established "fact". It changes depending on who is writing, because she's never really had one. IMO, if you have to sit there and list out each middle name and source it to some specific episode then clearly this type of information is so trivial and fannish, that it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. That's why we have Wikia, for stuff like that. Otherwise, you get into those "Jason's mask was slightly different in ''Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter'' than it was in ''Friday the 13th Part III''" territory. Given that the infobox is supposed to be used for things that are "essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" (per [[WP:WAF]]), I fail to see how a middle name that changes depending on the writer, and only ever mentioned in a single episode, fits that category. As WAF says, "Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add;" and "In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory." [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, say Chloe's middle name doesn't qualify because it's inconsisant. What about other characters, like Buffy, whose middle name is consistant and mentioned repeatedly throughout the series? Clearly, it doesn't belong in the article title or lead section because it's not their common name, but it ''should'' be mentioned somewhere as a recurring element of the character. I'm not someone who thinks articles should be bogged down by in-universe trivia, such as height, birthdates, or that uncle who was mentioned in passing once, but the character's name seems like a very basic point, especially if it's mentioned a lot.
:For example, [[Ash Williams]]. Really, that article should be titled [[Ash (Evil Dead)]], because the "Williams" was revealed later, in apocryphal material. However, his full name, Ashley J. Williams is mentioned ''all the time'' in video games and comics. It's a recurring element of the character, it's even been the subject of jokes (such as when he visited a parallel world and met Ashley '''G.''' Williams). His full name is important to note somewhere, but if we can't do it in the title/lead, then the infobox is a compromise. Same with characters who use aliases, like [[Indiana Jones]], or characters who change their names through marriage like [[Jean Grey]] (who has actually been consistantly called Jean Grey-Summers in-story since the 90s).
:Yes, it's slightly trivial, but I think there's something a bit backwards about Wikipedia policy if we can write entire paragraphs of development and reception info about a character, but we can't even list their canonical name. There needs to be some compromise. [[User:Paul730|<small>'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;Paul&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Paul730|<small>730</small>]] 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::For characters where that is truly a part of the character, something they are consistently listed as in some shape or form, sure, but that isn't Chloe. She isn't consistently listed as "Ann" or "M.", or anything other than "Chloe Sullivan". These middle names/initials are random, quick blip events that are never seen or heard of again. A newspaper column that lists a middle initial, or a character that just happens to say her full name instead of simply just "Ms. Sullivan" isn't really a form of publication that would be considered "consistent" - especially when it changes each time. It's just like, if Martha Kent were to show up this coming season and happen to mention that Clark's middle name is "Stewart", it isn't worth mentioning unless it becomes some staple of the character given that we've gone 8 seasons without them even mentioning a middle initial, let alone a middle name. But something that's mentioned in passing, and then dropped completely isn't worth mentioning at all, IMO. Lehane is understandable, because it's become part of the character in other media now. Indiana Jones might be kind of relevant to show that "Indiana" isn't his real name. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== Current State of Chloe ==
I noticed that this article seems to end with the first episode of season 9, and includes no other information. It suggests that Clark and Chloe are no longer friends, but they are still working together as friends... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.216.26.78|207.216.26.78]] ([[User talk:207.216.26.78|talk]]) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Then update it. Just make sure you're brief, don't include personal observations or opinions, and source the information like the rest of it is sourced. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

==Summary of Appearances & Main DCU Appearance/Image==
Hi. I'd like to discuss [[User:Bignole|Bignole]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&action=history revert] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&action=historysubmit&diff=386618602&oldid=386596223 my edits], including Bignole's edit summary: ''this is relevant info that should not have been removed - don't know why you removed the summary at the start of appearances (a standard practice across character articles) images fails fair use guidelines - fixing the lead that was messed up''.

'''Summary in Appearances section.''' The Lead is the summary for the article. Individual sections do not require further summaries, which are redundant, as it is largely a repeat of the Lead, one paragraph prior. The section itself contains the relevant info. It does not need a second summary right before it, when the Lead serves that purpose. This is not a "standard" practice across character articles, and any other articles that include this redundancy should be edited to remove them.

'''Detail regarding first mainstream DCU appearance.''' Salient information must be ''summarized'' in articles. There is no justification for going into excessive detail into the character background of her initially planned first mainstream DCU appearance in 2007, when ''those plans were aborted''. It is enough to merely summarize that those plans were made, fell through, and then to follow up with her actual first appearance in 2010.

'''Image.''' Many articles on characters, including comic book characters, when extensive or developed enough, feature multiple images pertaining to characters' history and appearances in multiple media, and justifiably so. In this regard, the small image of Chloe from ''Action Comics'' #893, her first DCU mainstream appearance, is valid. In what way you do feel that this fails Fair Use guidelines, Bignole?

'''''Superman: Secret Origin'' appearance.''' Noelemahc [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&action=historysubmit&diff=387039047&oldid=386900959 pointed out] that a signature by a "Chloe S." appears on Pete Ross' cast in ''Superman: Secret Origin'' #1, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&diff=next&oldid=387039047 Bignole reverted this], saying that it was "not an appearance". This is true, but noting references made to the character prior to her first mainstream DCU appearance is certainly reasonable, and relevant to the article. I think it should be re-added.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of any interested parties. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 09:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:Just taking a quick look based on Nightscream's edits...
:*'''Lead section''': Splitting the initial paragraph makes for an awkward transition in two ways. It takes a three part nut shelling - Production, In-story history, Characterization - and muddles it. Yes, the spin-offs are part of the production information about the character, not a fully separate topic. It seems odd to split them off to a one-line paragraph. It's also stilted to start it with "Chloe Sullivan...". ''If'' the paragraph is actually needed, "The character..." would be preferable since we are talking about a story element, a thing.
:*'''Repetition''': While the lead is a summary, the information it contains will be repeated later in the article, hopefully with expansion. With the "Appearances" section, and the "Character development" and "Literature" ones for that matter, a subsection lead is a good idea for much the same reason an article lead is a good idea. "Here's the overview." followed by "Here's the details." The rub here may be that, unlike the intent with articles on comic book characters, this article jumps from the lead right to the plot summary instead of covering the nuts and bolts about the character's creation for the show, its development under the writers and actress, and so on. If that section were there, the "Appearances" "sub-lead" wouldn't feel wrong.
:*'''Mixed tone''': The limited appearances in the 10th season, while a good nugget of information, is out of step with the rest of the "Television" section. Again, this would be better in a "Production history", possibly expanded with how this affected the writers handling the season and why Mack declined to only appear in less than 1/4 of the episodes.
:*'''Image''': A couple of issues seem to crop up here... First is asking if the inclusion of the 2010, main DC universe continuity appearance ads ''anything'' to the article that cannot be conveyed by the text ''and'' with the existing photo of Mack in character. It really doesn't look like it does since it looks like Silva used Mack as a model for the character - a model that was closely adhered to. (Aside: Any referenced information about Mack having final approval on Chloe's appearance in the comics?) ''Most'' time with comic book characters the "spin-off" depictions get an image to show how the comic book visual was adapted or approached in other media. And there are a ''lot'' of those that are questionable where the animation is a close variation of the comics or the live action adaptation is of a normal person in normal close, just like the comic version. Second is a question of undue weight. IIRC, the ''Chloe Chronicles'' were animated, so why no image of that interpretation of the character? Same for the ''Smallville'' comic book version.
:*'''Details''': Frankly, if the aborted 2007 plans Busiek had are sourced, it is reasonable to include them. It would be nice to also have a sourced reason why those plans fell through. Inclusion of either though should not be predicated on "We'll add it along with the 2010 'first appearance' after that happens." What Bignole has added is a reasonable statement of what was attempted but did not see print. It is present in a real world context as it should be.
:- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just adding the fourth point about the ''Secret Origin'' reference to my post above when I encountered an edit conflict with you, JGreb, in case you want to comment on that too.

'''Split Lead.''' If you want to keep it unsplit, then I'll concede that.

'''Appearances.''' I agree that starting off the Appearances section by putting out-universe production info in the beginning would be a good idea, and arguably the bit about her five-episode limit in the last season. I implemented that, so you and BigNole, et al, let me know what you think. However, having another summary for ''all'' her appearances is redundant. JGreb, you mention having intros to the individual subsections like "Appearances" and "Literature", but the one BigNole favors at the top of Appearances ''includes'' the literature appearances, rather than simply the Television appearances that start off that section, which again, is just a redundant repeat of the Lead. In this way, her appearances in books is mentioned in the Lead, at the top of Appearances, ''and'' in the subsection on books. You don't think ''three'' summaries/intros is overkill?

'''Image.''' I don't think the image adds any less to the article than any other spinoff images, and I don't see why Silva having relied on Mack as the model (assuming this is the case) needs to be relevant. Is there some policy, guideline or consensus that indicates that such images should only be used when the look is significantly different? The inclusion of the [[Batman#In other media|Michael Keaton photo in the Batman article]], for example, looks to me like it was included simply because it represents a significant adaptation of the character in another medium. I added the ''Action Comics'' image for the same reason. I concede I was not aware about her animated appearances, as I didn't really examine that section closely, and now that I know, I think that section could use an image from that too.

'''Aborted 2007 plans.''' I never said that the details about the aborted 2007 appearance should not be included, only that they should be ''summarized'', since they fell making in-depth details about them less relevant, and indeed, I retained the reason why they fell through, with the passage ''"it was felt that the characters of [[Lana Lang]] and [[Lois Lane]] made her redundant"'', which condenses the passage BigNole favors, which is about ''nine times longer''. All that for a first appearance that ended up ''not occurring''? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 10:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:For summaries, it's common practice in character articles to summarize briefly where a character has appeared at the start of the section when you have multiple sections of appearances that are not related. It's your opinion that it is redundant, but IMO it's no more redundant than the infobox is. Also, as for the ordering, it follows the same reasoning as episodes and films. Fictional topics need context for their OOU information. That is what the plot info does. You do not get context if it comes last. See [[Jason Voorhees]], [[Michael Myers (Halloween)]], [[Jack Harkness]], [[Homer Simpson]] (written from a different perspective since there are no real storylines in that show), [[Jabba the Hutt]], [[Senator Palpatine]], etc. Without the context then when you read about relationships development or storyline development it makes no sense because you haven't read about what happened in the show yet. Merging the casting info into the plot history of the character makes no sense either. Sense when do you read about casting a character before anything else. Now, you could separate all ancillary appearances (e.g., spin-off, literature, etc.) into a completely separate section since those don't require Allison Mack (with exception to ''Chloe Chronicles''), and put it under "Other appearances" at the end of the article, but to me that just seems weird to sandwich the page with plot information when you can read it all together and get it over with. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:DCU background info is relevant because it lets us know what they planned to do and that those ideas apparently changed for her actual appearance in ''Jimmy Olsen''. The fact that she was too much like Lana and Lois was '''not''' the reason she wasn't added, which is what you were insinuating when you removed the info that explained what they planned to do. It was the reason she was not added initially, but later the writers had developed a new background for her. The ultimate decision to not include her with the new background was never explained and you cannot create an explanation they way you did by removing information.

:Images MUST follow [[WP:FUC]] and [[WP:NONFREE]], which requires critical commentary on said image. There is absolutely no critical commentary on that image (or any other image for any other section) and no justification to include it whatsoever. That was why it was removed, and why the only image we can use is one to identify her primary appearance in media (i.e. ''Smallville''). If you can find critical commentary about any appearance, whether that be the new DC Comics appearance, the ''Smallville'' comic book appearance, etc. then that's fine. But otherwise it fails our policies on non-free images to include something just to show what it looks like. We get one basic "free pass" and that's for the infobox.

:Secret Origins brief listing of "Chloe S." is not an appearance, nor was it anything more than an in-joke for the comic book. It's trivial in nature and the reason why it isn't included. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 13:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:P.S. I would appreciate it that if we're having a dispute and you tell me about the discussion that you don't reorder the page to your liking before I actually come to the discussion. There wasn't a consensus for any change. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::'''Appearances.''' Summarizing where a character has appeared in one particular medium, at the top of the section devoted to that medium, is arguably reasonable. Summarizing his/her appearances in ''all media'', in both the Lead and then again in the next section right after that, and then mentioning each medium again in the section devoted to those media, for a total of three times, is overkill. This is not a "common practice", and the fact that you can point to other articles that you edit frequently does not illustrate this, as this is circular reasoning. Illustrating this point would be far better served if you pointed to consensus or guideline pages or articles that you do ''not'' edit, in order to illustrate it as a practice common to other editors independent of yourself. In addition, the [[Jack Harkness]] and [[Homer Simpson]] do '''not''' have such summaries. The Homer Simpson article contains a summary of his changing role on the ''television show only'', and not secondary summary of his appearances in all other media. The Jack Harkness article contains no secondary summary at all that I could see. It remains that the paragraph you favor including at the top of the Appearances section is essentially a ''second Lead'', one that comes right after the first one. In my opinion, this is redundant, and not good sense of organization.

::As for context, it is your opinion that it cannot be provided by placing out-universe material on the character's creation at the beginning. JGreb and I have both opined that this is a good idea.

::'''DCU background info.''' Sorry that I mistakenly gave the wrong reason for her appearance falling through. Redundancy was one of Busiek's considerations in the attempted adaptation, but no specific reason was given as to why it didn't happen. I merely transcribed/summarized it incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out. :-) However, I don't see where it says that the new background for her appearance in ''Action Comics'' was changed.

::'''Image.''' Point taken about the criterion of critical commentary.

::'''''Secret Origins'' reference.''' I didn't say it was an appearance, and mentioned that explicitly. Is there some principle that says that '''references''' to a character are not permitted? Since you insist on including detailed material of aborted plans prior to her actual appearance, why does a reference to the character shortly prior to her actual one not merit a mention? And how do you know it was intended as an "in-joke", and not, say, an attempt to somewhat covertly establish her existence in the mainstream DCU shortly before the editorial decision to have her actually appear? ''Secret Origin'', after all, is written by [[Geoff Johns]], who has written a number of episodes of ''Smallville''. Isn't "in-joke" and "trivia" just a negative characterization?

::'''Discussion and reversion.''' Regarding your edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&action=historysubmit&diff=387118629&oldid=387101022 "there was no discussion, you cannot start a discussion by yourself and then just change things before anyone can respond"], I did not "change things before anyone could respond", and if you read both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&diff=prev&oldid=387101022 edit summary I provided in my last edit], then you saw that I was incorporating a suggestion made by JGreb here in this discussion. Yes, you had not responded yet, but suggested changes can be implemented experimentally as part of that discussion, and as I mentioned in my last post above, I expected you to respond as to whether you approved of them or not. If you prefer that we have a more extensive discussion before implementing suggestions, or using the Sandbox, then we can do that instead. No offense was intended. I apologize if it came across wrong. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Two points on your last item:
:::#It's part and parcel of the content in question. [[WP:BRD]] and courtesy would hold that you not edit the content in question ''until the issues are settled on the talk page''. ''Nothing'' was settled at this point. And Bignole's input, at a minimum, should have been present on the talk page ''before'' tinkering.
:::#You misconstrued my comment: A "sub-lead" is useful for "Appearances" which is further broken down into 3 sub-sections. Such a "sub-lead" should ''not'' be part of one of those sub-sections.
:::And two other things:
:::#"Trivial" tends to cover non-notable information. In-jokes or Easter eggs, in and of themselves, are not necessarily notable. If there is a secondary source that places notability on "Chloe S." in ''Secret Origins'', it is no longer "trivia". But editor interpretation cannot justify the inclusion in the article. It ''may'' be related to the later appearance of the character. It ''may'' have been Johns, the inker, or the letterer having fun.
:::#Something I missed pointing to earlier: The "Literature" sub-section looks like it could be re-worked to remove the "Lit" header and "promote" both the "Young-adult novels" and "Comic books" sub-sections to par with "Television" and "Spin-off series" (maybe renamed "Webisodes" or "Webcasts").
:::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 18:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::To Nightscream, I don't edit any of the ''Star Wars'' articles that has been my basis for character article format since I first wrote [[Jason Voorhees]]. They were the ones that listed the summarized appearance info in both the lead and the plot section. So to me, it is an established element given that those particular articles have been among the early FA fictional character articles for such mainstream characters. With regard to OOU info at the start of the appearances section, it just reads odd that you would have casting information lumped in with plot information. One details the casting of the actress and the original intentions for the character on the show, while the other is just what her general storyarcs have been over the years. They are not related, and it reads and looks odd to put them in the same section together like you had it. I'm not sure that J Greb was actually suggesting you merge the casting info in with the plot info and if he was then I'm not sure I understand his reasoning behind it.

::::To the DC Universe info, until someone reads the issue all we know is that Chloe is Jimmy's ex-girlfriend in the comic book. Her background isn't stated in the blurb about the issue, so maybe it will be the same...so maybe it should be tweaked to not insinuate that it's different, but in the least it shouldn't insinuate that she wasn't added simply because she was too Lana/Lois-like, given that the writers wrote a different backstory for her.

::::To the point about my edit summary and the discussion. I did not notice J Greb's response on the page before hand. I noticed your comment on my talk page and then when I checked the talk page history I missed J's single comment amidst all of your comment/refinements. I apologize for that misunderstanding, but stand by my argument that either way you could/should have at least waited for me to respond given that your issues were with my edits.

::::To J Greb, are you saying just remove the "Literature" header and leave "Young adult novels" and "Comics" as a first series subsection (ala Television and Spin-off series)? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes, moving them from 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 to 1.3 and 1.4 (and yes, I have the numbers on :) ).
:::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 19:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I don't have an issue with that. Their ordering was based on grouping print media and film media separately. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a particular format is "established" implies that there is either a policy or guideline indicating it, or a consensus discussion. Is there any such process by which this has been decided? Again, I've edited ''lots'' of character articles over the past five and a half years, and have never noticed this until now. The other connotation of "established" may be that either that no one has pro-actively advocated the site-wide adoption of this practice, nor noticed it enough to challenge it. Since policy/guidelines on writing about fiction requires most material to be out-universe, and plot info is universe, I challenge this on the basis its creates redundancy, inconsistency, and poor organization for the following reasons:

Again, I ask, do you not think that ''three'' mentions of her various appearances--two that summarize her appearances in all media, and an individual third in sections on each of those media, is not overkill?

As for lumping casting and plot information together, I've never advocated any such thing. The material I incorporated together at the top of the Appearances section details who she was conceived and cast, and how her character was '''portrayed''', particularly during her early appearances. That's not "plot" information, that's out-universe character information. Plot info would be mostly in-universe. Just because some plot points are mentioned, doesn't mean that that paragraph is primarily plot info.

In addition, the format of the information on her has about as much coherence to it as a 50-car LA Freeway pileup. First you have Appearances, which is mostly in-universe info on her TV appearances, then her web and literature appearances. Then you have "Portrayal", which reverts to a discussion of her Storyline, Character development and Relationships in her TV appearances, with varying proportions of in-universe to out-universe context in each subsection. Then a Reception section on Allison Mack, which belongs either in Mack's article, or incorporated, summary-style into the TV material. But if you're going to have discussion on her Storyline, Character development and Relationships, then don't you also have to go into that with respect to her web and literature appearances? This is why articles on comic book-type characters that detail various media in which the character has appeared generally focus mostly on the medium in which the character ''primarily'' appears or has appeared, with more summarized info on how that character has been adapted into various media, including differences that occur in the adaptation. You can see this in just about any well-developed article on such characters: Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. Having TV, and then Web, and then Books, and then TV Story, TV Character TV Potrayal, and TV Reception is inconsistent.

I think perhaps I did not look closely enough at this myself when attempting to experiment with what I perceived JGreb's suggestion to be, and in retrospect, I would've put the TV material together, devoting most of the article's space to that, since that's the medium in which she first and primarily appears, and then focusing on adaptations in other media. What do you think about this? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:Would you rather Bignole [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesised]] all this information into continuous prose, discussing all of the character's various appearances [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective|as if she was a real person?]] Bignole has the article neatly divided to show emphasise the real-world factors behind creative decisions in each medium in which the character appears, each of which having a distinct conceptual history. The character development section is erudite and confident, and doesn't repeat information in any overkill way whatsoever. The Appearances section is subdivided so as to give appropriate context where due, in an out-of-universe prose style, and is weighted and ordered so that no medium in which the character appears is given undue detail.~<b><font color="purple">[[User:Zythe|Zythe]]</font></b><sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::Nightscream, you're more than welcome to go challenge [[Jabba the Hutt]], [[Senator Palpatine]], [[Padme Amidala]], and many other FA character articles that are set up this exact same way. Nightscream, what you are not seeing is that the "plot" info is written from an OOU perspective. It does not write from an in-universe perspective, and as such there is nothing wrong with that section. Otherwise, you're suggesting that all "plot" sections of TV episodes and Film articles be rewritten to incorporate real world information? The "appearances" section is the equivalent to the PLOT of an episode or film article, it just has to summarize much more content than either of those and it does so in a more OOU perspective than either the TV episode articles or film articles do. To me, it makes no sense to talk about casting Allison Mack and then go straight into what the character does on the show all in the same section. There's no transition whatsoever in content and the content itself isn't even directly related to each other. BTW, this isn't my first rodeo with fictional character articles...I've been working on them for years as well and the difference is that the majority of the ones you work with are comic book characters, while I work with live-action characters. They are a different beast when it comes to their articles. You couldn't begin to chronicle [[Superman]]'s "fictional" history on his primary page like you could with someone from a TV show or a film, because comic books have far too extensive histories and as such it's easier to focus solely on real world information for the entire article. Like I said before though, my basis for all my articles has always been the featured fictional characters of live-action programs, because apparently the community felt there wasn't a problem with the way those pages were set up when they went through FAC.

::The "Portrayal" is all information about Allison Mack and the casting of her in this role. The "Character Development" info contains no primary sourced information, is not a rehash of plot info, but actually a retrospective look at what the writers/actor were intending to do with the character over the course of the show. It's OOU info explaining what the character was going through.

::As I told JGreb before, though I don't prefer it, I'd be more than willing to compromise and move the "Literature etc." stuff down below the rest of the TV related information under an "Appearances in other media" type of heading. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Sullivan&oldid=387824538 It would look like this]. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zythe, if you want to know what I think would make for a better format, then simply read my above posts, as I indicated quite clearly how I think the format should be structured in order to comply with policies regarding writing about fiction. None of what I stated bears any resemblance what you have inferred, nor emphasizes criticism of Bignole's edits to date, as you have.

We are not talking about Palpatine or Zabba the Hutt, which again, do not exhibit the problems that this article does, as there is no redundant, secondary summary of appearances in all different media. Why you keep bringing up articles that are not analagous in this regard, I don't know, but those articles properly devote most of their content to the media in which those characters ''primarily appear'', with a more summarized proportion of material to adaptations.

The only one of the three you mention, Bignole, that does make a better analogy in this regard is the Amidala article, and yes, that format is wrong for the reasons, and yes I am challenging it. Is this a problem? Are you implying that I can't? Or that because some editors are so used to this practice that it can't be? I ask, because your statement that I am "welcome" to challenge it comes across as a veiled attempt to imply that doing so would be a hopeless cause. The sentence at the top of the Amidala Appearances section is just a repeat of the Lead, and is therefore unnecessary, since the Lead is the section ''just prior'' to it. Summaries of entire sections at the top of the section are repititious, and poor writing. Such idiosyncracies, in my opinion, should be dispensed with.

I agree with your proposed compromise about the Literature sections. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:[[WP:WAF]] states, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." - No where in this articles does it present any information from the perspective of the fictional world itself. Even the plot information is presented from a real world perspective. There is no policy that you cannot have plot information in an article, and there is no policy that you must mix plot information with real world information. If there were, then episode articles and film articles would be in a very crazy situation right now given that 99.9% do not mix real world info with their plot info. In the least, the plot info here is not presented from an IU perspective. So, I am against the merging of production related info with plot info when the purpose of the section is merely to give the reader a basic understand of what happens with her on the show. Knowing about Chloe originally being of ethnic background, or that Mack wanted to audition for the role of Lana Lang has anything to do with her finalized appearance on the show (which is what you originally merged into that section on your last edit).

:The more I look at the reordered version of the page, with spin-offs, comics, etc. at the end the more it actually grows on me. So, unless there is some other disagreement from someone else (clearly not from Nightscream and I would assume not from JGreb) then I'll probably put it back to the way I tested (and probably restructure the other ''Smallville'' characters pages similarly where necessary). [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

== Remaining characters ==

The article states that by season ten, Chloe and Clark are the only remaining characters from Season One, yet this is false. Lionel Luthor is in season ten, Martha Kent makes appearances, and Lex is involved, meaning that there is at least 5 characters from Season One.--[[Special:Contributions/121.72.203.29|121.72.203.29]] ([[User talk:121.72.203.29|talk]]) 09:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

:I think that is supposed to be the only ones that are still considered "starring" roles. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

::Lionel was a starring role in season ten, he was a big part in the whole plot-line.--[[Special:Contributions/121.72.203.29|121.72.203.29]] ([[User talk:121.72.203.29|talk]]) 22:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

:::No he didn't. He was listed as a recurring guest. Allison Mack actually received starring role credits every time she appeared. John Glover did not. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 23:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:29, 22 March 2024

Good articleChloe Sullivan has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starChloe Sullivan is part of the Characters of Smallville series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chloe Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chloe Sullivan. 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:

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) 05:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chloe Sullivan. 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:

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) 08:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Supergirl episode information needs a citation question.

[edit]

Hello, I was reading through the page and noticed that it had "citation needed" under the description of the Supergirl episode where she is discussed in the plot. I'm not the original author or anything, and I have no personal ties to the information itself, but I'm wondering what kind of citation it would need? I'm mostly confused because doesn't the Supergirl episode itself verify the information?

Basically, I'm just wondering as an occasional Wikipedia contributor, how a citation is placed on something like this? I've seen things like this on other pages dealing with crossover shows and it has always confused me a tad bit. Do people use the episodes as citations? Do they link it something specific? I know there's no linking to script sites because, from what I know and understand, they are actually plagiarized due to the use of words written by other people. In the future I'd just like to be able to contribute and correct things the right way on things like this if I see it as needing a citation on other pages as well.

I appreciate any help someone could offer me about situations like this and how they are handled!

Sabriel (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would if it was a plot summary on that particular episode. When you identify plot information on a character page, you need to cite where it is so if someone needs/wants to verify it then they know where to look. Someone shouldn't be forced to watch 25 seasons of The Simpsons just to find the one episode where they mentions specific statement X. Thus, you use the Template:Cite episode to provide an in-line citation for the specific piece you're referencing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for explaining that to me. It makes much more sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation and clarification.
Sabriel (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chloe_Sullivan&oldid=1214997583"