Talk:Chloe Sullivan

Powers

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But the youtube account belongs to The CWSource. Beachdude0213 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because that isn't what they call it. By "they" I mean the producers who have identified it as just "empathy".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but either way, shouldn't we put something about healing after empathy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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?  Paul  730 03:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chloe in DC Continuity

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? -- Tom H12 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Fishhook (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comics Characters Created in Other Media

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. Rajah1 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (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. Rajah1 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Meteor Power

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.9.48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What continuity error are you talking about? Where does it say that you can only have one meteor power at a time? DonQuixote (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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 the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendoman01 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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. 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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 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 DCAU) who are superpowered humans are listed as such, even if they haven't personally appeared in the comics themselves as of yet.

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...  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellascully14 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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 her Wiki page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellascully14 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. - J Greb (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This "Chloe M. Sullivan"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. - 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.  Paul  730 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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.  Paul  730 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."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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.  Paul  730 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.26.78 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Edits; September 2010

Hi. I'd like to discuss Bignole's revert of 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 pointed out that a signature by a "Chloe S." appears on Pete Ross' cast in Superman: Secret Origin #1, but 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. 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.

- 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 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? 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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 pages or articles that you do not edit, in order to illustrate it as a practice common to independent editors. In addition, the Jack Harkness, Homer Simpson do not have such summaries. The Homer Simpson article contains a summary of his changing role on the television show, and not secondary summary of his appearances in 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. In my opinion, this is redundant.

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 law 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 "there was no discussion, you cannot start a discussion by yourself and then just change things before anyone can respond", and did not "change things before anyone could respond", and if you read both the 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. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)