Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Smallville (season 1)

Smallville (season 1)

Main page	Articles
Smallville (season 1)	Pilot (Smallville) - Tempest (Smallville)

• I am nominating the Smallville season 1 for featured topic. Before there are any arguments for "oppose" on the grounds that there are "gaps", I will explain that there are only these two individual episode articles on the mainspace. If you view the season 1 article you will find that the remaining episodes all have their information there, as they were not notable enough to warrant a separate page of their own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to go out on a limb here and support. I take the example of album topics to say that if a item in a series is not notable enough to have an article. Than it does not need to be in the topic. Zginder 2008-07-28T13:04Z (UTC)
• Support - All episode articles are listed with the season article, and there are an appropriate number of FA's and GA's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - personally I would rather see all the episodes having their own articles, as this way these episodes will have more information on them available on WP than with them merged into the season 1 article, but that's just my view on the whole TV episodes headache, and given the current situation on that, I feel the topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually they won't, because this is all the information. The probability is low that any additional professional reviews are going to come out for these episodes. The ones that are on the season article fail individual notability. Not every show is The Simpsons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant things like plot summary, but nevermind, I accept that they fail the notability rules as they stand, hence my support - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Even if the episodes are not relevand enough, I can't believe that there isn't more to say about them than 5 lines of text. If the episodes are not relevand enough it means that they are unlikely to reach a GA-class status, but there must be a solution to this: (1) either get articles about each of them to be B-class and PRed or (2) create an article entitled Plot in Smallville and add way more information about the plot there. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but articles about the plot of the show are not really recommended. Regardless, if someone wants to know about an episode's plot, and this may be a new idea but stop me if you've heard it before, "Go watch the show". Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a show. Guess what, not every show is The Simpsons and has dozens of independent sources discussing every last episode. Not every episode is notable enough to have an article of its own (please see notability requirements). Obviously, all of the episode information fit coherently together to get the season one article to featured status, so splitting them off just so someone can have some minute detail about an episode isn't justification (at least not to me). Sorry you're opposition is to questioning why these episode don't have articles, and not something that is actually wrong with these specific featured topic-hopeful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support having these articles under the topic. I think that per WP:PLOT, the season article does an excellent job of providing concise plot summaries of each episode. Obviously, the first and the last episodes have drawn more coverage, so they stand alone well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Meets featured topic criteria. The pages do an excellent job of focusing on relevant, encyclopedic information, and concern about lack of plot information is unfounded. Having individual episode articles just for the sake of it, when all available info is already covered at the season 1 article, would be innappropiate.  Paul  730 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This topic barely meet the criteria, but it is too borderline for me (three articles, two of which are featured, somewhat inconsistent in article splitting). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please explain how it doesn't meet the criteria, as all the articles in the topic are present, and 2/3rds of them are featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this fails 1d. I feel 3a allows for articles on other episodes in the season, and whilst I do not favour only WP:PLOT it would be possible to have an article with short well constructed sections on reception and production. Perhaps more obviously I think that there is a gap with information on the DVD missing which could possibly be incorporated into the season 1 article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the DVDs? I have them all. All DVD information that is real world (and not simply some interactive that expands plot background) IS in the season 1 article. All information production wise for each episode that does not have its own article (whether from the DVD, the season 1 companion book, or a couple of third-party sources that were found) IS in the season 1 article. There are no other reviews for episodes in this season. I don't know why it is that hard to believe that not every television show is reviewed on a weekly basis. Sorry, but there is no way to create a "reception" section for an episode article that doesn't exist. There are no reviews. If you can find them, please do because I've been searching since before I every decided to create that season page (by create I mean rewrite the whole thing to look the way it does, as it was "literally" created before I joined Wikipedia). Also, 1d says, " There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together. " The key to that is "not cherry pick only the best articles". I didn't cherry pick, I have every single article related to season 1 listed. There are no other articles, and no other episode meets the notability guideline. If you want to change that guideline, be my guest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • On the subject of DVDs, I think what Rambo's Revenge meant was that you could have a section akin to this. That kind of section is quite common actually (for example, see Lost, The Simpsons, The OC...) - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • For the DVD's I did mean, as Rst20xx correctly interpreted, a section like those examples listed above. Also "there are no reviews"! Here is a page I found on my first search with one for every episode - [1] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • • To address the DVD remark, Wikipedia is not Amazon and I don't know why people started listing everything that the DVD box sets contained. Since when did Wikipedia start promoting DVD features? Exactly what encyclopedic value does knowing what a DVD contains actually provide? We aren't here so readers can go, "Hey, Show X has 5 commentaries and I love commentaries...I better go buy that DVD set." Please explain what actual encyclopedic value such info has (please don't provide a vague "to be comprehensive", because being comprehensive doesn't mean to indiscriminately provided every minute, trivial aspect of a topic in an article), and I will seriously think about including such a thing in the season article. I disagreed with them being in the other articles, because I think they do nothing for the article be take up space with indiscriminate info about the box set. It wasn't like that stuff was recognized by third-party sources as being the "wow" factor for the DVD or something. It wasn't like Fight Club's DVD box cover which had thematical representations tied directly to the film itself.
          • As for the reviews, please look at the site you provided closely. The professionalness of "TV Without Pity" ranks up there with "BuddyTV" and "TV Squad", which is to say that it isn't a professional review site. Second, those aren't reviews so much as they are merely elongated plot summaries with OmarG's personal opinion about each scene (They're even categorized as "Recaps" and not "Reviews"). He spends his time restating dialogue and then mocking it (even when he gives the episode a grade of "A"). I mean, seriously? What television reviewer do you know (beside the one I'm speaking of) that spends 17 pages on a single episode, recounting every detail of the plot. He's not even analyzing the episode, he's just providing a completely shot-for-shot recap of the show, with little quips here and there about what is happening in the scene: "Clark zips over and dives on top of Zoe (for once, he's on top of a woman)." Also, a single "review" (and I use that term extremely litely) is not significant coverage, even when he spends 17 pages recounting the plot. I'm not trying to deny these episodes a page because I don't want them to have one, I'm trying to show you how, when you weed out all that crap on the web, there are not reliable sources from respectable critics on these episodes. I've seen so many episode articles get created and rushed to FAC with reviews from completely unprofessional sources. We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and anyone can get something published. You have to ask yourself, would you accept news information from this site? Would the community accept news information from this site, or would they say that it is an unreliable source of information because of it's lack of "history of accuracy and editorial oversight"? If it isn't the best source for news, it probably isn't the best source for reviews either.
          • It's funny that I interpreted "Television Without Pity" as mocking the show, because it's own Wiki page actually says the same thing, "Television Without Pity (often abbreviated TWoP) is a website that provides detailed recaps of select television dramas, situation comedies and reality TV shows, often by mocking them."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think listing DVD contents is inappropriate, certainly not advertising (not sure how you made that claim, seeing as how it's all factual) and seemingly not overkill (I for one would find it useful and I imagine many others would too), otherwise we wouldn't have all these featured seasons with such sections - rst20xx (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, it's only something that has recently been done. It wasn't a normal practice. It's done to bloat the page with more information (Info that is not necessary in understanding the topic). Notice how featured film articles don't have a listing of all the DVD specs. Why, all of a sudden, did the TV community feel that they needed to bloat articles with DVD specs? They serve no purpose. Amazon has the DVD specs taken care of quite nicely. There isn't even consistent practice of such displays: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I disagree with the DVD information not being encyclopedic, one of the examples you have given [5] has detailed information about each DVD on the individual season pages, whilst your argument of what doesn't exist in other articles isn't what we are discussing. Please note I didn't say that one source was enough for a reception section, I was challenging your comment that "there are no reviews". Also note that TWoP has been used in successful WP:FA's [12], [13] but any problem with the source is something to raise at WP:RS not here. Also trying to second guess my replies using WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not something I appreciate, as an encyclopedia is defined as a "comprehensive written compendium". I have no problem in recognising that your contributions to proposed articles are valuable and that individually they are rightly FA/GA's, but in my reasonable opinion I still don't feel they come together sufficiently well to be a featured topic. If you wish to discuss any broader comments I have made I suggest we do so at my talk page, as this discussion should be kept on assessing the topic under the given criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - meets all the criteria. Making articles on non-notable episodes just for the sake of this topic is not the way to go. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite simply, this doesn't need its own topic. These two episodes would be better integrated into a more general Smallville featured topic. See the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow featured topic: the list of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow isn't a subtopic; rather, the character articles are in the same topic as the character list. These two Smallville articles really don't deserve a separate topic. Xnux the Echidna 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic, and what meets the criteria were two seperate things. I also didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic supercedes what meets the criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See the Featured topic recommendations: it says that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each." I believe that this is an excessive subdivision of articles, as one topic would work much better.
      • Ah, but you're making this opinion based on the idea that there will be several small sub-topics. At the moment, I can guarantee that there won't be a topic for season 2. I don't see multiple episodes split for any of the remaining seasons (maybe 1 episode per season, but that seems a stretch based on what I've been finding). As for a "Smallville" topic, I think a "Smallville seasons" or something similar might be better, but none are anywhere near that point in time. I would assume that once that time comes a "Smallville seasons" topic would overwrite any individual topics in existence (as I don't think you can have a featured topic within a featured topic, though I could be wrong).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No, you misinterpreted me. I think that two topics would suffice: Smallville and seasons of Smallville (yes, you can have a featured topic within a featured topic; see Seasons of Lost, it has Lost (season 4) "within" it). However, these two episodes of Smallville would be better suited to a seasons of Smallville topic (which links to list of Smallville episodes anyway) because it would avoid an excessive amount of subtopics. I'm sorry, but I don't really see a compelling reason why these two episodes are deserving of their own topic. By the way, I don't mind that there won't be subtopics for the other Smallville seasons because, as you said, there would only be about one episode per season anyway (which would be better integrated into a seasons of Smallville topic anyway). Xnux the Echidna 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think this is a valid oppose Xnux. While I agree with what you're saying about how this topic should ultimately be folded into a Seasons topic, your oppose for this reason is based on faulty logic, as the seasons topic DOESN'T EXIST YET. When it gains sufficient quality and is promoted, THEN this topic can be folded into that one. In the meantime, this topic is entitled to exist on its own.

          Let's look back at the recommendation: "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" The options here, with the current quality of the articles, are either one featured topic, or none. NOT one or several, which is the situation that this recommendation is designed to deal with - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

          • Topics can be a specific part of an overall media. See Naruto manga chapters, which is part of the bigger Naruto franchise. And for the Aria of Sorrow FT, I included everything in the topic because it was all at GA. I could have just put in List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and it would have been fine. Now, if I wanted a "Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow" FT, then I could push either Soma Cruz or Alucard (Castlevania) to FA, and that would be its own topic. I also would not need to create articles on the other characters, as they are not notable, which applies here - creating non-notable episode articles for the sake of the topic is not appropriate. So long as you define the scope properly, then these topics that cover specific parts of a general media franchise are fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to highlight the three reasons people levelled against this topic:

1. There should be a DVD section in the Smallville (season 1) article - while I would support the inclusion of such a section myself, I'm not sure how valid this oppose is, as it's more a problem with the article than the topic
2. That this would constitute oversplitting of a topic, and should instead be part of a larger topic - I don't think this is a valid oppose at all, because while I agree that when a larger topic is ready, this should be merged into it, as it stands there is no larger topic
3. That while the Smallville (season 1) article gives sufficient depth for an overview of Smallville season 1, there is not enough depth in these three articles for a Smallville season 1 topic, as some individual episodes are not covered in enough depth - I see the point here, though this is a difficult issue to address, as the other episodes have been deemed not notable enough to merit their own articles. I think Bignole needs to think long and hard about how to get round this problem if he wants to get this topic through FTC

I'm considering closing this nomination as I don't see this topic gaining consensus for promotion now. Are discussions ongoing between Bignole and Rambo's Revenge that might effect this? - rst20xx (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't understand the "doesn't give sufficient depth". Could you elaborate a bit more on what this is supposed to mean? As for Rambo and I, based on our discussions on our talk pages, it would appear that Rambo no long has a problem with the episodes not having their own article ,based on this comment. But, that is up to Rambo to reiterate where he stands. Our discussions has boiled down to how can we provide some additional coverage of those episodes, that don't meet the requirements for their own article, in the season 1 article. I'll let Rambo speak for himself. I'm also curious as to why you would say it doesn't have consensus for promotion, when, even you, agreed that two of those opinions to oppose aren't valid reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I think the third one debatably is. And I think 3 opposes have been along these lines (one of which is Rambo's). Anyway, I thought the sufficient depth thing was pretty clear, what exactly are you confused about? But OK, you've (remarkably easily) convinced me closing seems like a bad idea. Let's wait and see what Rambo says, as it stands we have 6 supports and 4 opposes, which is too close for me, but if he changes his mind then (considering I don't think Xnux's oppose is all that valid) I'd be willing to see that as 7-2 and consensus - rst20xx (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per the reasoning of the above supports. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. I have considered this topic carefully and discussed possible gaps in more detail with Bignole. The main thing (from my oppose) was that not having individual episodes neglects information other than WP:PLOT. I now agree that all these things are/can be covered within the topic. My neutrility comes from the fact that these won't all get fixed overnight, and some things are currently in Smallville (TV series), a GA luckily, so I don't think the topic stands alone well, but I am confident Bignole can and will resolve as many of these issues as possible.
  • The ratings are in the process of being added to episodes and I would add production codes to be comprehensive/encyclopaedic.[14]
  • Try to mention any notable cast appearances from people not in the pilot. Kelly Brook's four episode arc springs to mind.[15]
  • Tollin/Robbins Productions & Warner Bros. should probably be mentioned as producers
  • The only other things are to get references consist, so for citeweb use "first=" and "last=" fields to give "Surname, Forname" like the book ref and to remove bold links to satisfy WP:BOLDTITLE.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • As far as production codes go, TV.com (which is part of EPguides.com) is considered as reliable as IMDb. Production codes for most shows are difficult to accurately attain. I've also seen the codes as 1.01, 1.02, etc. Where are you wanting to add Tollin/Robbins and Warner Bros. exactly? They aren't the "producers", as that is a specific title for a person. They are merely the production companies involved. I don't recall too many articles that list all of the production companies involved in a show. I'm also not sure about the boldface. Are you asking to remove the boldface from the episode titles in the table? Or, are you referring to the lead section? The only thing I can find closely talking about the lead in relation to the season 1 article is: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be in boldface". If that's the case, then "season one" is recited verbatum in the body of the article (many times), so it would be bolded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I just used epguide as it listed them all at once, they are listed individually here, Ep 1, Ep 2, etc. The production companies would go in the production section of the season, and seem to fairly standard practice in featured seasons ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). As for WP:BOLDTITLE "Do not link words in the bold title" i.e. the word smallville in the lead
• Do you see a problem with those production numbers? There is one number here, and a completely different number here. The second number, though from a more reliable source, has no actual value (neither does the other). It doesn't tell the reader anything they need to know. If it's whether they filmed the episode in one order or a different one, well that is covered in the production section. It seems to be a useless bit of information about the episodes, and one that is difficult to verify.
• As far as Tollin Robbins goes, where in the production would you like that. It seems to be an obscure statement about what companies fund the show, which is probably good for the general Smallville page, but not so much for the specific season (or even episode) articles. As far as those other pages go, you're comparing a list page to an article, which is formatted different, and contains different info. If you look at those season lists, they are doing just that, listing everything they can about the show (often repeating info each season) in prose form.
• I fixed the link to Smallville that was being bolded [21].
• I just noticed your Kelly Brook comment. There isn't a casting section (it's covered on the main page, as well as the pilot, and the Characters of Smallville), so I don't know what you would do with Kelly Brook. Just like "listing" actors in a section (which has no real value), just listing "notable guest stars" has no real value. Her name is in the plot section (which, btw, you made me realize that the plot section never resolved her final appearance on the show...and I just took care of it), and she isn't covered in any reliable, third party sources (not even any primary sources like the companion novels either) beyond a "Kelly Brook portrays Victoria Hardwick" statement. Otherwise, she would have been given a section at Characters of Smallville, instead of a name listing in the list at the bottom of said page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problems with the numbers, check again they are the same. I am well aware that the cast and production companies are covered elsewhere. My point is that they are an important part of the season and as it stands would not be covered within the season topic. A featured topic needs to be "covering a subject comprehensively." Also I have made the refs consistent. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I see the number now. I still stick to the same belief that it is a useless number. As for the company, how is it an important part of the season itself? It's an important part of the show, but not to the season itself. Also, being comprehensive does not mean including everything, regardless of how miniscule or non-related it is to the topic. Tollin Robbins and WB are companies that provide money, it is the people that work for them that actually decide things for the show; anyone important enough to know in that regard is already noted. Back to the cast part; important part of the season? Eh, she was a bit player in 4 episodes. She was never heard from again, and she really did nothing to develop anything in the show. She is mentioned in the plot section. Apart from that, that's all there is. You cannot (and should not) create an entire section to just list actors names that one deems "notable to the season", just because there isn't any real world information about their roles on the show. That's placing undue weight on their performance, which obviously wasn't notable enough to get recognized by reliable sources independent of the subject. As for the refs, I don't use "first, last" dividers because they take up more space than simply using "author" and placing their names in the "last, first" position. The same with the "authorlink". Why add three sections when you can accomplish all of it with a single section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think we should leave this open just a little longer, so this conversation has a chance to conclude - rst20xx (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think what Rambo and I are discussing is probably better for the season 1 article talk page. His concerns are more for article content, than whether this should be a featured topic. The concerns he has wouldn't cause the season 1 page to lose featured article status, because they (currently) consist of including a particular production code, and mentioning Tollin Robbins and "notable guest stars" in some fashion. The page is already comprehensive; Rambo's concerns are more on whether the page could be expanded slightly further than it is. At least, that is what I gather from his remarks, as he hasn't pointed out any expansive changes to the page. Regardless, I still think it's something we should continue on the talk page, as it appears to have no bearing on whether the topic is featured or not. Rambo?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to state that rst20xx is 110% wrong in saying that this is too close, which in actual fact, is total rubbish. There are four opposes, but which are valid. Firstly, thedemonhog's objection is total crap - he says "this topic barely meets the criteria". He bases this on the fact there are only three articles - so what? This meets the criteria. The featured topics on Christ Illusion, Confederate government of Kentucky, etc. - the list goes on and on. Xnux's objection is total crap as well - when I nominated Christ Illusion, you had people trying to say I should only nominate Slayer. Erm, no. There is no rule you should nominate articles as part of a more general topic, so as I said, yet another bullshit objection. As concerns the other two objections, they're questionable. These two opposers have not proven in any shape or form that every episode is notable enough to warrant an article. Every song on a FT nominated album isn't expected to have an article, and the same logic applies here. By my count, there are no valid opposes whatsoever, and six supports. Too close? No, not in any sense of the phrase Before drawing conclusions, it'd be great if the person who promotes / doesn't (ie. rst20xx) actually checks whether the objections adhere to the FT criteria - this is what FAC does, and FTC isn't any different. The rules aren't made up as people go along. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• LuciferMorgan, please reread the conversation. I think it's fairly evident from my last comment that I intended to close with promote once Bignole and Rambo agree on it (Also, there's 7 supports). And further, the one before implied that if Rambo changed his mind, I would close with promote, which he then did. However I think Bignole's suggestion that the conversation is moved to the talk page is best, so I suggest you continue here...

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)