Talk:Chloe Sullivan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Clean-up

This page needs updating. Chloe now knows Clark's secret .. 209.89.183.89 23:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

the "The Luthor Arc, Journalism, and Clark's secret" needs lots of cleanup... 68.162.249.250 22:53, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

Also, Chloe visiting him in the Loft was not Clarks First Kiss, he kissed her in season one in the episode where those two men have powers to persuade people. Mark Orahoske 07:16, July 30, 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Anyway, Chloe and Clark did first kiss in the loft, though the viewer never sees it. Clark tells Lana in the episode Obscura that when Chloe moved to Smallville, Clark was assigned to show her around school. Then she came over to visit him at his loft, and kissed him on the lips without warning to get it "out of the way" so they could then be friends. Debuskjt 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please slow down the number of edits? Do them all at once on your Sandbox page and revise it there, making only a few edits to the article at a time. We're currently averaging ~30 edits a day to this article, which makes it nearly impossible to keep up. Debuskjt 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Tip of the day/May 26, 2006. Debuskjt 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Breakout of Sections

I think the Luthor Arc, Journalism, and Clark's Secret should all be separate sections and they should be cut down drastically. They are three separate topics, and because they are lumped together the article is turning into an episode-by-episode summary of everything that has ever happened to Chloe on the show.

That's not really the purpose of a Wiki article, and I think this article is growing too long and too detailed. Debuskjt 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chloe Chronicles information should really be broken out and migrated over to Chloe Chronicles. The information is more pertinent there, since the information in them spans more than just Chloe's character development. As long as no one disagrees, once this article slows down I'll start migrating information and redirect users to the Chloe Chronicles page within this article. Debuskjt 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I migrated that information over, and it can now be expanded (I'd suggest rearrangement and expansion into episodic summaries, since the Chloe Chronicles are so small). Done some general clean-up of this article, too. Still needs citations of all the Chlois stuff or that section will need to be removed. Debuskjt 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Are the citations used for the Chlois section valid for wikipedia purposes? Online fan petitions and fan sites that encourage a certain viewpoint would raise questions about the neutrality of this section. Actual facts and events should be the basis of the Chloe article. The Chlois theory implies that the current Lois is not the legitimate Lois. That's POV, and not a unanimous one. Wikipedia should not become a forum for every theory and speculation because there would not be consensus on what is considered evidence and what is not. SCrews 05:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kryptonsite

The images that say "Kryptonsite" should be replaced with images that don't say it. - Peregrinefisher 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We have permission to use Kryptonsite pictures. Modifying the images to remove that copyright image would be a violation of copyright. Bignole 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Peregrinefisher that if a suitable alternative exists without the Kryptonsite image it should be used. And from a pedantic standpoint, I don't think they can copyright screenshots, since the image itself is actually owned by Warnes Bros. - Debuskjt 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If there needs to be any copyright recognition, it should recognize Warner Bros. and/or DC Comics, who would actually own the rights to the image and character -- and not Kryptonsite. SCrews 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Chloe Theory

The Chloe Theory is a relatively unsupported and very inconclusive section in this article. It's only evidence is a simple anagram explination and common use of the letter "L". In the Superman series, the use of the letter "L" are thematic and obvious choices included in the names of many of the characters (Lois Lane, Lionel Luthor, Lex Luthor, Lana Lang). The additional evidence, a quote from Smallville's co-creater only notes that it was intentional to have numerous L's in Chloe's name. Nothing to support a Chloe to Lois shift as it is true of the creaters to have L as a maintained theme in the introduction of new characters.

In an encyclopedic article it is important that speculation does not overcome the facts. Lois Lane and Chloe Sullivan are currently two indepentant and co-existing people in the Superman series of Smallville. Clark Kent is aware of both their presence and has an established relationship with each. Chloe and Lois are related (cousins). Both are interested in reporting and write at The Torch. Until those barriers are broken in the series, they remain of different identities and different people. Mkdw 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As a theory, it is based on few facts and plenty of speculation. Lois' arrival in Season Four should be taken as proof that Lois and Chloe are two separate characters, whose only connection is by blood: they are cousins. Putting the Chlois theory in wikipedia does not give this theory any more credence than it had in the cyberverse, where its purported evidence is tenuous. Wikipedia should not become a place to promote or advance such theories by giving them the appearance of credibility. Lois Lane's existence as a separate character since Season Four is a fact and there has been no evidence on the show to suggest that she is anything but Lois Lane. SCrews 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I recommend it be removed and a new section about the thematic use of names and effects in fanfair be written in place.Mkdw 05:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The section about the opposition of this section in the artle was deleted by Debuskjt. I have restored the article for several reasons. It's a legitimate section that has evidence of its argument in the external links as well as the table on the bottom of the list. It is an original research article. The argument is legitimate in the article as it shows the opposition. Opposition to the theory comes up in other speculation so Debuskjt is false to delete certain sections of the opposition in WP:NPOV. Theories have no references to relate. Public support on the discussion of this article is in favour.
Theories, particularly, MUST cite references from notable sources. The whole section should be deleted. There is no such thing as an original research article on Wiki. Original research is not allowed. Period. Ever. That's why the Chlois theory article was deleted in the first place. And non-proper nouns should never be capitalized in heading titles, per Wiki guidelines. - Debuskjt 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a hypocritical statement to your first edits in the section, Debuskjt. You're campaigning to delete the entire section when in the edit in question, you only edited the section. You removed the oppositional portion of the 'Chloe Theory' rather than removing the whole section. Please refer to your edits on the removal of 'alliteration of names as a theme' and still preserved the rest of the section. No other additions pertaining to references and citation were noted or changed.
I agree that the section should be cut. There are some fans - who cannot assume the consensus of most viewers - that purport to present the speculation of Chlois as more than speculation, but supported by evidence they deem as factual. They are assigning weight to the alleged evidence that supports this theory. The Chloe article should be biographical in nature and avoid theorizing on Chloe's fate. The rule against original research on wikipedia is cause enough to remove the section. SCrews 13:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And your POV accusation is bizarre, since I'm the one who nominated the separate Chlois Theory article for deletion for POV, OR, and non-notability.
The Chlois theory, based on its logic, would imply that the current Lois Lane is not the real Lois -- but a doppelganger whom Chloe will replace in the future. The theory's premise supposes that the current Lois Lane's "illegitimate" claim to the identity is more than an opinion. It would need to become a fact for the theory to fulfil itself. There is no televised evidence that Lois Lane is not the real Lois Lane: it is a POV of some fans and hence, not neutral. SCrews 05:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the Chlois theory's POV that is in question, since it presumes that the current Lois Lane is a pretender that should be replaced. The Chlois fansite page cannot be regarded as a legitimate citation since its purpose is to promote the POV that only Chloe can be the real Lois, and that Lois Lane - who the creators intended to be Lois Lane - isn't the real Lois Lane. SCrews 13:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this section should be deleted. In the episode that aired on October 5, 2006, we see Lois becoming interested in writing and reporting after the incident with the Kents' barn door. While she doesn't write for the Daily Planet yet, it's clear that in the future she will become the Lois Lane that we know and Chloe will not replace her. Bitethesilverbullet 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)