Jump to content

Talk:Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism

[edit]

I don't know if this is needed.

For starters, it's not really a criticism of the couple themselves, but over the fact that two magazines referred to them as a supercouple when they're still relatively new. Second, I don't know how big a controversy it was.

Maybe some criticism might be how their later kisses have occurred offscreen, or their amount of airtime recently (though this may be attributed to Van Hansis being in that play), ect.

And on a minor note: I removed the bit about Hansis and Silbermann being taken aback by all the attention. The article itself said, "Actors Van Hansis and Jake Silbermann take it all in stride. Both claim that kissing each other was far easier than dealing with the Paparazzi that invaded the set the day the smooch was shot." --Silvestris (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvestris, the criticism about them being named a supercouple so early is about them, and is a criticism of the couple. I wouldn't have included it if it was not. As for the bit about Hansis and Silbermann being taken aback by all the attention, I don't mind that removal at all, of course. It would have been better placed in their background section, where it's acknowledged that they are shocked about the media attention they've gotten.
As for criticism about how their later kisses have occurred offscreen, or their amount of airtime recently, etc., that's not a true criticism of the couple but rather of the writers and show. That could fit into a new section, of course, though I'm not sure what it would be titled at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for criticism about how their later kisses have occurred offscreen, or their amount of airtime recently, ect., that's not a true criticism of the couple but rather of the writers and show.
Then wouldn't the criticism of them being called a supercouple be more a criticism of the magazines who referred to them as such?
I mean, it's not like this is a criticism of their acting or their storyline. --Silvestris (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still wouldn't necessarily say that it's not about them directly, but you could mention how those two magazines have been criticized for naming them a supercouple so early, which I think you just did. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you didn't do that...yet. But, Silvetris, what do you have against that quote by a poster? It explains the feelings of people who feel that they were given the supercouple title too quickly. The fact that a lot of people feel that they were titled such due to being the only gay couple at this time is important to mention. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is still mentioned. But, again, what do you object to about the quote being used? Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted on the original topic that was quoted on AE; that user also argued that the only reason why people didn't criticize Nuke was because they were afraid of being called homophobic (which is untrue, btw; I've seen criticism of Nuke on other forums, from the storyline to Silbermann's acting).
And while saying they aren't a supercouple yet is one thing, I didn't like how the user said "Posters on message boards were declaring them the hottest thing in daytime before Noah ever aired, They are a manufactured couple, that was cast with that intention." --Silvestris (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that section works just as well without that quote. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone at AfterElton.com took that page down. Whoever it was clearly saw it linked in this article and didn't want people to read such criticism about this couple, even though it's not like it was true bashing. That type of censoring irks me. It definitely is not a coincidence that that page is gone when older pages from that site can still be accessed. I'm still using that citation as a reference, however; I just put it into format without the link. It wasn't and isn't a desired type of citation, having been a citation from a message board, but it's staying in this article until I can get a higher quality reference or two for that section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that "source." I chalk this up to my early inexperience as a Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss campaign

[edit]

I may add a section about the kiss campaign if it lends itself a big enough section, rather than just a mention. That should address the criticism from fans about how Luke and Noah's later kisses have occurred offscreen, and their amount of airtime recently, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline needs updating.....

[edit]

I'm not sure exactly what happened as I stopped watching when Naoh decided to marry Ameera. But now she's gone and Noah's dad is believed to be dead(this being a soap opera no body was found so it's likely he will show up again), and Noah then went through a whole "I need to join the army phase"... Anon

I notice that it's a very long section without sources. How is it verifiable?   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Storyline section definitely needs cutting down. I will do that as well. It's tough keeping that section short, though, because this is a soap opera (which means that the Storyline section is going to be longer than prime time television and film or play plot sections) and IPs are constantly updating it.
The parts of the section I can source through valid online sources, I will if other editors feel that it is needed. But sourcing plot sections is typically what I stated below in the Needs better source section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating? It needs to be rewritten. It's basically amateurish, rife with spelling and grammatical errors, and overly detailed. I'd consider editing it myself, but I never followed the series. Which is actually the point. It needs to be written in a way where someone who is unfamiliar with the series can understand it. This means leaving out extraneous detail and characters and focusing on the couple themselves, who apparently are culturally significant and merit space on Wikipedia. 24.160.83.60 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. IPs have added a lot to the section. I've seen some of them fix each other's spelling errors, however. Flyer22 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First gay kiss

[edit]

That's sooo Funny. "First Gay Kiss in US TV at 2007"... LOL Sorry Guys. I think so, because i'm from germany, and there was the first gay kiss on a soap opera at 2000. Nothing for bad. But in this way the USA could learn a much from europe... :-)[19.03.2009]

IP, Luke and Noah had the first gay male kiss in American soap opera, but the first same-sex kiss in American soap opera was between Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery in 2003. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that was beaten by Brookside in the UK by a decade. MickMacNee (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be the first Gay Kiss in US TV at 2007 ? What about Queer As Folk ? Cush (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First gay male kiss on an American soap opera. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs better source

[edit]

One of the most used references in the aritcle, an article on expressgaynews.com, is offline. Could it be changed to some better source? Also, how reliable is this expressgaynews.com? And how relevant are they? Is that a real news source or just a blog for opinions? --Damiens.rf 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real news source. I am not sure how reliable they are compared to other valid sources within this article, though. I will further improve this article really soon, and add more valid sources to it, though. I have simply been lazy in not doing that yet. Plus, a few of the things you tagged as unsourced were added by IPs. I should remove that, anyway. The Storyline and Plot sections of articles are generally not sourced, however, because the show, film or play is the source. You can see this type of thing often with the plot sections of films. The Dark Knight and Star Trek are two examples. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the plot is verifiable by definition. --Damiens.rf 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can still access the article via archive.org. [1] --Silvestris (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer. 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 12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer. 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) 18:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luke_Snyder_and_Noah_Mayer&oldid=1208620863"