Talk:Santana Lopez

Main Image

I have changed the image to a screencap from the episode 'Silly Love Song' because the previous image was on of the actress and not the character. Dallum89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Santana and Brittany are not a couple: Please put further comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Glee task force#Brittany Pierce & Santana Lopez a couple?

Why do people want to put them in the infobox as a couple? Unless I am remembering incorrectly, it was one scene. The fact the article doesn't state they're a couple supports this.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Brittany's talk page says there's more here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. People keep changing it back and no one bothers to counter my argument here, so I'm going to keep reverting until they do.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We've had some input here but nothing that changes my mind.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ya, sorry, I reverted and put a note, which hopefully will help. CTJF83 chat 23:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Brittany flat out said that she and Santna have slept together in Sectionals, something we later saw in Duets. Other than that Brittany and Santana were seen in many cutesy romantic moments in the first season: hugging longingly in Throwdown, Head-leaning in Home and Journey, their "date" with Finn in Hell-o in which they ignore him to have a date with each other. In the second season, you have Me Against the Music, a very sexually charged performance, and Touch-a Me in which they sing out wanting to be with each other whilst frollicking down the school halls. Brittany and Santana are far from a one episode. User talk: Ranjaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.43.198 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.fox.com/glee/bios/naya-rivera/ "But Santana's not all bad. Dopey-but-kind fellow Cheerio Brittany is her best friend (with benefits), and they share a close bond." Santana is as much of a couple with Brittany as she is with Puck who is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemarie001 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we move this discussion to WP:Glee because with the 2 different articles it gets confusing. JDDJS (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Going by the Significant Other discussion here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Glee_task_force#What_constitutes_a_.27significant_other.27.3F ), Noah Puckerman should not be considered a SO for Santana. They became a couple in "Acafellas" and broke up later in the same episode. While a sexual relationship continued in some form, and they occasionally went on dates, after that point they were never boyfriend/girlfriend again, a point which has been made several times throughout the series. Examples: In "Sectionals" (1x13) Santana, in regards to her relationship with Puck, asserts "Sex is not dating." In Silly Love Songs (2x12), when Santana attempts to claim Puck as "her man", Puck denies her assertion and actively tries to date Lauren Zizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorlocks (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good reasoning for me. I'll see if anyone else weighs in. CTJF83 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Coolio. How long do you think you'll wait before you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorlocks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember details from all the episodes. I'll ask User:Frickative to weigh in and verify what you are saying. Not that I'm doubting you. If she agrees, then I (or she) will remove it when I log on. CTJF83 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In the time since this was last discussed, I've come to think that if 'significant other' is intended to refer to life partners and spousal-type relationships, we shouldn't be re-purposing the parameter for high school boyfriends & girlfriends at all. So yeah, I'd remove Puck, but I'd also remove Sam and all the other kids' relationships, and that probably warrants another Task Force level discussion. Frickative 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was suggested back during the December arguments. The problem was definitely one of nomenclature and definition, because by no definition does "significant other" only mean "boyfriend/girlfriend". Even this site defines it as "a gender-blind term for a person's lover in an intimate relationship". So, if you're suggesting a change in category and format, I would be all for that. I personally would suggest using the format of the Glee Wikia, which includes all relationships of any kind and their status. Here's a link to Santana's page, for an example: ( http://glee.wikia.com/wiki/Santana ) But in the meantime, guidelines were set regarding the category as it is, and by those guidelines Noah Puckerman does not qualify. He should be removed until such a time as the format is changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorlocks (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the last discussion demonstrated that there was no clear consensus on Puck. Using the Glee Wikia format wouldn't work, as there's no general parameter in the template for all relationships - it lends itself to the listing of trivia, such as Santana's two-scene crush on Carl. (Not to mention the listing of Matt as an ex-boyfriend, which is entirely made up...). The swiftest and most efficient way forward would probably be to raise it at the template talk page and seek a working definition there. Frickative 00:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ETA: That said, if you want to go ahead and remove Puck in the meantime, I've personally got no strong objection to that. I'd be inclined to remove Sam as well though - if we're going on the October discussion, then at present all they've had is a single episode relationship. Frickative 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, If you want to change the format I'd be all for it...but that wasn't my initial purpose here. I brought this up specifically in regards to Puck and the guidelines already established. I agree that Sam should not have been listed either, but considering that his relationship with Santana will continue in tonight's episode, thus making it a two-episode thing, there's not much of a point now. I suppose I will go ahead and remove Puck, although I would have preferred a mod do it so as to lend the action more legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorlocks (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's cool, I'll probably raise it on the template page myself later if I remember. FTR, Wikipedia doesn't have mods as such - there are administrators, but they're basically just the same as regular users with a few extra tools. Raising it on the talk page first was a good call though, given how heated the last discussion got :) Frickative 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing it up here first. Also, FYI, if you remove stuff from a page, it is best to give a reason in the WP:Edit Summary so others don't think it is vandalism. CTJF83 12:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Significant other(s)

I went ahead and removed the field from the infobox as keeping up with the constant edits is kind of ridiculous. Anon ip editors probably don't know how/care to re-add the field, so that's that for now. Noted 7 ^{(t · c)} 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what you think. An IP put it back and I had to revert.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If we had a Glee specific infobox template, it would be a lot harder for an IP to go to Template:Glee Infobox and add something than just on the character page. CTJF83 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

True. The lead section is really quite good now, covering the essential information. Having an infobox at all is just convention; it serves no real purpose.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the field again. An IP had put it back right after I deleted it. I said discuss it first.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP left a message on my talk page saying he/she did discuss it. So that's that.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian or Bisexual?

In the episode Sexy Santana makes it clear that she finds both men and women attractive. Why does the article say that she's struggling with her lesbian identity? Why is she listed in the category "fictional lesbians"? Shouldn't she be listed as bisexual? 173.63.104.211 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Brittany_Pierce#Sexuality CTJF83 01:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the last paragraph of this article's "Development" section, and your question will be answered. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

She said that. A lot of lesbians do in the early stages. The show clearly portrays her as a lesbian -- feigning interest in men -- and creators are treating hers as a "lesbian coming out storyline". Or what Jake said.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Relationships other than Brittany

I don't see any discussion supporting the non-inclusion of her relationships with Puck, Sam and Karofsky, all of which lasted longer than one-episode (the criteria used for "significant" per the archived discussion on the Glee WikiProject page). Is there a reason why they should not be included? I don't think that just because she's now realized she's gay that we should ignore the season and a half that she spent denying her sexuality. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The obvious one to exclude is Karofsky, because she tells him she's gay (and he's gay) right before proposing that they become "beards": this is a facade to get them elected prom queen and king, and she blackmails him into it. I'm completely puzzled as to why this should be "significant".

Sam's a bit murkier, but they weren't together very long, never seemed that comfortable with each other, and Santana admits in "Sexy" that she loves Brittany. I'd say not. And the criteria changed in a later discussion of SO status from what you're citing here.

I'd frankly agree with including Puck: they were going together on and off from "Pilot" until the events in "Silly Love Song" finally put the kibosh on it for good. It may only have been as serious as what Quinn said: "you're getting naked with Puckerman", but we don't know that this is how it was for the entire 16 or 17 month period. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'relationship' ended officially in Acafellas (1x03). It's a one-episode thing. Random hook-ups mentioned here and there don't count and certainly aren't significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.8.186 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Until consensus is achieved here, it isn't appropriate to be making changes to the infobox on the matter of Puck, especially with two other editors expressing an opposing viewpoint. Contrary to your assertion that it was a "one-episode thing", they were together and apart many times over the first season and a half. Santana expressed "ownership" of Puck in "The Boy Is Mine", told Quinn to stay away from Puck after they babysat together, and slapped Lauren in "Silly Love Songs", not to mention she expected Puck to pay for her jewelry. She certainly attached significance to it in her on-screen actions, and those are what we have to base these articles on. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing proves they were officially together after Acafellas (1x03) or that it was a continued affair. For what we know, it ended there. The other episodes were isolated instances and ploys: nothing came of the sexts in 1x11, and 1x18 was all about Mercedes. In Silly Love Songs, Puck was already in a a semi-relationship with Lauren Zizes and rejected Santana, enjoying when Lauren beat her. Scenes of the two alone, or of their alleged 'significant' rs, don't exist (in the only scene they share together, in 1x18, Santana berates him). The rs can be summed up as a power play from Santana's part and convenience from Puck's part, not a significant relationship - and certainly not comparable to the other SO listed on the other characters' pages - since she only seemed to remember Puck when another girl was involved and her status in school was threatened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.178.16 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal interpretation and headcanon can't determine a Wikipedia entry. There's no canon proof of a significant relationship and no factual evidence of an ongoing sexual affair, whereas there are scattered, debatable snippets that might point to a few casual hook-ups. One of the many examples - Santana didn't even get bothered when Puck got one of her friends pregnant and only occasionally reacted when her social status was threatened/needed to prove who was in charge. It's simply not in the same category of the significant others listed on the other characters' pages - and it was used as a plot device to further other relationships in all instances. I'm fairly certain that a Wikipedia entry can't be edited based on fanon assumptions. Furthermore, there's a similar discussion on this same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.105.102.32 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point that there was "no clear consensus" on Puck and Santana last time (in the discussion above), which I hadn't previously noticed. However, your example "Santana didn't even get bothered when Puck got one of her friends pregnant" hardly helps your argument, because this happened right after she officially broke up with him in "Acafellas", and well before later season one and post-juvie season two encounters. I don't find the arguments that her strikes against rivals are merely "ploys" or "plot devices" convincing: she's seen as being possessive of him, or at least not wanting anyone else claiming his attention, and willing to warn off anyone who tries, to the point of violence. You're awfully quick to dismiss 1x18: Puck comes to Santana after he's been scalped, and though she blows him off then, even Quinn knows that Santana still thinks of him as hers when he sets his eyes on Mercedes to regain mojo. (And why wouldn't Santana have worked? I can't imagine Santana didn't have even more harnessable mojo than Mercedes. But that's television logic for you.) Not quite sure what you mean by "headcanon" or "fanon assumptions"; I'm not a particular fan of either character and don't have anything invested in them being or not being significant others. Just that by what I've seen on the show, they have appeared as a couple at a number of junctures, and for Glee, that's pretty significant.

PS: It is considered polite to sign your contributions here using four tilde (~) characters in a row at the end of your post, as requested at the top of every edit on a talk page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The pattern is the following: claims from Santana (1x11, 1x18, 2x12), refusal/quick dismissal from Puck (1x18, 2x12) or no reaction from him at all (1x11, 2x08). It's important to stress that in every single instance Puck was seriously involved with another girl/ignored Santana/his reaction wasn't shown. Moreover, one party (Puck) never spoke about the alleged affair and was entangled in several romantic/sexual relationships while another (Santana) only reacted when her social status was in danger. There's not actual proof of an ongoing sexual affair, just a few debatable blasé comments. Very little interaction has been shown between the two, and since we don't have any solid evidence because the 'relationship' wasn't deemed important enough to be explored, I'd refrain from making assumptions and give it a non-existent significance.46.105.102.32 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Puck isn't listed in Rachel's significant others even if their bond is heaps more significant than the one between Santana and Puck. In fact, Puck often comes to Rachel's aid and actually shows affection towards her, while he never showed affection or genuine interest towards Santana and he's always been quick to dismiss her or say that he's not her man (but he was turned on by Lauren physically hurting her). Also, Santana only remembered his existence when her image as top dog was cracking. They have never had intimate scenes: they may have had a few hookups (the frequency can't be determined, we have no information about that) but, according to Santana, "sex is not dating". Brittany has also had a few sexual encounters with Puck throughout Season 1 and Season 2, confirmed in 1x22 (by Puck) and 3x01 (by Santana) and an implied threesome in 2x06 with him and Santana but Puck isn't listed as her SO.82.192.79.139 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It officially started in Acafellas and it officially ended in Acafellas. We don't know if/when/how much they actually had sex (this is not verifiable - assumptions and personal interpretation aren't evidence) and even if that counted as something deep for someone else, for Santana sex is not dating and Puck firmly stated that he's not her man. He never even bothered to feign interest in her, while he openly pursued other women. To be honest, neither has ever showed real interest towards each other and the possessiveness argument is moot since it's not constant and Santana only reacted when her spot as prima donna was threatened by third parties (and occasional possessiveness =/= romantic relationship). Funnily enough, it always became all about the girl involved and Puck was quickly forgotten and never addressed again until the next plot contrivance. No private scenes, no actual dialog, nothing that proves that these characters care about one another. That's just not "significant other" material. 77.95.35.89 (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They have never appeared as a legitimate romantic couple though. Puck told Quinn that he loved her more than once; he also said that he was in love with Lauren Zizes and actively pursued her until they became a couple. None of this ever happened with him and Santana. Occasional hookups - of which there's no factual, undesputable proof - and even less that they've been constant throughout the first and the second season unless you count personal interpretation do not constitute "significant others", especially if compared to the ones listed on the other pages. 62.98.92.63 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's implied that Puck and Santana were together long before "Acafellas," reaching back to before the show's official timeline. There was the way they were grinding together in "Showmance" and, as others have pointed out, the fact that she would get ridiculously possessive every time he was with someone else - including Quinn, Lauren and Mercedes. Quinn caught him sexting with Santana in "Hairography." It's clear they had something going on throughout the first season and possibly part of the second season, and so I think that her relationship with him should be included. I didn't see any evidence of the criteria changing from "one episode" in the relevant discussions on this on the Glee Wiki Project, but I'm willing to support Sam and Karofsky not being included. I just would like to see some consistent criteria across all these pages about what constitutes "significant." It seems like it's just decided by whoever is the most zealous editor on that page. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The "most zealous editor" criterion may be more due to either weariness or having fewer task force members these days actively monitoring the hundred-plus articles and catching all the changes. Some slip under the radar, and some hit on a low energy day when they are left for someone else to fix, only no one else does so. Although I have great sympathy with the notion that we should leave the "significance" of any "others" out of the infobox altogether, it seems to be a standard field for fictional characters, and I think it can be helpful with a reasonable set of criteria.

As for Puck and Santana, I would have liked to see some discussion of "Duets" and Santana's saying that she's with Brittany because Puck's in the slammer (indicating an ongoing Santana/Puck physical relationship), which has resumed after his release from juvie (she says she's dating Puck in "Furt", which leads to Quinn's "naked" comeback). Not to mention her interior monologue in "Silly Love Songs" when she's complaining to herself about being unattached and then figures out Finn and Quinn have been secretly making out even though Quinn and Sam are still a couple. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are good points as well. So I guess consensus is Puck should stay in, since the only points to the contrary are coming from tag-teaming anons? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally happen to agree with the previous anons who only rely on what we have seen on screen. In "I Kissed A Girl", Puck also confirms to have only been part of a phase.SnixR (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what Puck is saying is that in hindsight it looks like he was only a part of phase Santana was going through. That he even mentions it is an indication that it was significant, at least to him, or it wouldn't be a realistic diversion from his true intent in the song, which is aimed at Shelby even as he plays up to other past flames in the room. More than ever, I'm with the consensus. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it shows its notability that they felt that Puck had to comment on that at all. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Santanaisthebest.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Santanaisbest.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)