Talk:Supercouple/Archive 1

Comments

AMC: Nico & Cecily? OLTL: Todd & Blair?

Jengod, I've replied on your talk page. Mike H 22:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

WTF. How did this wind up on the front page? Joseph 03:13, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Because it was a new article? Mike H 22:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think Michael/Marcie from OLTL shouldn't qualify. They have fans, but supercouple? Nothing past 1993 is truly a supercouple as too few people are watching. Sam/Amanda from Another World, yes; Steve/Betsy from As the World Turns, yes; Clint/Nola from Guiding Light, yes; Michael/Marcie? No way Juppiter 03:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it can honestly be debated. Largely, the term died out in the early 1990s, but I think their large popularity base had to deal with the fact that neither were especially attractive, and that's what endeared them to viewers. Either way, I don't care. Mike H 18:43, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay, whoa. Bo and Nora? Since when did Soap Digest call them a supercouple? I tried to keep the list to things actually CALLED supercouples by the soap media. Mike H 09:15, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Recently, I think people have simply added the names of couples they personally liked to the list of supercouples, and I'm tempted to ask for multiple sources from outside publications for some of these choices, because I think a few of them need to go, especially if all you're going to write is "they were a supercouple and they were played by these people." Mike H. That's hot 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only AMC super couples there have been are Cliff and Nina, Greg and Jennie, Jessie and Angie and Tad and Dixie. Sorry but Leo and Greenlee don't qualify and neither do Carly and Jack of As The World Turns.

I took out Tom and Margo, Carly and Jack and Leo and Greenlee.

Thanks. I've kept this article on my watchlist but I can't babysit this 24/7, so I'm sure someone is going to add them back soon. Mike H. That's hot 03:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike, but I think that if an article is actually an article and has several paragraphs, people should discuss things here first before removing it from the list (which many people aren't doing), since its removal will obviously offend whoever spent some time working on it. Everyone doing this should also keep in mind that removing content without a valid policy to support the removal is considered vandalism, so don't delete things just because you want them gone.

Alright, I deleted 8 couples off this list, ones that were barely more in their paragraph than "So and So Were/Are A Supercouple." If anyone feels any of the ones I deleted deserve to go back on the list, feel free to put'm back. --Harlequin212121 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing the page

Someone erased Victor and Nikki, Y&R, from the list yesterday, and they were one of the originals on the list in the first place. Out of all the supercouples listed, they've been together the longest (since 1981) that are still currently together. I hope the vandal doesn't delete them again - I added them back, but can we keep an eye on this? Thanks.

This list is becoming very POV. I'm thinking we should cut out most of the list and stick to only the most blatant of examples (and yes, I think Victor and Nikki is a good example, and should stay once the list is chopped down). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me who deleted them and I said I was doing it above and did it logged in, so it's hardly vandalizing. Anyways I did it for three reasons: because the list needed to be shortened, because I personally had never heard of them, but in particular because of how unextensive their Wikipedia page was, especially when compared to supercouples like Luke and Laura, Bo and Hope, Jack and Jen. I did say that if anyone felt any couple I removed wasn't deserving of removal to add them back, but a lot of people were mentioning the list needed shortening and I thought getting rid of the articles that were barely more than stubs (whcih your Victor and Nikki is) was a good way to start. Maybe some Victor and Nikki fans can work on extending the article? --Harlequin212121 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike and Harlequin, and sorry I thought you were a vandal, LOL. I think N/V are the most major supercouple out there at the moment, not only because Y&R is #1 in ratings. I'll work on their page (they do have two major websites dedicated to them) - thanks again. :)

No problem! Glad to have been of help. BTW, Harlequin, thanks for deleting the One Life to Live mentions. By its very nature, "supercouple" implies ONE soulmate, so having Viki be on there with three different people is bending the rules a little a lot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then should Stefan and Laura be deleted for General Hospital, if Laura can only have one then? I mean, if we're gonna keep one I'm pretty sure that's gonna be Luke and Laura.--Harlequin212121 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Stefan and Laura are one either. They're a couple, a popular one, but Stefan also had Katherine so it's not exactly a "made in heaven" thing. Stefan and Laura didn't have a happy ending, but neither did Luke and Laura...but you know which one Laura will be with in the end (aka not Stefan). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but the logic that Stefan's relationship with Laura isn't a "made in heaven" thing because he "also had Katherine" seems flawed to me, because by that logic alone, you could say the same thing about Luke and Laura when considering that Laura "also had Scotty." However, if there's a majority view that every character listed in this article should only be mentioned with one other character, then I won't oppose the removal. If not, I say let it stay because Stefan and Laura were indeed notable as a popular alternative to the most famous daytime couple ever.

JR and Babe

Are they really a super couple? I have a hard time buying any couple on AMC as a super couple at this time. Since the ratings are still below a 3.0 and there hasn't been a gradual increase in ratings for the parent show as a result of the couple. I know that both JR and Babe and Zach and Kendell have internet popularity and are the two most popular couples of the show on the internet but does that make them a super couple?

No. I've removed them from the list a number of times and so have a few other contributors. I say keep them out. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Zach and Kendall/J.R. and Babe. It is correct that Zach and Kendall, and J.R. and Babe are the two most popular couples on AMC right now. They are the only two AMC couples to make the SID polls at this time, though Zach and Kendall more than J.R. and Babe, of course. I say both couples should stay in the mentions of super-couple potential, as I added J.R. and Babe back to this article.

But I agree with Mike H. that they should stay off of the main super couple list, most definitely. Flyer22 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to come back to this section before its archived and clarify that Zach and Kendall now make the main supercouple list due to being such a prominent supercouple in the soap opera medium and having been cited as a supercouple by valid press. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

=

AW couples

I added Steve and Alice and Mac and Rachel for AW - don't think you can have Sam and Amanda in there without these two very iconic couples for the show. I'll work on articles for them. NickBurns 14:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stefan and Laura

Yesterday, I removed Stefan and Laura from this list. It has been restored, and that's fine. However, my edit was labeled as vandalism, which I did not appreciate. (Furthermore, it was labeled as vandalism by an unregistered user.)

I did not mean to slight anyone by deleting that info. I just didn't believe S&L qualified as a supercouple. Were they a valid couple? Certainly. A valid alternative to Luke and Laura! Yes, absolutely. But if I went by the definition of supercouple, I just wouldn't think that they fit. I made a legitimate edit, and not, as was inaccurately suggested, vandalism. "Vandalism" is not every edit you don't agree with, and none of us have ownership of an article.

Thanks. NickBurns 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the claim. Of course it's true that vandalism "is not every edit you don't agree with"; it was just my understanding that removing content without prior discussion or through personal opinion alone qualified as vandalism, but I didn't mean to offend and can understand how the accusation may have seemed harsh.

Apology accepted. I did not realize this had been an issue before, so I can see why you'd react that way.

I just wanna make the article better! I want all the soap related articles on Wikipedia to be as good as they can be. NickBurns 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Okay, sorry to be so verbose on this page about this, but I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share.

• I see that the Mac and Rachel addition was deleted. Which I kinda get, because we're saying that (a) supercouples were not really called "supercouples" until the 1980s, and (b) Doug and Julie were the first. But then we probably need to strike Steve and Alice out too. Maybe there needs to be an article about pre-supercouple supercouples? Because Jeff and Penny on ATWT were definitely a supercouple. They may have actually been the first.
• I still think having Stefan and Laura listed as a supercouple when the justification given on this talk page for it is "they are a viable alternative to the L&L supercouple" isn't correct from an encyclopedic point of view. It's like going to a page on apples and saying "there's this really great orange...." Again, perhaps another article is needed. We could come up with several couples where there was a viable alternative to a supercouple. (Reva and Kyle on GL come to mind, in addition to L&L). But that's my humble opinion - as I said, I'm not going to revert. I just disagree.

Thanks! NickBurns 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Again, perhaps another article is needed. We could come up with several couples where there was a viable alternative to a supercouple."

That may be a big help, considering the nearly combative nature of this page. :)

I think the problem here may be arguments as to the true definition of a "supercouple." We all have a basic understanding of the term but when it gets down to the minutae of who is and who isn't a supercouple we get into arguments (although in a most civil manner, I might add). My definition of a supercouple is a pairing that not only gains viewer attention and causes ratings to spike and many articles to be written in the soap press, but also endears in the viewer's consciousness for a significant period of time and has a significant effect on storyline and show history. Obviously, there are certain pairings here that are a no-brainer to include (Luke and Laura, Bo and Hope, Victor and Nikki) but some I would quibble about including (didn't most of Stefan and Laura's storyline happen offscreen anyway?), but of course I won't remove until there is a consensus. Also, why not include couples that were significant before the term was coined? I think pairings such as Mac and Rachel and especially Doug and Julie (for Heaven's sakes, they made the cover of Time magazine!) should be included due to their significance to their respective programs. Also, would primetime soaps qualify here? Perhaps an article on Blake and Krystle, perhaps J.R. and Sue Ellen (supercouples don't have to like each other, now do they?) -- they were significant pairings.The Invisible Man 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"We all have a basic understanding of the term but when it gets down to the minutae of who is and who isn't a supercouple we get into arguments (although in a most civil manner, I might add)."

Quite true. That's what's made this one of the more respectable discussion pages :)

". . . didn't most of Stefan and Laura's storyline happen offscreen anyway?"

Absolutely not. Just so we don't confuse the two terms, most of their history was off, but most of their story line (including the flashbacks and their present-day reunion) was all on-screen.

". . . Doug and Julie (for Heaven's sakes, they made the cover of Time magazine!)"

Absolutely agree. I don't know enough about them but I'm pretty sure that someone out there does. It's Doug and Julie for crying out loud.

"My definition of a supercouple is a pairing that not only gains viewer attention and causes ratings to spike and many articles to be written in the soap press, but also endears in the viewer's consciousness for a significant period of time . . ."

I agree on that first point, but the second is where bias obviously comes in (perhaps on my own part as well admitedly). I'm with the earlier suggestion of a possible alternate page. "Popular Soap Couples" perhaps? To keep it from becoming the obvious fan-central repository that it sounds like, though, we could vote on ground rules, such as requiring that the pairings have to have a magazine article that's at least five years old, and at least three Websites out there. Just another suggestion.

On the lookout for vandals

Our most frequent vandals to this article are apparently IP addresses 69.255.37.76 and/or 66.108.249.32. The person(s) associated will make combative edits without citing policy or discussing anything here. I'm asking all who've conducted themselves in a more mature manner to please be on the lookout from time to time in order to deal with this. Thanks.

References needed

I think that this is a well-written page, but it is a concern that it has no references of any kind, so I have (hopefully temporarily) tagged it as original research. Can anyone provide some sources so that we can properly cite this information, per Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability? --Elonka 03:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Favorite Supercouple" has been a category in the Soap Opera Digest Awards since 1986. Does that sufficiently demonstrate that this isn't original research made up by Wikipedians? Factitious 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a perfect reference to include. Is the list online somewhere, to be used as a reference? Or if not, it might even make sense for us to include the list within the Wikipedia article, showing each couple, and the year that they won the award. --Elonka 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Leo and Greenlee?

I loved the couple thought they were great and they did go threw alot of trials and tribulations however their was no ratings renewal when they were on as a matter of fact most of the ratings from 99-02 were in decline from AMC they went from 4.3 to a 2.9 during the time the couple was on. So could they really be counted as a super couple if they didn't give AMC a ratings spike during their time together?

I think they could have potentially been a super couple. But I'm going to say no. I don't think they were. They were rabidlly popular with internet fans and the internet community but they didn't factor into ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.86.148 (talk • contribs) , on 21:08, October 6, 2006

In order to be called a supercouple, I'd like to see an external source, such as a magazine or newspaper article, that referred to them as such. I'm actually very uncomfortable with a lot of the claims in this Wikipedia article, since it provides no verification, per WP:V. If sources aren't provided, we probably want to go through and start pulling out any claims that are doubtful. --Elonka 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

carly and jack

they are a super couple

P&G actually considers them alone with Lily and Holden the power super couples of ATWT

Days couples

Anyone think there is just a disproportionately large amount of Days couples listed on this page? I mean, sure, Days probably does have the biggest amount of "supercouples" but... some of these probably don't have to be on there and it would make it look a little less... biased, for lack of a better word? I mean, Bo and Hope, Doug and Julie, Jack and Jennifer... the big ones definitely deserve their place. But do Shane and Kim (who haven't been heard from in going on two decades) count? And do Shawn and Belle who are comparatively recent and only popular among certain sects of Days fans count either? --148.61.83.191 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

^^^ I agree for those who dont know...ATWT had many Super Couples in the 80's...Steve and Betsy whose wedding had 20 million viewers. Tom and Margo and Craig and Sierra. P&G considered them the super couples of the 80's but they were so underated because it was all about the Days, Santa Barbara super couples

Shawn and Belle are a popular couple but they haven't reached super couple status as of yet

Sonny and Carly??

There is NO listing on General Hospital Supercouple Sonny and Carly!! I am taking that honour to add it to the list of couples, and later on will add a picture of the both of them. They are legendary in GH!!

Sonny and Carly are popular but they haven't reaches SuperCouple heaven status

Couple Ethan and Theresa, and couple Luis and Sheridan from the show Passions

An editor here feels that they should be on the main supercouples list.

Do any other editors here feel that they should be on the main supercouples list? And why? Will that editor give their reason? Their show wasn't a part of the supercouple era, sure, but that doesn't mean they should be included on the main supercouples list. A lot of popular couples weren't around during the supercouple era. Flyer22 01:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My own feeling is that it doesn't really matter what opinions are, it matters what can be sourced. What references do we have, to affirm that they're a supercouple? If there are no references, the information shouldn't be included, per WP:V. I'd actually support removing a lot of the unsourced information from this article, and then re-adding things a piece at a time. --Elonka 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

External links to be made refs

Shouldn´t all the external links present in lists all around this article, such as the ones in Supercouple#Soap_opera_supercouples, be changed to references? ♠TomasBat 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I thought about that, but ultimately I felt/feel that it would be too much within the References section. With the lists look, I went for the List of fictional anti-heroes style, and decided to only use references as of what would be automatically added to the References section for the paragraph sections.

But if other editors here feel that it's best for all of those external links to go in reference format as of the References section, then I don't greatly oppose. Flyer22 09:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Days today supercouples

I think that if you are going to list sami and lucas as a probable supercouple, EJ and Sami should be on there as well.

But I also think that(so you don't have to hassle with the editing) just remove them from that part if it does not remain neutral and just leave the bottom part were it discusses them. Thank you.

• My feelings on this are what I stated on another editor's talk page:

I added Lucas and Sami back at the top there, leaving EJ and Sami up there as well, feeling that it would/will help this back-and-forth of adding EJ and Sami and taking EJ and Sami off of that part that is going on between newbie Wikipedian editors. But I feel that since EJ and Sami are already mentioned below in the Supercouples today section, they don't need to be mentioned beside Lucas and Sami at the top, which is why I typed that bottom part up about a character being popular within two couples, in which also mentions EJ and Sami.

However, if it's decided by other Wikipedian editors that Lucas and Sami don't need to be mentioned at the top of the Supercouples today section either, then, yes, no problem. Flyer22 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• thank you. I just don't want this back and forth stuff goign on its frustrating but I have no problem with that.

Bob and Lisa and Penny and Jeff were 2 of Soap Opera's First Super Couple so they should be on the list especially if Carly and Sonny are on there

And where is Sonny and Brenda?? Cord and Tina?? Robert and Holly Duke and Anna

John and Marlena

I removed John and Marlena from the sentence about Days' supercouples in the late 1980s, because at that specific timeframe given, they were not even a couple, as John was Roman and Marlena was "dead." Their little story did not happen until MUCH later, like 1993. So it's not correct in that context. Please revert people who add it back. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

As a newcomer to the article (following the David Beckham link) I'm a little concerned that this reads like original research...I've not yet had a chance to read it properly and check out all of the sources,but I suspect that their is room for improvement for WP:OR and WP:RS in particular. Don't want to criticise people's hard work though, so those more familiar with this material might like to comment? Paulbrock 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, a lot of the sources, such as providing the fact that supercouples exist in film, or Luke and Laura having the biggest impact on the supercouple existence is reliable, as well as some other statements in this article, of course.

All of the soap opera supercouples listed in this article on the main soap opera supercouple list provide links valiadating that they are supercouples. A lot of those links, as they stand now though, are from Soap Opera Central (soapcentral.com), an official soap opera site, but it's definitely valid coming from Soap Opera Central, even though links to sources independent of the soap opera media is desired at Wikipedia for such links validating soap opera supercouples. I'll keep trying to improve that area, and other areas of this article, as well, of course.

Most of the primetime supercouples have links validating that they are important couples in primetime, even though the word "Supercouple" isn't used for most of them.

And the Celebrity supercouples all have links calling them a supercouple or a power couple, except for two couples in which rather state the couple's impact on society. It goes without saying that your help in improving this article, however, is always wanted. Flyer22 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarifications. My primary concern is not the referencing of individual couples (and on the edit history this seems to be done to a high standard), but on the concept of the supercouple itself, what sources are there? The first source from ghthesoap.com, discusses it in detail, but much of that article has been cut and pasted here and may well be a copyright violation. For example, in the Golden Age section of the article, what is the source for stating that the 80s are considered the Golden Age for supercouples? To an reader unfamiliar with the concept (i.e. me!) it definitely looks like original research. Paulbrock 01:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out, Paulbrock. I'll try to tackle the issues you brought up as much as possible. And please, if you can, help improve this article. Flyer22 02:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• And now that I think about it, I'm willing to bet that ghthesoap.com got its definition of a soap opera supercouple from here. Flyer22 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SONNY AND BRENDA

WHERE ARE SONNY AND BRENDA?? IF YOU HAVE SONNY AND CARLY UP HERE?? YOU KNOW FOR SURE SONNY AND BRENDA NEED TO BE UP HERE.. TO ME.. AND TO A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.. THEY WERE GH'S LAST GREAT SUPERCOUPLE??? .. EVEN GHTHESOAP.COM THINKS SO

• For anyone who reads this, for an answer to this question, this is what I stated on this user's talk page: "I responded to your email about the Supercouple article, which, of course, I'm sure that you will read. Sonny and Brenda do have a great mention within the Supercouple article, and if you read their mention within the Supercouple article, you may understand why they are not necessarily on its main soap opera supercouple list. They don't have an article here at Wikipedia, but, yes, we could add them to the main soap opera supercouple list even though they don't have an article here at Wikipedia, but, again, their mention in the Supercouple article does point out their significance, and insight can be drawn from their mention as to why they are not on the main soap opera supercouple list." Flyer22 00:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stewart + Colbert

I added John Stewart and Stephen Colbert as a platonic couple. Maureen Dowd actually starts comparing them to other celebrity couples! Jairuscobb 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Carter & Abby

Couldn't believe that Nurse Abby & Dr. Carter from ER's golden age weren't on here. I'll add it in a week if no one objects... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostgirl108 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you add them, just make sure that you add them along with a valid source stating or displaying that they were an important couple within popular culture. Flyer22 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Them as a supercouple?? Abby and Luca maybe, but Carter and Abby were always contrived and forced. A true supercouple is a natural thing, those two never were natural. It was addiction counselor/addict at best. If this was a by vote process I would say they definitely have no place. Just because someone's a couple doesn't automatically make them a supercouple. CelticGreen 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen. They haven't been an item for a long time and their romance was short lived. I couldn't find anything current only some stuff from January 2007 to March 2007. CelticGreen 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much in the Gay/Lesbian section?

I'm going to try to choose my words carefully here as I don't mean to offend anyone... but does anyone else think way too much focus is placed on gay/lesbian supercouples? There's a whole, fairly large, section of it that I don't even think ought to be there. If there's a gay/lesbian supercouple, more power to them and they should be cited in the list, but I don't think the issue of Gay/Lesbian supercouples is big enough to warrant such a large section in this article. It deserves a paragraph at best. I also think it's silly to count Bianca and Maggie as a supercouple as they're far too new and don't have near the clout and importance of true soap opera supercouples. Honestly, this is true of any couple who came about in the twenty-first century, I don't think any of them should count. They belong in the "Notable Wave" section. You can find something on the internet that cites anything you want so if that's the only barometer we're using.... --63.139.170.32 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem at all with the gay/lesbian section about couples, seeing as most of this article focuses on heterosexual couples. It isn't even necessarily about gay or lesbian supercouples, but rather how the soap opera landscape includes gay and lesbian couples period, and what prominence, if any, can they have in this very heterosexual medium. The emergence of gay/lesbian couples section is warranted and certainly shouldn't be just some small paragraph, when taken into account that this subject is not small and cannot be summed up that simply or shortly, and that a usually conservative audience has embraced the ones that they have. Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone most definitely belong on the main soap opera supercouples list. The criteria for being on that list, besides a reference validating the couple as a supercouple, is about the amount of impact that the couple made, and how the viewers saw them as a supercouple, considering that the viewers/observers are the ones who make supercouples, not mainly the press. It's not just about finding a reference that cites a couple as a supercouple. If you notice, Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer have been titled a soap opera supercouple by TV Guide, but we don't have them on the main soap opera supercouple list yet, because they have not impacted the genre like Bianca and Maggie have...yet (and may never)...meaning not as significantly, of course (plus, they've only recently become romantic and a couple). Bianca and Maggie were the biggest couple going on at the time of their reign, especially on All My Children, and I'm not talking about their relationship after 2005. If you read their article, it's all there. Heck, if you read this article, it's basically all there. No, not just any couple is cited as a supercouple, and even if that were the case, it takes more to be considered a true supercouple. A great number of the All My Children audience, as well as notable press, took interest in the Bianca and Maggie pairing, they were able to have an impact on ratings, the fan mail for them was huge, and they were often called a supercouple by soap opera press, non-soap opera press...and (most importantly) the viewers. To top it all off, this from a gay couple viewed by an audience that's more accustomed to viewing and rooting for heterosexual pairings. What else would you call that but a supercouple? All of that is why Bianca and Maggie are now listed on the main soap opera supercouples list in this article. They do have the clout and importance of a true supercouple, and aren't even that old in union yet. Definitely an amazing feat. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add to this discussion that I didn't list Bianca and Maggie as a supercouple at first (as you may have noticed that they weren't listed on the main soap opera supercouple list until now). It went like that for months...until I finally snapped out of my craziness and listed them there. I honestly don't know what I was thinking by not putting them on that list earlier, considering that I was knee-deep in their history and recognition while creating their article. I can honestly say that they were the biggest All My Children couple since the days of Tad and Dixie or Edmund and Maria, and that they should have already been listed on that list. We can talk about the number of years that they've been together as not that long, but neither were Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner (1981 to 1984) or Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter (1982 to 1988), especially Greg and Jenny's three years compared to Bianca and Maggie's five, even considering that Bianca and Maggie didn't become officially romantic until 2005...offscreen. But those couples, Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner and Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter, became supercouples due to the absolute mania that their union created. And I must say that the Bianca and Maggie pairing created that kind or very much close to that kind of mania as well, though ratings for daytime drama were higher back then. In the end, it wasn't about how long those couples had been together, but actually about how they impacted the medium and how viewers felt about them. Again, all of that was taken into consideration when adding Bianca and Maggie to the main soap opera supercouples list...because they impacted the medium in a very notable way, to much fanaticism. You are right that couples that began in the 21st century generally are not considered supercouples. Well, that is why there are only two couples on the main soap opera supercouples list that began in the 21st century, Bianca and Maggie being one of them, of course. When a couple truly is a soap opera supercouple, they should be listed on the main soap opera supercouples list, no matter being a couple that began in the 21st century. There was no way, in good conscience, that I could leave Bianca and Maggie off of the main supercouple list any longer, given their impact. Flyer22 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this point blank. If you have to hide behind an anonymous IP and you have to "choose your words carefully" then all indications are a prejudice and/or bias against gays, IMO. Because you felt the need to quantify your statement, it makes me think you are attempting to hide, albeit not very well, a prejudice against certain couples. That's not what Wikipedia is about. The gay and lesbian section is not too much. Flyer22 has done an excellent job with the page and her contents are fair. Sorry, but your comments reek of bias, IMO. IrishLass (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a preposterous accusation you made against me and, frankly, offensive. It's nice that you can add to your ego by attacking the intentions of a poster on this site whom you don't know a thing about, but from now on I'm going to recommend that you keep your judgments to yourself until you know what you are talking about. If I hear one more comment like that thrown at me again from you, I will be reporting you.

The fact of the matter is that there can almost be a reverse bias where anyone says anything and they're accused of prejudice. If gay couples get a special section than why don't African-American couples? Or any other minority group? Because that's not how it ought to work. All couples ought to be thought of and considered equally, there's more information about straight couples in this article because most supercouples (and couples in general) *are* straight. That's not a bias, it's the way it is. Your need to segregate gay couples as if they're a special case that wouldn't be considered under the normal circumstances of supercouples is what's biased. Give them a paragraph or two if you feel like it's necessary, but a special section seems far too much. If a couple is a supercouple, then they're a supercouple and no more or less deserving of special Wikipedia fanfare. No other couple besides Bianca and Maggie is given this much specialized treatment in this article, and there are other couples listed that are the lone representation of a certain group just as Bianca and Maggie are for gay couples. If you had bothered to carefully read my post, instead of running to the offense and pointing fingers you might have understood that. Just as straight couples don't deserve special treatment over gay couples, gay couples don't deserve it over straight ones.

What's more, my other point was mainly about them being too new to be a supercouple. All My Children is not a soap I'm particularly well versed on, but I recall hearing that basically any couple around after the soap glory days of the 80s/Early 90s didn't qualify. There's lots of very popular couples on every soap that have increased ratings, had positive fan response, and so forth. Yet almost all of them, at least on Days on Passions, the two soaps I'm most well versed on, are not considered supercouples on this article and are rather considered "Notabale Wave", mainly because they're comparatively new and thus the long-last affects is less easy to measure. Bianca and Maggie are simply too new to fit the definition of supercouples previously outlined, and if that's not the case then almost the entirety of the "Notable Wave" section ought to be put into the Supercouple section as well

I'm sorry I forgot to log in. Wikipedia doesn't keep me always logged in and most of my edits end up being anonymous 'cause I don't think of it. My user name is Harlequin212121.--63.139.170.32 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't add to my ego to say what I said. As to your user name, if you have one, try signing in but then again, having seen your edits..... And you can't report a person for having an opinion on a talk page about negative comments. Threaten all you want, I'm by far not afraid. I further stand by my original opinion of your original statement. The things you said smack of prejudice. That's what I believe and I stand by it. IrishLass (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Harlequin212121/63.139.170.32, Uh, no, there are not lots of very popular couples on every soap that have increased ratings...not these days. The ratings for soap operas these days are significantly lower, as I'm sure that you know. As for Bianca and Maggie being too new to fit the definition of a supercouple, I already explained above, they are not: "Neither were Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner (1981 to 1984) or Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter (1982 to 1988), especially Greg and Jenny's three years compared to Bianca and Maggie's five..." The first line of this article explains what a supercouple is, and Bianca and Maggie fit that definition in its truest sense. You are completely overlooking the mania and press this couple got, and it was not just because they were/are a gay couple. Case in point, Lena Kundera and Bianca didn't get that kind of press, except for their kiss...the first lesbian kiss in American daytime television history...and that's all. All the couples in the Notable wave section have not had the type of impact that Bianca and Maggie have had on the soap opera medium. How could Bianca and Maggie therefore be placed on the same level as them when they are clearly above them? And they truly are. As I already mentioned, Bianca and Maggie were called a supercouple throughout the soap opera medium, as well as outside of it.

It's like you are basing the definition of what a supercouple is off of how many years the pairing was/is together. Well, that clearly is not what mainly defines a supercouple, as Greg and Jenny are a great example of what does. They didn't have too many years together. What defines a supercouple is the amazing interest taken to them by the press and the viewers...in other words...absolute mania...and Bianca and Maggie fit that to a T. I also cannot believe that you would bring up "race". While many couples may be Caucasian on soap operas, and television in general, television is not afraid to shy away from including African American couples. Hell, they aren't even afraid to showcase "interracial" couples anymore. Television, especially soap operas, are very afraid to showcase gay couples, however. Gay couples are a rarity in soap opera, and their emergence needed a good introduction about how it has come about. It cannot be summed up in some brief paragraph and still do it justice. It's a very notable issue, given the rarity of the incidents. The Supercouples today section is talking about what is taking place in today's soap opera medium. And, well, gay couples are one aspect of what is, subject matter that soap operas are well known for excluding. Romantic couplings are about sexuality (and, of course, romance), not so much about race, which is another reason we don't have sections devoted to couples by race. Not to mention, as I stated before, race is not a big issue when it comes to pairing couples on television. We see couples of all different races and interracial couples all the time on soap operas. We do not have that kind of abundance with gay couples, and therefore having a section about it and its emergence was/is warranted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I must also state that there was nothing bias at all in creating the gay and lesbian section, or on the part of IrishLass for supporting it. Only that a gay and lesbian section was needed in this article. No different than the Superhero article having a section on gay and lesbian superheroes, though that section also provides a link to an article that discusses gay and lesbian characters in the superhero world as a whole. Anyway, as I stated before, a gay and lesbian section is warranted in this article, just as it is warranted in other articles, on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, it's clear mine is the minority opinion on this but if you ask me, you're all the ones with prejudice and bias. Gay couples are no more or less important than any other kind and while discussion of them is perfectly valid, but such a specific and differentiated section devoted ot them (and not to any other specific kind of soap supercouple) is preposterous and, frankly, only serves to support the stereotype that gay couples are so different from heterosexual ones. It's extreme length, compared to any other specific talk of other kinda of different supercouples is also ridiculous, and while race in supercouples may not be an issue in couples now, it certainly was at some point. Wikipedia is not all about the here and now. Frankly, either every applicable minority should get a special subtopic or none of them should. --63.139.170.32 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What you state is ludicrous. Having a gay and lesbian section is not preposterous or ridiculous, given everything that I've stated above. And your stating that it is biased and prejudiced is equally off. Like you assume either one of us is gay. It serves no "stereotype that gay couples are so different from heterosexual couples" to document the emergence of gay couples. It's not even that long of a sub-section. I was reading several books the other day (having to do with television), that have specific chapters on gay characters in television. Why? Because it was largely a rarity, and those books document how it has now become not such a rarity. And, frankly, I never remember television having a problem showing African American couples. Yes, I was not around before the 1980s, but African American couples have been around on television for a long time. And the interracial issue went by fast. The gay couple issue? Not so much. Those books about television and its significance on popular culture did not have a section dedicated to the emergence of heterosexual couples. Why? Because that does not have to be detailed and is not wondered about, since it has always been that way with television...and is still most dominant. Those books did not talk about the emergence of any other types of couples either. Why? Because every other type of couple has had no trouble being seen on television, except interracial couples, but as stated before, that went by fast. I find your entire post out of line and one of the most off-putting posts I've ever read.

Just because a section details gay and lesbian couples or rather just gay and lesbian characters does not mean that it is giving them special treament. It means that the topic is notable and needs proper detail to explain its existence that was very much absent and still fairly largely absent today. There is no other type of couple to significantly document the emergence of, unless you want a section on interracial couples. But race and sex are not the same thing. We have heterosexual couples represented in this article...and the opposite of that is homosexual couples...and now they are represented in this article. It's as simple as that. I see no problem. You, in the minority with these thoughts of yours? I hope so...because they are quite off and rather insulting. You start name-calling, throwing crazy accusations that make no sense, when I have done nothing but talk to you in an appropriate manner? Try not to address me on this matter again, because I'd rather not converse with you any longer. You've stated your feelings. We most definitely don't agree with those feelings. Scholars who document the emergence of gay and lesbian characters in books full of heterosexual characters disagree with you as well. There are plenty of books and articles that have sections about the rise of gay characters in television. What, that's special treament as well? It shouldn't be documented because it's singling them out? No. That's not what it is doing. It is documenting something of note that cannot just be mentioned in one sentence as if it's an every-day occurrence and that there's nothing of note about it. Those sections in books exist. Just as the gay and lesbian section in this article exists. Really, you've stated enough. You say that "gay couples are no more or less important than any other kind". What? No one is arguing which sexually-oriented couple is more important. It's about a section on gay and lesbian couples being important and valid enough to add...given the rarity and difficulty they have had in being represented in television, particularly soap operas. African American couples and other types of couples have been on television for a long while now. And there certainly is no need to have a section specifically about heterosexual couples. I suppose it's giving gay and lesbian individuals special treament to have an article titled gay icon as well, when there is no article called heterosexual (or straight) icon? Ridiculous. Yes, we've heard your thoughts, and as you already know, we don't agree with them. No need to state any more to each other on this subject. Flyer22 11:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyer pretty much summed it all up. I would, however, advise you to actually look up the definitions of prejudice and bias. To be bias, I would have to be gay. Instead, I'm on open minded individual that doesn't believe the section should be excluded. The fact is, 20 years ago a gay kiss would never have happened on daytime. There is a place in the article for the information. I applaud Flyer for putting it in.IrishLass 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Supercouples

Copied from my talk page, by request. When asked about Ethan and Theresa/Luis and Sheridan, this was my reply. It covers my general opinion through the ages of supercouples:

IMO neither couple is a true supercouple. A true supercouple, i.e. Luke and Laura, John and Marlena, Bo and Hope, can't be broken up and gain large fan bases. Ethan and Theresa both have fan bases that want them with other people. Therox fans wanted Theresa and Fox when Justin Hartley was still Fox Crane. Ethan has a large fanbase that wants him with Gwen. And truth be told, they've really rarely been a couple. Ethan's been married to Gwen for a majority share of the running time of the show. Supercouple? No. They've never even been legally married. As for Luis and SheriDONE, they are in the same position. They were together years ago, but for a lot of fans, they are pretty much over and done. Right now Sheridan is a stalker and after Luis rather than the two of them fighting to be with each other. There is a large following that wants Luis with Fancy, including Galen's wife. It's the same reason Lucas and Sami aren't a supercouple. There's never been full support of their relationship. There have always been people who want Sami with someone else...Austin, Brandon, EJ, etc. A supercouple endures all. Bo and Hope, Kayla and Steve, nothing has kept them apart (when their respective portrayers have been on the show). The audience has never been truly swayed to accept the individuals in the pair to be with someone else. Against all odds, they go back to each other time and again. Most of the time Passions has been on, Ethan has been rejecting Theresa and she's been chasing him. Sheridan married another man and Luis moved on. That's not supercouple, that's super over. Ethan and Theresa may be a signature COUPLE, but there's no super involved by definition. Hope that helps.IrishLass (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple lists now in their own article

To add to what IrishLass has stated, for anyone who does not know, all the lists of supercouples that were making this article slower to open have been moved to List of supercouples. The criteria for soap opera supercouples being on the main soap opera supercouples list is also there as well. Flyer22 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Primetime section

While I'm sure the concept of a primetime supercouple is in use, none of the sources in this section actually used the term, and the examples were ridiculous - Buffy never had the ratings to maintain anything that could meaningfully be called a supercouple, and Mulder and Scully are far from the best-known or most important will-they-or-won't-they couple (Moonlighting anyone?). The section was absurdly biased towards SF/Fantasy television shows, and showed an utter lack of scrupulous research. Frankly, since none of the sources actually mentioned the word "supercouple," the whole thing was OR.

I am not opposed to a primetime section. But it needs to be based on sources that, you know, actually talk about primetime supercouples. And use the term. Not just a cobbled together account of some SF/Fantasy couples that the author happens to like and that some people have written about. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page and yours:

"Phil Sandifer, every couple mentioned in the Primetime supercouples section are supercouples. If you read the article and especially this source...[1]...which mentions Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, you'll see that the word Supercouple is not what mainly defines a supercouple. That entire book cites some of the most notable supercouples in primetime and film (not just soap operas). But as for the Primetime section, you are right that it needs to be improved, and I'll start by adding the reference to Mulder and Scully's name that cites them as a supercouple. Also, the term supercouple doesn't drop off in usefulness the further you get from soap operas, considering that it is used to describe super popular or extremely-wealthy celebrity pairings and has use in the comic book world, as well as the toy world. The words power couple and dynamic duos usually mean the same thing as the word supercouple, which that source I cited above also points out."

Furthermore, apart from what I stated on your talk page and mine, Buffy and Angel have been titled a supercouple often by the media and scholars...and by scholars, I don't mean in Buffy and Angel novels. It was not about how huge or not huge the ratings were for Buffy's show or for Angel's show, but rather about how this couple fascinated people. There are people who never watched those two shows or read this article who know about the love story of Buffy and Angel. It was not my personal liking for this couple. To be honest, I was never that hooked on them, and was more hooked on Buffy and Spike as a couple. Anyway, if you would like to improve and work on this article, especially the primetime section to get it away from being so science fiction-centered, I very much welcome you. I'm also looking to improve and expand the celebrity supercouple section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect academic sources as much as the next person, but one academic's mention of the word Supercouple before switching to her preferred term does not sufficiently justify the term's use in this fashion. This increasingly feels like a very tenuous section to me - use of the word "supercouple" seems to drop off sharply as you deal with primetime, and this section feels increasingly like OR in the form of novel synthesis - one source expands the definition of supercouple, another source proclaims a couple fascinating, therefore that couple is an example of a supercouple? That's a lot of synthesis there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply when providing outside sources. That's the point of providing outside sources, to avoid original research. Regardless, "nuking" an entire section, verses tagging it or requesting additional citations, is not the way to improve an article. Flyer22 - I can go back to the 70s and come up with notable and noteworthy prime time supercouples but those are generally nighttime soap couples. I'll help with the couples, but you need to do the wording. I do think a mention of Ricky and Lucy, if they aren't there, should definitely be added. They are the original prime time television supercouple. Pam and Bobby Ewing. Couples from Dynasty.

I also think you can find citations that note that when a prime time supercouple, couples that became a rooting couple because they weren't together, eventually couple up, such as on Moonlighting, the show inevitably jumps the shark. But that's a subject for another article. CelticGreen (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, and particularly the following passage:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

That is the relevant issue here - the section is sourced, but none of the sources actually make the claims the section is making - the section is making a lot of interpretive claims that are not evident in the original sources at all. And that's why it violates NOR as it stands. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then request more citations, don't just delete the section. There's enough tags available that complete deletion was not warranted. I still stand by my original belief, your deletion of an entire section does nothing to improve the article and was done based solely on your personal opinion. CelticGreen (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate assumption of good faith, but fine - please cite the section to better sources that actually establish the examples given as supercouples and establishes the signficant applicability of the term to primetime. If this is not done, the section will need to be removed as OR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer, you state that "the section is sourced, but none of the sources actually make the claims the section is making." But that's not true. That section is sourced to every claim it makes. Your problem with that section, besides being too science fiction-centered, is that you want a source that states the word Supercouple applied to each couple mentioned there. I will provide a few sources for that, but not for every couple mentioned there. That section could stay either way, such as if I removed the mention of supercouple in that section and instead left it as a section discussing how primetime puts together popular couples...maybe even with a mention of how the word Supercouple is not as prevalent in primetime as it is in other areas of media. In any case, I want to stress that the words supercouple, power couple...and dynamic duo mean the same thing. So if any source I provide states a couple as either of the alternative names to supercouple, it is perfectly valid. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the article have a source stating the equivalence of those terms? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I Googled supercouple + powercouple and got these results. Interestingly, this link says supercouple in the URL but power couple in the article. That's citation to me that it is the same. CelticGreen (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a blog titled "G-Spot" is necessarily the most reliable source we could find... Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The source was the Google search. But, where is your proof it's a blog? I see no evidence that it is such.CelticGreen (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search only notes that the terms are used together, not that they are equivalent. And the G-Spot page is clearly a blog, as it is run on WordPress, which is blogging software. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm DONE. We've been there done that with people like this and I don't play this game. Google searches are good enough to keep sucky articles but not for Phil. The point, as he is so obviously missing, was that the words are interchangable which is what HE asked for. At this point I'm not willing to play nice with people making problems simply for the sake of making problems where none exist. Good luck, Flyer. You've got your hands full on this one. FYI ~ TMZ started as a blog and look where it is today. It's a nationally syndicated show. CelticGreen (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Google searches are not considered reliable sources for information, and are dicey at best in deletion debates. And while TMZ is indeed prominent, the Weekly World News had a nationally syndicated show too. It doesn't make it any more reliable than any other gossip site. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See, Flyer?! That's why! Good luck! You will seriously need it. CelticGreen (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

/sigh. I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but I have serious concerns about the sourcing here, and the more I look at it, the more nervous I'm getting. For instance, the Google search you did just searches for pages that have the words "power couple" and "supercouple" in them, not for the phrase "power couple = supercouple," which gets no results. Variations on the phrase like "supercouple or powercouple" get you a few results, but they're all Wikipedia or quoting Wikipedia - I can't find much of anything that states that the terms are equivalent. And when I narrow the search for the two words together to actually using "power couple" as a phrase (as opposed to the two words distinctly) I get 229 unique results - slim pickings at best. The sourcing on this is looking worse and worse the more I look into it... Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The horse is dead, please stop beating it. It's dog food by this time. This article was nominated for deletion and survived. Enough people thought it was well sourced and it was kept. Try looking at the search again, it is =, not +. Regardless, the point that you are purposefully missing and causing problems just to cause problems over, is that maybe you should click a link or two. They have both supercouple and power couple interchangable. Beat the horse all you want, you're doing it just to prove a non-existant point and to be difficult for the purpose of being difficult. And stop baiting me to reply by purposefully questioning what you perceive, not what is really said. FLYER ~ this so reminds me of the other discussion that caused me to stop editing you know which article. I am not going there again. Flyer, you have done an excellent job with this article regardless of people like Phil's opinion. CelticGreen (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

= is not a boolean operator - it didn't affect the search at all. Try running the search without it - you get the exact same number of hits. Furthermore, since your search didn't have "power couple" in quotes it ended up as a search for pages with the three words supercouple, power, and couple - not even searching power couple as a single phrase. Finally, the things you are turning up are not reliable sources - forums, ads for Halloween costumes, and blogs. Those aren't reliable sources for most purpose - they never have been. They can be used, in special cases, as primary sources, but WP:RS is pretty clear about their limited usefulness. And please - I'm not suggesting the article be deleted. Supercouple is a notable term. But its applicability to prime time television looks tenuous, and the evidence you've marshalled is only making it look moreso. Please assume good faith here - I promise, I do not want the article deleted. But I want good, reliable sources that actually establish the claims being made. And right now, in the primetime section, it doesn't have that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Shakes head, laughs, and walks away. Flyer ~ I've said it before and I'll note that I say it to the 100th power ~ Goood freakin luck!!! CelticGreen (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what I'm doing that so offends you... questioning the reliability of sources is an important part of writing articles, and I think I'm raising some important objections. They're certainly no different than the objections I'd raise if one of my students tried advancing the argument you're advancing. But this is not done in bad faith - I'm genuinely concerned about the sourcing, and I'm raising objections that are completely consistent with standard practice on Wikipedia. What, exactly, would you prefer I do? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

CelticGreen, don't walk away from this article. And, Phil Sandifer, yes, there are sources that state or display that a power couple and a dynamic duo are the same thing as a supercouple. The first source in this article does, and then there's these sources...[2][3]. There are more sources as well, but I don't need to list any more than that. And, really, I'd think you'd know that the terms are used in substitution of each other, sort of how there is more than one word for a con artist. As for this article, I added the first source of this article to the primetime section, which points out that supercouples exist in primetime, added a valid source citing Buffy and Angel as a supercouple, and added the first source of this article to Mulder and Scully's mention, which cites them as a supercouple...as well as a few other tweaks. That section still needs improvement though, of course, and I am very much looking to get it away from being so science-fiction centered. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyer, not walking away from the article, just this argument. It's one of those no win situations I prefer to just avoid. I'll still help with the article, but I'll avoid this banter. CelticGreen (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OR and bad sources

This source {{cite web |title=The "Popular" Supercouple|publisher=ghthesoap.com|accessdate=2007-06-13|url=http://www.ghthesoap.com/couples.html}} is not an acceptable source to assert opinions, let alone to assert facts, and it is used five times in this article. In addition, the article suffers from too much editorializing. Tags added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what makes that a bad source? I've talked to several editors about this article and none had a problem with that source. And this article is well-sourced. I removed some OR and your OR tag. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may have edited this and other related articles and that is great. Please do not take this personally, but the source you used is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable? According to you. Several other experienced editors had NO problem with it. And that tag does not belong, because this article is well-sourced. I do not feel that I own any article on Wikipedia. You understand, you say? I understand that you want the TomKat article deleted, and since I object to that, you head over here and probably all other supercouple articles and start stating this and that about OR. OR that does not exist. Me not take it personally? How about you don't take it personally when someone disagrees with you about an article such as TomKat. I will remove that OR tag from this article again soon. But if you want consensus on whether it should be removed or not, fine, we can just wait for other editors who work on this article to agree...it should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not want that article deleted. I am proposing that the material be merged with the main article. As for this article, my concern remains: www.ghthesoap.com/ is a self published source, and should not be used in an article to make assertions of fact. This material, which is in the lead...

In American soap opera, often a supercouple will become a de facto symbol for the show itself, granting them the title of either elite, popular, or true supercouple. While a second type of soap opera supercouple exists, encompassing the same factor of fighting through turmoil for years and finding their way back to each other in the end as an elite supercouple would, they do not have a significant pull on television ratings, therefore this type of couple is referred to as a regular supercouple

— http://www.ghthesoap.com/couples.html

... is simply poorly sourced, as it is the opinion of a self-published website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not poorly sourced in my eyes. As for TomKat, wanting that article merged is deletion as I see it. And again, you are the ONLY editor who has a problem with the www.ghthesoap.com source in this article. Several editors have looked over this article, checked its sources and found nothing wrong with the www.ghthesoap.com source. I don't feel that it should be removed all of a sudden now, because one editor objects to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain how www.ghthesoap.com meets Wikipedia's threshold for use as a source? Please re-read WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In checking that website, I can see that it furthers certain opinions on the subject, and maybe, just maybe, the material can be included to present these opinions, if these opinions are notable and/or significant. And if we do so, we cannot write content in a manner that asserts these opinions as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say I have issue with your removal rather than request for citations and verifiable sources. Seems a little "cart before the horse" not giving someone a chance to resource previously sourced materials that you feel are not sourced properly. KellyAna (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have applied WP:BRD. Feel free to revert and find sources (please keep the dispute tags if you chose to do so). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(BTW I do not see how it would be possible to find a reliable source that asserts that: While a second type of soap opera supercouple exists, encompassing the same factor of fighting through turmoil for years and finding their way back to each other in the end as an elite supercouple would, they do not have a significant pull on television ratings. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All that is stated there is true. That source that you feel is poor has not been dismissed by anyone...until, well, you. I am aware of the policies that you have pointed me to. You state that "maybe, just maybe, the material can be included to present these opinions, if these opinions are notable and/or significant. And if we do so, we cannot write content in a manner that asserts these opinions as a fact."

So I ask then what would you suggest? Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we take a critical look at that source. (a) Is the opinion presented on that website, significant (an opinion cannot be true or false, as it is just an opinion.; (b) if these are verifiable facts, are there other sources that assert them as well?; (c) if not, can we assess that website to be a significant opinion? These are the questions that beg an answer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that given the popularity of many of these shows, there must be many more sources available, perhaps not of an electronic form. Certainly in the UK we have magazines devoted to soaps, is the same true of the US versions (which the article is mainly about)? BLACKKITE 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite, we have several magazines devoted to soap operas. Soap Opera Digest, which you may know about, is one of them. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22: I still believe this source is not acceptable, unless I can be presented with arguments to the contrary. I would appreciate it if you can respond to the questions I posed above:

1. Is the opinion presented on that website, significant (an opinion cannot be true or false, as it is just an opinion.;
2. If these are verifiable facts, are there other sources that assert them as well?;
3. if not, can we assess that website to be a significant opinion?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, ≈ jossi ≈, which is why I'm looking to add different sources to replace that one. But to answer your questions about that source, yes, that opinion is significant. That source is significant, because, yes, these are verifiable facts, and there are other sources that assert them as well. However, I'm not sure if I can find any online sources that assert most of what that source asserts in the same way. I know for a fact that that stuff has been asserted by several soap opera magazines, but I don't have access to any of those articles. I'll work on it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ghthesoap.com Pairadox (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Effort should be made to remove references to this in the article before it gets placed on the blacklist and it becomes impossible to save with them present. I'd do it, but there's obviously some concerned parties who would prefer to "maintain" this themselves. Pairadox (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of that debated source. It's gone from this article now. I've put in a new reference for the Becoming a supercouple section in the soap opera part of this article. Though it's supposed to be a humorous book, it also cites the truth about soap opera. I will now archive this discussion with a lot of other past discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergence of gay and lesbian couples

What does that section has to do with the subject of this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again.KellyAna (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain? Was this already discussed? I have the same question about the section Supercouples#Supercouples in other media. The material there seems not to have anyting to do with "supercouples". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈, this section has everything to do with this article. I cannot believe that anyone would even ask that. Well, I can, but this was addressed above. This article is discussing supercouples. Supercouples are hardly ever gay in soap opera. This article addresses that and gives a comprehensive reason as to why, and the emergence of gay popular couples in soap opera today. That's the jist of it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad nauseum! See above discussions. KellyAna (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it now... and still believe that the section is interesting in an article about couples in TV and other media, but what does it do in an article about the Supercouples? Unless these gay and lesbian couples have been described in reliable sources as being "supercouples", its addition here is a violation of WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22: Maybe that material belongs in an article about Gay popular couples in soap opera, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it belongs here. And, yes, those couples have been cited as supercouples. The mentions of the gay characters and the detail there is comprehensive insight to why and how it came about, which belongs in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where? I cannot see references to "supercouple" in the sources available in that section. And the text there is unrelated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

<<< In 2003, Bianca's relationship with Lena resulted in daytime's first lesbian kiss.[25] The two became daytime's first lesbian couple, and received much press. Though Bianca and Lena's romance was very well-received, popular, and the couple made history on more than one occasion, it was Bianca's relationship with close confidante Maggie that thoroughly captured the hearts of viewers. What is that? And how it relates to the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for this: A prominent obstacle for gay and lesbian characters on daytime television is interference from television network executives who fear a decline in their ratings. ????? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It relates to the subject because it started with Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery's relationship. That was the beginning of the popularity of gay couples in soap opera. I will soon make an article about that couple, by the way. The references that refer to Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone and Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer as supercouples are in their articles. I will put a source that cites Bianca and Maggie as a supercouple in this article if you like. But Luke and Noah are cited as one in this article already.

Oh, and, ≈ jossi ≈, I've been looking for more opinions and help on this article, so I actually do appreciate your thoughts. If you can help us improve this article, it would be great. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was simply puzzled to see the material there, which is not bad, BTW. Maybe it would be better in an article that discusses gay couples in TV and other media rather than in an article about "supercouples"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think, for most soap opera viewers, not sure if you're one, they wouldn't be puzzled to see the material there. The reason that I feel it's very relevant to this article in particular is because it is so very rare that we see gay couples, especially gay supercouples on soap opera. This article documents that, and how its fairly recent. There is more controversy, it seems, going on with the Luke and Noah romance than there was for the Lena and Bianca or Bianca and Maggie romance, which is interesting. It appears that some people have more of a problem seeing two men together romantically than seeing two women together romantically, which could be a good addition to this section as well, with valid citations, of course. Some viewers have protested against Luke and Noah's romance, saying how they don't want to see a homosexual love story on their soap operas. The section on gay and lesbian couples is about how it would have been impossible to have a gay supercouple even 8 years ago, and how it's still not a usual occurrence in the present, and how once a gay supercouple did emerge, it was seen as groundbreaking. No other type of couple has had this much difficulty getting seen on soap opera. And given its rarity and how it only now has emerged, I feel that this section is relevant to this article. Would you rather that section be titled "The emergence of gay and lesbian supercouples"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that you could possibly have a well-written and sourced article Homosexuality in soap operas or similar, though whether that duplicates another article that I can't find is another question. BLACKKITE 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Black Kite, I'm used to seeing you under your former name. As for this section, I still say that it fits better here. A section discussing gay supercouples in the Supercouple article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm not saying the section should be removed, just that some of the material that isn't about actual supercouples, but other LGBT characters in soaps, might be better used elsewhere - it could make a really good article, actually. BLACKKITE 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Let me get to improving this article first and see what I and others who often work on this article with me decide on that matter. Perhaps, I'm being a bit lazy in not wanting to create an article about Homosexuality in soap operas. But then again, there is an article already about homosexuality in the media. And I feel that if I create an article about homosexuality in soap operas, there will be suggestions that I merge it there. So I also don't want to create an article that will most likely just end up being merged. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that - though I think a well-written and sourced article (and there certainly shouldn't be any problems with sources on that one!) would stand alone, I think. If you do try it and need any help with the UK stuff, drop me a line. BLACKKITE 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)