Talk:Supercouple/Archive 2

Soaps from other countries

One thing I do notice is that the article does mainly concentrate on US soaps. That's not a criticism, but I do find it rather surprising - perhaps the phrase "supercouple" isn't used so much outside the USA. I noticed from above that for instance "In late 2007, the two made television history by carrying out the first kiss between two male lovers on a soap opera.", whereas that was actually 20 years earlier, between Colin Russell and Barry Clark in Eastenders. (Mind you, I doubt if anyone would refer to Colin and Barry as a supercouple...) BLACKKITE 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting this article to get away from being so US-centered for a long time now, but I need help with that. I know two editors from Wikipedia Project EastEnders, but they are often busy fixing up the articles about, yep, EastEnders. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I guessed; though having said that you can probably source a lot of the material from the articles on other soaps. Though (and I'm no soap expert) UK soaps don't seem to focus on couples as much as US ones appear to do - or perhaps it's because a lot of UK soap couples don't tend to last very long! BLACKKITE 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The US soap opera couples don't last that long either. But then again, some of them do often get back together. And the supercouples, of course, always get back together...unless one of them dies. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming back to this section to state, for anyone who reads this section, that I had some time ago made it clear in this article that Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer shared the first American kiss between two male lovers on a soap opera, not the first kiss between two male lovers on a soap opera ever. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes, changes meanings

hmwith made changes that changed a good portion of the article which I reverted. Changes that widespread with that great of an impact to change the context of the article should be discussed, not taken into one person's hands. The term "supercouple" originated on soaps and then grew. Additionally, adding the term "Fictional" by soap supercouple is incorrect. Bill and Susan Seaforth Hayes are a real life couple who are both a soap couple and one in real life stemming from their pairing on Days of our Lives. The mass changes by hmwith impacted much. Please discuss. IrishLass (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is adding a few equal signs a "radical change"? How does this "change the article's meaning"? I'm grouping relevant information together. Why shouldn't supercouples composed of fictional characters and supercouples composed of actual people be grouped in two different sections? No information was removed, just sorted in a way that makes more sense to a reader. Please elaborate. Thanks, нмŵוτн τ 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the passages you will find that not all soap supercouples are fictional as in the case of Bill and Susan Hayes. Additionally, the article was grouped in a flowing, understandable way. Flyer has put countless hours into this article and in one fell swoop you changed so much it boggled the mind. "Made more sense" would be opinion. I heartedly disagree that your changes made more sense and, again, some were outright incorrect regarding fictional verses real. I also strongly disagree that your addition of equal signs made things easier to read. In reality it made it harder on my screen. You have to take into consideration browsers when adding sub-sub headings. Yours caused a total disruption in physical appearance. IrishLass (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely say an encyclopedia's organization trumps aesthetics, but that's just an opinion. No reason one can't have both, actually... which is what I prefer. You did not have to to all-out revert of my entire edit. There were other changes in it that have nothing to do with what you've mentioned. Maybe the actual actors existed, but their characters were fictional. How about "television" over "primetime" and "soap opera" if "fictional" doesn't work for you? Let's find a reasonable compromise. Plus, will I be reverted if I re-add the tiny tidbits of information from my edit that didn't involved headings and reorganization? I wouldn't want to engage in an edit war. нмŵוτн τ 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because Flyer worked hours on this article doesn't mean that minor improvements can't be made. He did a wonderful job, but articles are constantly changing and improving. That's the wonder of Wikipedia! нмŵוτн τ 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't make "minor improvements" you made major disimprovements. If you can't read an article it's not very valuable as an encyclopedia. Even encyclopedias have pages, page breaks, and paragraph breaks, you made the article one big run on paragraph. And, personally, I find the inference of ownership disguised as a comment highly offensive. IrishLass (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this Maybe the actual actors existed, but their characters were fictional. NO, read the paragraph. Bill and Susan played the fictional characters but went on to become a real life supercouple in their own right because they played the rolls of Doug and Julie. Bill and Susan are not fictional people and their 30 year marriage isn't fictional either. IrishLass (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I didn't change any paragraphs or what was in any headings. I only changed the size of the headings. But enough uncivil conversing. Let's talk about productive changes! Perhaps this article should be split? Soap opera supercouple could (and maybe should) have its own article. It's definitely notable in its own right, above and beyond everything else in the article. Then, maybe celebrity supercouple would also be its own article. Opinions? нмŵוτн τ 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is (EC)? IrishLass (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) No, you misunderstood what I meant, or maybe I misspoke. I meant that "Seth Cohen" and "Summer Roberts" (as a random character example), were fictional. I know that Adam Brody and Rachel Bilson are alive, and they dated, as well. нмŵוτн τ 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Edit conflict. нмŵוτн τ 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is (EC)? Some inside comment? IrishLass (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an edit conflict. See the last line right before your question. нмŵוτн τ 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I still don't like the uncivil comment as I certainly have not been uncivil. IrishLass (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were! Please WP:AGF, my friend. Maybe I was talking about myself or where the conversation was heading in general. I was trying to move away from that, not engage in it. Anyways, my point was, let's stop bickering and get on to improving the article! Back to what I said earlier. "Perhaps this article should be split? Soap opera supercouple could (and maybe should) have its own article. It's definitely notable in its own right, above and beyond everything else in the article. Then, maybe celebrity supercouple would also be its own article. Opinions?" нмŵוτн τ 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: I didn't change any paragraphs or what was in any headings. I only changed the size of the headings. But enough uncivil conversing. But, moving on. As you can see at the top of the page, the article teetered on being deleted, separating it would surely put it up for deletion of both halves. The strength of the article is in the combination, as you can see from the AfD arguments. IrishLass (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what I said. I said it after I said less than completely civil comments. I'm sorry you misunderstood my comments, but please stop hounding me about this misunderstanding. Talk pages are to talk about the articles. Thanks for your cooperation, нмŵוτн τ 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hounding, I said moving on. How is that hounding? IrishLass (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against splitting up this article. I mean, this article should be about the word Supercouple and its meaning and history. If we split up this artcle, then what would we have to link to for the definition of a supercouple? An article can be created on celebrity supercouples while this article still exists. But this article shouldn't be split itself, no more than the articles on Superhero and Supermodel should. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a difference. Supermodel is fully about real supermodels. Superhero is completely about fictional superheroes. Supercouple, on the other hand, involves real and fictional supercouples. I'll rephrase what I said. My proposal was that this article remain, of course, but that we use "summary style", and elaborate more in sub-articles. Supercouple will be about supercouples in general, giving equal weight to the different types, and the separate articles will go into more detail. Check out any larger article (such as South Park) to see this style being used (where it says "Main article: X", that where it would specifically link to the articles. нмŵוτн τ 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of this type of editing. I don't feel that it's needed for this article, however. What I meant by bringing up the article Superhero, for instance, is that there are different types of superheroes, but every type fits in that article just fine...and does not need a separate article. I don't see how any type of supercouple in this article needs its own article. People know what's fictional in this article and what's real. I took a look at the changes you made, and I object to your changes to the headings. As I just stated, people know that the soap opera and primetime couples are fictional. I mean, there's a celebrity section, which showcases real-life couples. The first big three types of supercouples are addressed first, which are soap opera, primetime (I'm excluding the mention of film, obviously)...and celebrity. Then, we have whatever else in the other media section. A few of your changes to this article (not the heading changes, I point out again) I wouldn't mind. I'd rather focus more on improving this article than splitting it up. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way it is arranged gives undue weight to fictional supercouples. I had never even heard of television supercouples (primetime or soap opera) or other fictional supercouples until this article. I've only heard the term used to describe a real, celebrity couple. Apparently, the term was coined about soap opera couples, but it's mostly used concerning celebrities in the present. Maybe an expansion of the celebrity section would help a bit. нмŵוτн τ 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple, the original term, was coined by soap operas and used long before any real life couple used it. It was actually coined originally by Soap Opera Digest for Luke and Laura over 25 years ago (I believe). So undo weight would be untrue as it's at the heart of the origin of the word. It's only been the last couple of years that real life celeb blogs and mags caught on to the portmanteau thought, Bennifer being the most notable. LUMI, Jarlena, Payla, Bope were all around 15-20 years ago long before the celebs were coined. As a soap watcher for over 40 years, I laughed when celeb rags and shows like Entertainment Tonight started using it. Really, it is rooted in Soaps, not reality. IrishLass (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out below on what I have to say about couple names. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree. I know that it originated in the soap opera culture, but it's actually used more frequently anymore concerning popular (real) couples, the same way supermodel began being used for popular models. Maybe that could be considered. нмŵוτн τ 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I think if you are focused on celebs, you hear it, but if you are focused on media in general you hear it just as much as both. I hear it more in relation to soaps and for a handful of soaps. I've never heard Mary Hart say "supercouple" when watching ET but I have read it nearly every week in SOD and on multiple soap websites that rank "supercouples" each week. Canadian TV Guide being a predominate one. Flyer would know references best. Maybe she can address which type of couple it's easiest to find the term referenced, real or soaps. IrishLass (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it on ET type shows more than once. One of those shows is where I first heard it, actually. The only place I would see them talk about TV supercouples would be TV Guide or Soap Opera Digest. I've even heard major (non-celebrity based) TV news outlets call celebrity couples "supercouples", but I've never once heard them even talk about soap operas. нмŵוτн τ 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check out the link I put on Flyer's page. That's Entertainment Weekly that put that out and it's all about Soap Opera Supercouples, not one real couple in the bunch. IrishLass (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how they specify "Soap Supercouples". If you search "super-couple" on ET's website (they had nothing for "supercouple"), notice the results... It's all celebrities. нмŵוτн τ 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BREAK for page formatting.

I'd say neither did yours when one of the top 5 results are: ... Tobey's Super Spidey Sequel. Copyright ... laugh. "She does have, like, a couple socks and a T-shirt that makes reference, but that's about it.". ... You searched the wrong site too (Entertainment WEEKLY, not Entertainment Tonight) and you put a + in there. Now, I would love to continue this but it's time for me to go home to my house in the country that has no cable internet but I get to see stars every night, the real real kind. I will be happy to discuss this further if no resolution has occurred. BTW, Flyer, I emailed Radiant about this but haven't heard back. She's super swamped at work but she might come around and weigh in. Good evening, all! I'll see you tomorrow. IrishLass (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And something that actually helps from that site you searched, if you use "supercouple" one word, it finds no hits which proves my point that it isn't used by ET and celebs. Smiles. And I really need to get on the highway. IrishLass (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, ET just uses "super-couple" instead of "supercouple". All of the results that have "super-couple" in it (although not many) talk about celebrities. Also, please note that this is not a "battle". There's no "winner" or "loser", & there is no reason to treat it like one. I'm just trying to make the article better. But it appears there may be issues keeping changes taking place on this article, including POV, ownership, and incivility. I don't care personally about any of these issues (I was just trying to keep it up-to-date), but it seems that you truly do. I'm not interested in edit warring or bickering, so I'm going to take this talk page off of my watchlist. If any editors wish to civilly discuss future changes for this page, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, нмŵוτн τ 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel I've acted uncivilly. I don't believe I have nor have I treated it as a battle. I've actually tried to keep things professional yet light. Sorry if you were offended by the style but it certainly wasn't meant to be uncivil. I was pointing out facts including that you searched a different site than what I referenced and that your search turned up a result for socks, not a supercouple. That isn't wrong from my understanding as I've had it done to me before when my searches were flawed. I don't know about POV in the article, I believe it to be factual and with the fact that the term supercouple originated and is still associated with soaps, it should be first. As I said, Flyer knows more about the reference portion because she makes sure the list has good references. She would know the "findability" of the word in relation to which genre. Again, I meant no disrespect and, again, if you felt I was uncivil, I do apologize as that was not my intent or belief that I had behaved that way. IrishLass (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I un-archived this because I'd like to see what a couple others have to say. Pairadox is one and RadiantButterfly is another. I don't know that three opinions is enough and Pairadox always has an interesting take on this article. If that's not okay, feel free to lock it again. I'll stay out because of my history with hmwith but I'm curious what others think, if that's okay.KellyAna (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, first I want to address couple names. No, couple names, portmanteaus for couples, did not exist 15 or 20 years ago. I want to point out that IrishLass is a little off about that, but on-point about other matters. If we're talking couple names, that didn't start until somewhere around the late 1990s on the internet, as this article implies that it started on the internet. For celebrity couples, it started with Bennifer. Second, нмŵוτн τ, of course expanding the celebrity supercouple section is a good idea. If you can help with that, please do. Expanding that section was and is something that's on my "to do" list. Third, yes, let's work together, everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just using the portmanteaus in my examples of couples who have been supercouples and called supercouples for many years. The portmanteaus were just me being lazy. However, I know LUMIs claim they've used that for 15 years. Not sure, just know they claim it. And Phloe was around in 99, just feels like forever ago. IrishLass (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you were going for. I just wanted to clear that topic up. And the LUMI fans are off on that claim, I say. Couple naming didn't seem to start until the late 1990s. If it started in the early 1990s, then it was a significantly smaller portion of the world couple-naming. It certainly wasn't prominent for fans with shows like Saved by the Bell, for instance. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I know many that claim they were the originators of portmanteaus. I don't know how accurate that claim is. I do know LUMI was one of the first I remember hearing and then Broe/Phloe which is Brady Black and Chloe Lane and Philip Kiriakis and Chloe; and I know that IrishLass up there coined EJami. Someone else claims that she did (not a Wikipedia editor), but IL was the one who really did. I looked up LUMI and only found that their site started in 2004 so who knows how long it's been around. That might be an interesting aspect of the article if we could find out when the portmanteau phenomenon took off so full force. It seems every couple, even the brand new ones (Chick for Nick Fallon and Chelsea Brady a couple less than a year old) all have their portmanteaus. I know on NBC as soon as a couple shows signs of getting together, there's a rush to find one. I don't believe NBC (which is my experience) is the only network whose fans do that. I think it would be a new angle. I would try and research it. The portmanteau article certainly doesn't cover couples that well. What do you think? KellyAna (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering for some time to try and find exactly when it started, but that would be difficult. What I know for a fact is that it had to have started in the mid to late 1990s. But I definitely feel more towards the late 1990s, for various reasons that I may elaborate on later. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial supercouples

I love what you've done with the gay and lesbian supercouples but can we have a topic on interracial supercouples. thanks193.220.91.5 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I mean, although they aren't as taboo anymore, that shouldn't stop a good section about that if it can be made. However, I can't think of too many interracial soap opera supercouples, except for Julia Santos and Noah Keefer and Mateo Santos and Hayley Vaughan (although, those are American couples). But then again, there are only two American gay supercouples (one for each sex) and I still made a section about that. I could definitely make a section on the emergence of interracial couples, in both the soap opera and prime time section, though I would probably change the titles up a little bit, as not to be too redundant. But it's the topic of interracial supercouples that would be difficult to tackle. While there have been many interracial couples on soap opera and in prime time, there have not been many interracial supercouples. I'm not even sure that I can find a vaild source that cites Mateo and Hayley as a supercouple (at least not an online source). Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?!

What is up with you, Paul? Do you read the sources before putting fact tags on things? You tagged so many things that already have sources, and you tagged silly things! Tagging an obvious fact about couple names being combined and what they form? What the heck? Do we have to tag that water actually exists as well? Everything you tagged in the Soap opera: Becoming a supercouple section, for instance, already has a source. Just because it's not after every line means nothing. Tagging that homosexual love stories are rare on soap operas? What the heck? Not only is that a no-brainer, but it's in two sources in that section, including Bianca's impact. Adding a citation for that picture of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby (Shiloh) being the most expensive baby picture? It's in the reference! I've reverted all of your edits to this article, and will soon take care of what really needs to be cited. Just because I leave for a bit doesn't mean that silliness should be rampant. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to remove pieces from this article that were clearly opinon based and not fact such as there are viewers who will love such a situation under any circumstance. Unsurprisingly, it was reverted immediately and I was told that instead of deleting something, I should request a citation. I did this for the entire article, and unsurprisingly this was dismissed as "silliness" as well. Although I may have mistakenly requested citations where they were not needed, most of them I think were justified. This is not a college essay or magazine article - it is an encyclopedia entry and is concerned with FACTS ONLY. If homosexual love stories are rare on soap operas, then prove it. If couple's names are combined, then you need to show that is an actual fact, not just conjecture. Also, the majority of references from the section that deals with computer games are from a discussion forum - hardly a reliable source, and as the forum home page is the only address given it is impossible to check facts. Paul75 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer is right, reliable sources are being tagged without reason. Your "fact" request is above and beyond bordering on malicious. You're being completely unreasonable. KellyAna (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Paul on this. Two of the statement tagged "citation needed" are clearly opinions. ...and with time they arguably would have become beloved supercouples Who's arguing that? Although, there are viewers who will love such a situation under any circumstance. Says who? Those are opinions. And the RPG editorial link is dubious and doesn't quite pass the smell test when it comes to reliable sources. Ani Mate 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that Paul was really overzealous with the "citation needed" template in his first tagging of the article, however. Ani Mate 04:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note, then I'm going up the coast for a brief respite. I absolutely stand by my re-tagging of the article. The two sentences tagged with "citation needed" do need citations and the RPG source leads to an editorial by a gamers forum. I think we can do better. Ani Mate 15:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, no, most of your fact tags to this article were not justified.

I'll list most of the instances where you were wrong:

Starting with:

In the popularity of message boards, fans have used portmanteux for their favorite couples, a significant aspect of the shipping fandom.

What? You fact tagged that? Fact tags are only for things that actually require fact tags. Tagging the fact that fans combine the names of couples is like tagging the fact that water exists. Not only that, but there are referenced instances in this article, like "TomKat" and "Brangelina" that clearly show that couple names are combined. It doesn't mean that every couple's names is combined.

The chemistry that the two actors exhibited became evident off-screen; the real-life couple, Bill Hayes and Susan Seaforth, were married in 1974. This set off a commotion among fans, thousands, who wrote endless letters to the show asking that the couple also be allowed to marry in the story, since the actors were married already.

All of that has references. But I'll make it more clear in this artcle.

The phenomenon even spread to foreign shores around this time.

Again, what? How can you fact tag that "The phenomenon even spread to foreign shores around this time" when there are clear referenced foreign supercouples that clearly show that it did?

Shows have attempted to revive the success of the supercouples through modern couples, but only a few have resonated with fans.

This is evident in a reference in this article...as it wonders whether soap opera supercouples are more of a 1980's thing.

In other instances, a character is part of two equally popular couplings, but the storyline does not lend itself to the scenario being referred to as a love triangle.

Are you really saying that ths needs to be proved? Everyone knows that a character can be in two equally popular couples and it need not be a love triangle.

In today's medium, there are couples which come close to gaining supercouple status in terms of popularity.

This obviously does not need a citation either.

Soap operas are traditionally heterosexual when featuring tales of romance and true love.

Uh. You say to prove this? When it's all referenced throughout that section that soap operas, especially American soap operas, are mainly dominated by heterosexual love stories? And I mean, if homosexual characters are rare on American soap operas, then of course homosexual romances are.

Bianca's unveiling as a lesbian marked uncharted territory for daytime television.

The fact for that is in this article.

The show's insistence, however, did not deter viewers from desperately wanting the two romantically paired; the audience often wrote in to the network (ABC) pleading and demanding that Bianca and Maggie become an official item. Eventually, little hints that Maggie might not be so heterosexual after all started to appear throughout the series, complicated by Maggie (now instead of the show's executives) insisting that she was not gay but rather very much "into guys" and only guys. The audience saw this as a clear case of a woman in denial of her sexual orientation.

The stuff about fans pleading for Bianca and Maggie to be an offcial romantic pair is in this article. All the other stuff about Bianca and Maggie can be found in their individual articles and their couple article, but I'll add some of those citations to this article, sure.

Voted Number 2 on IGN's list of top ten favorite television couples, the tear-jerker of a romance was described in all of its early gloomy angst:

Yes, Buffy and Angel's love story was voted Number 2 by IGN. It has a reference in this article close to where you tagged it -- one you also didn't check for.

Bennifer's decline in popularity did not stop the public's interest in wanting to see super celebrity pairings.

No fact tag is needed for that. That is fact, displayed in the celebrity supercouple section. People were and are still very much interested in super celebrity pairings after Bennifer.

Until 2006, where the celebrity phenomenon dubbed "Brangelina" triggered media obsession surrounding screen stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie .

That fact is in this article.

Pitt's involvement with Jolie during the shooting of their 2005 film Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Fact is in this article.

The first baby pictures for Shiloh set a world record.

And then there's that fact that I already mentioned above.

And then there's the video game section.

The goal is to make the gamer actually become emotionally invested in the characters and their actions, ultimately resulting in heightened gaming experience.

Fact is in this article.

I'm sorry that you felt that Paul was in the right on those edits of his, AniMate, but he was mostly wrong. Paul, you speak of "Surprisingly"...but I really shouldn't be surprised about what you did. Yes, I called it silly, because it was completely reckless. As for your and AniMate's concerns regarding the AllRPG source. I wouldn't call that source a forum. When I think of forum, I think of message boards and opinions from those posters, which is not what that source is. Also, AllRPG.com is used as a valid source for a lot of video game articles on Wikipedia. Go ahead and look around.

No, we can't do better than that....until an even better source talks about video game supercouples.

I'll go ahead and take care of the statements that seem like opinion i[n this article, remove a few unsourced couples in the soap opera section, and add the additional needed sources, Paul. But next time, really look at what you're tagging. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link where you and I can apply to be writers for AllRPG. I'm fairly certain with my background I could get a job with these guys. That's not a good or reliable source. Ani Mate 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, AllRPG.com is cited 6 times in articles. All of those citations are game reviews, and the other 2 are contributors questioning whether or not that it qualifies as a reliable source. Reviewing the basics of games is different than commentary about supercouples. Ani Mate 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, we should ask editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games about this. I mean, as I just stated, that source is used for many video game articles on Wikipedia. Right now, I really have to go. I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it. It's used in six articles total. Six is a few, not many. And they're all reviews of games and not commentary about supercouples or even commentary about the direction of the gaming industry. Here's a link where you can see how AllRPG.com is used on Wikipedia. And seriously, I know for a fact that with my background in animation and character design I could get a "staff job" there and I could write an article stating that no supercouples ever existed in video games. Would that be a viable citation? Nope, because that is not a reliable source. Ani Mate 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on that section, AniMate, when I get a good chance to, by adding additional references to it that back up that commentator's commnents. He isn't so much as talking about supercouples as he is about what goes on in these video games in which involve romance and the hero. It's just that video game creators often think of these couples as supercouples (the main couple) of those games. I know for a fact that what that commentator is stating in his article is truthful, thus there should be references to back up what he's saying (although there isn't always), though I probably still won't find a valid reference that says the word supercouple for any of those video game couples he mentions. But I most certianly can find references that back up what he describes happens in those games to those couples and how they are projected as the main couples. Oh, and I didn't realizie AllRPG.com was only used in six articles on Wkipedia. Some time ago, it seemed like more. Probably was more then, but still not that much more. It seems you feel that reviews for games from that source, which is still commentary, is okay, but commentary about supercouples from that source isn't. Thus, as I just stated, I will take care of all of this when I get a good chance to.

Also, if you were to write an article for that source or any valid source stating that supercouples never existed in video games. It wouldn't make your statement any more true, just in the way that a writer for a soap opera who writers an article stating that supercouples aren't needed on soap operas wouldn't make that the "end-all/be all" statement. I would quote you, pointing out that those are editor AniMate's feelings...and then counter that with an opposing thought from an equally valid source. A guy who says that supercouples never existed in soap opera would really be like opinion, considering that supercouples aren't as prominent in video games as they are in the soap opera and celebrity worlds. You know, people would look at you like you are crazy if you said that soap opera supercouples never existed. Not so much with the crazy looks if you said the same about video game supercouples. That said, what that commentator is pointing out in the video game section of this supercouple article are facts more so than naming supercouples. But, yeah, I'll get on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, you said something very, very illuminating above.

that commentator is stating in his article is truthful, thus there should be references to back up what he's saying (although there isn't always)

To me, that just about sums up many of your editing choices and defense of clearly third rate sources. You know its true, so you'll defend any reference that backs up what you say... even if it isn't a great source. If it is true, with some digging you could find a reliable source. Instead, you're insisting that two sources from amateur writers are reliable. Sorry, but no. Since you're determined to keep both in and determined not to see them tagged... I guess I'll go the RS noticeboard. Please comment there, but try to keep it brief. You can be quite verbose (not a bad thing), but most editors at noticeboards tend to ignore long drawn out statements, especially when it comes to a non-controversial/pop-culture article. Ani Mate 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RSN#Supercouple

I've added a section to the reliable sources noticeboard. I really don't think the allrpg.com source is reliable in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, I still have problems with the over use of the source from Mt. Holyoke. It's bad enough that it's being used, but direct quotes are lifted from it. If we're going to quote someone directly, they need to be authoritative.

The supercouple has been described as "perhaps the most famous entity in entertainment."

This is true, but even if this source is deemed reliable, I doubt anyone would say that the author is enough of an authority to have her quoted multiple times. If you really think she is, then you should have her name somewhere in the article as so many direct quotes make her sound like an authority. Ani Mate 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies 1

AniMate, I don't accept sources from just anywhere. When it comes to non-controversial statements, as you've even called them, then, no, I don't see the problem with so-called third-rate sources. If I were using blogs from these two writers and these were highly contested statements, then I'd feel you have a point, but I don't. Also, you keep saying there should be better sources out there. I point out that just because there should be doesn't mean that there are. You say I seem determined to keep any "third-rate" source on this dubject. Well, I say you seem equally determined to get rid of/scrutinize any source about supercouples, as if you are expecting every source to come from New York Times. Truth is...not many sources such as that have written on the topic of Supercouple. Thus, yes, I'm going to keep a valid "third-rate" source commenting on something non-controversial. Mentioning the writers' names of these "third-rate" sources is something I've already thought of and is a great alternative.

I'm not sure why you listed those sources at the Noticeboard, when you know I often now don't have computer access and can't reply -- at least not in a way where I don't have to start a new section -- but don't be surprised if I don't respond there.

And try to stop lecturing me on my replies. They aren't often long. And when they are, it's when I clearly have a lot to respond to, especially when I'm in a debate, which is how it should be. I like comprehensive replies about articles on Wikipedia, and that's what I do when needed.

Those sources? That first one you've had a problem with for a "long time" now can be backed up by various valid sources...and already is by a few in this article. That second one? Is only stating facts that can be validated by simply Googling them or vid mags.

I really don't have time for this. I'm not about to stress over this article like I did with you about List of supercouples, especially when everything in this article is factual. I'll deal with this all later. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have one (editor Jack-A-Roe) mainly agreeing with me about the use of those two sources. And we have one editor (editor Vassyana) agreeing with you about the use of a college newspaper in this instance.

I must point out that editor Jack-A-Roe (one I know to look at things from all sides) layed it all out perfectly, matching how I feel about this subject, since these are non-controversial statements from these two sources.

Keep me updated in this section on this matter regarding whether or not any other editors there have commented on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're following me, I'll just respond to all three of your new sections here. Your access to computer has been an issue for sometime, and I don't feel required to wait indefinitely for you to fix your issues. This is the encyclopedia anyone cand edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit unless Flyer22's computer is on the fritz. Sorry if I offended you for complaining about the length of your comments, but they are often too long for me to read fully. Not every response needs to be three or four paragraphs long. Finally, could you tell me why you feel that the Mt. Holyoke reporter is enough of an expert for you to directly quote her multiple times? Ani Mate 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not truly following you (never have). The Phylicia Rashad article is on my watchlist and I looked at it and saw that you had just edited it. If you notice, I've reverted vandalism to and edited that article before today. Second, I didn't say that the whole Wikipedia had to wait for me or you. I was simply pointing out how it made/makes no sense for you to have taken this to the Noticeboard and expect me to reply there when you know that I often can't at this time. You're the one who said you'd wait for me for List of supercouples. I didn't expect this article to be that different in that waiting regard. Third, my replies aren't often super long. But I already explained that above. It's a freaking debate! Short, little cutesy replies don't often go on in those. And that writer? She isn't quoted numerous times. Even if she were, these are so non-controversial statements that it isn't serious. Why is she used in this article? Mainly for that/ all the reasons Jack-A-Roe pointed out. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Direct quotes from Joanna Arcieri:[reply]

The supercouple has been described as "perhaps the most famous entity in entertainment."
Supercouples are defined as "high-profile, culturally significant and nearly perfect romances that influence our expectations of what a great love story should be."
Their romance was tragic, with a graphic death, but this "paired with their ceaseless appeal, cements this couple as an American legend."
From a classic couple or a couple that has just emerged, "audiences continually seek out these romances for thrilling, unequalled love stories."
"In the end, Rick sacrifices a lasting relationship with Ilsa because solving the world's problems is far more important than personal love."
"In the end, Rick sacrifices a lasting relationship with Ilsa because solving the world's problems is far more important than personal love."
In the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain, Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar entranced audiences "like no other romance in recent years".

That's a lot of direct quotes in an encyclopedic article to take from a poorly written college editorial, don't you think. I think these sources are problematic and this article highly influenced by opinion. You do not. We've tried various methods to get outside eyes on this and the list, but right now it is still just you and I. Since you believe in this article why not submit it for a good article review or peer review. I can't think of any other ways at this point to get some good outside opinions, and this article and its terrible sources have taken up too much of my free time already. Ani Mate 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all non-controversial statements. And that's not a lot of direct quotes as far as I'm concerned. If those statements were some problem, then editor Jack-A-Roe (an excellent editor, for accuracy) would have stated that they were problems. Hell, more editors would have agreed with you by now. But I'm certain that the reason they haven't is because these are non-controversial statements from an okay source, which can be backed up by various other sources and some already are in this article...such as the statement about Casablanca being a much beloved film. I never said that this article was great, but it sure isn't awful either, especially since everything in it is accurate. It's not full of terrible sources by any means. Two so-called third-rate sources does not make a "full of terrible sources" article as you so claim. You've spent too much time on this article? No, you haven't. I have. This source is what you've mostly spent too much time on in regards to supercouples. And me too (needlessly). Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you think the article is fine, then you'd be okay nominating it for good article status or peer review? Ani Mate 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just not see where I stated that this article isn't great yet? First thing I have to do when I get full computer access again is add additional sources to the parts of this article where they aren't at from those two writers. Good Article nominations aren't for "fine" articles. They are for articles that are a step away from Featured Article status. Right now, this article is a B, just what it's rated. I know when articles are ready for Good or Featured Article nominations. The Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, for instance, has long been ready for Good Article status...but I want it Featured, and would rather skip the Good Article nomination process for that one. A few more tweaks and it'll be ready for Featured Article status. This article, however, has a ways to go, even more so because it's on the entire subject of Supercouple.

I wouldn't use Peer review for this article until I was ready for it to be elevated to Good Article status. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed all of the section breaks as I assume they are in place because of your limited computer access. Something I think you need to do in order to make this article actually not awful: Visit your local library. Get some academic books on movie history. Are the sources terrible? Not all of them. Are most of them not great? Yeah. Right now I'm in the process of reading two rather dense books about medical ethics (not my field) and taking advantage of some academic access I managed to finagle to do some research for one of my pet articles. I know that soaps are your forte, and there simply won't be that many articles or books on them. I suppose what I'm saying is that every source won't be the NYT, but if maybe you get some excellent source this won't read like an extended version of the poorly written commentary you got from Mt. Holyoke. Ani Mate 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies 6

There are enough books on the topic of soap operas, but not enough on the topic of Supercouple. I don't even have full access to the first book used in this article. Not sure I have the time to stop by a library, but I might. I mostly have screenwriting, science...and psychology books at home. I never thought of soap operas as being my forte. I mean, I'm great at a lot of things (no bragging intended), but I'll take it as a compliment. After all, I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia fixing up these soap opera supercouple articles (that, and fighting vandalism), so it's easy to see why someone would think it's sort of like my craft. I'm just very familiar with popular culture in general, though.

And, yeah, this article needs rewording in some parts. You got that right. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit.

I listed this article for a copyedit to get rid of some of its essay-like reading. I don't have the time to really copyedit it right now, though I will later add additional references to the spots mentioned above. It may take a long time before this article is copyedited by the league and if I had the time, I would have personally asked one of its copyeditors to do this, but here we are. I may even get around to copyediting it before one of them does. But it's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an editor wonderfully copyediting this article now -- editor OnBeyondZebrax. Big thanks to you, OnBeyondZebrax. I will be working with OnBeyondZebrax to better this article as much as I can. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in this article

To the IP-address editor (possibly vandal) who decided to drop by this talk page and shit on it (pardon my language, but you did), where exactly is the original research and bullshit you claim is in this article? I can surely state that there is none. As someone versed in the Supercouple topic, I can assure you that everything in this article is true. But do not just take my word for it, of course (not assuming that you would), check the references, most of which are good. Only two references have been heavily debated in this article. If you have a problem with those two references, then read what was stated above.

Right now, this article is the only supercouple article on the internet and is the article that most people point to when directing people about supercouples. It is seen as a definitive source often, and I do not see that as a bad thing. If most of this stuff was unreferenced, then sure. But that is not the case. I have taken this article, which was literally crap, and made it into something halfway decent, especially given the lack of great sources out there about supercouples. If you can make this article better, then welcome. Do not just bitch and moan about it. Do something to improve this article. That goes for you or anyone else. Removing either of those two debated sources, however, is not the key. What is the key is finding more and better sources about supercouples so that that information can be added to this article. What this article needs right now is some rewriting, but it most certainly is not original research and complete garbage, seeing as most of the references are valid and back up the statements.

AniMate, I have come across another source that discusses soap opera supercouples. It's the book Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism. I'll tweak the soap opera section of this article in the form of a little rewriting when I have the chance to do that and add this new reference along with that. Hopefully, I'll soon find some better articles on primetime and celebrity supercouples. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games

The video games section in this article, especially the criticism bit, needs to be rewritten or deleted. It is seemingly made up with information from a single source which doesn't even exist. I keep on getting error messages when I try to check the referenced article. Not good for an already troubled article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstreason (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take care of that. And this article isn't nearly as troubled as it used to be, and is mostly well-sourced and proves its notability, which seems to matter first to Wikipedia.

Thus, I must point out your mistake of placing a fact tag in the Celebrity section where it says Bennifer's decline did not stop the public's fascination with celebrity supercouples. Um, Tomkat/Brangelina are proof. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but where is the reference for that?? Don't you understand the no original research rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.150 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you do not understand what original research is.

But, no, it's not original research, IP, to state that the public was interested in celebrity supercouples after Bennifer. Why isn't it original research? Because it's a damn fact, as evidenced in that section. No citation is needed for a well-shown or known fact, especially not one that is backed up by references showing that the public is significantly interested in these couples as well. These couples came after Bennifer. There's the damn fact right there. Any great Wikipedian editor would tell you the same thing. What you're asking for is like asking for a citation that water exists.

Hell, there's even a citation in that section that describes Brangelina as bigger than Bennifer. The facts are all in that section. Damn. It's that damn simple. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, IP, welcome

By the way, I see that you finally decided to create an account so that you can again target-- I mean, "help" some of the articles I have significantly improved. And, wow, you nominated the TomKat article for deletion your first day here? Well, given your penchant for "helping" articles I have greatly improved, it is no surprise. Luckily (well, more so due to good work), editors see the TomKat article as well-written, encyclopedic...and worth keeping. Whether it actually stays, however, we'll see. I'll try to make it there to "vote" and state something that I feel needs to be brought up in that deletion debate.

Anyway, I say welcome to your having become an official Wikipedia editor. This shall be interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]