User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/TomKat

Expansion of notability, and more will be added over time

I expanded this article in a way that show's their notability as a romantic pairing, and use of the word TomKat. I will continue to expand this article, of course. They, as a couple, have been written about extensively in several books. If notability of the word "TomKat" is more important to people for this article to establish, then I will try to expand on that as well; though I was about expanding on that either way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great expansion. Keep up the wonderful work! I'll try to add some more too when I get some time. нмŵוτнτ 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great expansion. And good job on making this article more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Might this be the earliest use of the term TomKat? 29th April 2005.

http://chaddarnell.typepad.com/runchadrun2/2005/04/this_weekend.html Fences and windows (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no date

On the article referenced by the link, there's no date. There really should be one. Tabloid stories like this one come and go every day. --VKokielov (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! but hark!

"So even after Cruise, 44, and Holmes, 27, get married, people will find something else to speculate about, such as whether they will have another child or how they’re getting along, he said."

That means your article is at least as old as July of 2007, for then Tom Cruise got to be 45. I am removing the link. --VKokielov (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, one of those dates is wrong; if Holmes was born in December 1978 and Cruise in July 1962, then the difference between them is 16 years and four months. Twenty-seven plus sixteen is forty-two. Where is the rat? --VKokielov (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid stories? This is a huge newspaper for a city. нмŵוτнτ 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, what's the date of that newspaper have to do with that comment? I've reverted this, anyways. To my knowledge, there is no policy/guideline that says sources must not be too old, especially if they're still up to date. нмŵוτнτ 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about policy. Look -- if you tell me that people are STILL crazy about it, then you must prove to me that they STILL are. Otherwise I will show you that the Allies are about to cross the English channel to attack the Germans. --VKokielov (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course it's a tabloid story. Not your newspaper article, but the whole affair. How would you like me to gaze at you, follow your every fart and fizzle and proclaim them to the world? Not to mention that there are better things to think about than Hollywood actors. All this is my opinion, but it's manifest that none of these Hollywood sensations last very long. Where is Britney Spears? Where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? --VKokielov (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(added afterwards) They come and go in bursts, like the fits of strangeness their subjects undergo. --VKokielov (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to edit without your own point of view affecting it (see WP:NPOV). нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you grab on to that word? D* it, I didn't say that I edited my opinion in. How could I say that, when I asked you to PROVE that these "people all around the world" still remember anything about this? And you still haven't proved it, but instead have hit me with everything you could find to evade proving it. Now, then...please PROVE to me that it is still "notable", in the language of Wikipedia. --VKokielov (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

especially if they're still up to date, you said. Splendid -- now prove that it's up to date. It is on you. --VKokielov (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got angry. But please anticipate what I am trying to get at, or else tell me that you don't understand. Otherwise it seems like you are calling the wine rotten after tasting the top of it with your fingers. When I say I would like a date, I mean that I'm not sure that the sentence in question -- not the article, mind, but that sentence! -- still has currency. Without currency it is tendentious and ostentatious - "look at me! read me!" --VKokielov (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the perfect compromise: I put it in past tense. I think this will suffice. Are you happy with this solution? нмŵוτнτ 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because media sensations come and go does not make former media sensations any less relevant or notable, of course (not that I'm stating that anyone on this talk page stated such). And sometimes former media sensations remain just as popular, but just aren't in the media like they once were. As for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, many people are still crazy about them. But as a couple? That craziness may have died down or rather will die down, but the craziness was still there, as we all know.

At first, seeing this new debate about the above reference, I immediately thought of it like asking to prove that Luke Spencer and Laura Webber still have the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history. I mean, of course they do. I see that it's a little different, however, since a person can get a hold of soap opera ratings and see that their hour is still the highest-rated, and even if they can't, all references all over the internet state such...and until they state otherwise, it's kind of a mute point. With TomKat, on the other hand, having a reference from a year ago stating that people all over the world expectantly follow the couple's actions, may seem a little more like "Do they still?"... But, really, do we think that no one is following this couple's actions anymore? That no people in various countries are following this couple's actions anymore? The number of people following them may have decreased since their much publicity in the news, but suggesting that they aren't followed anymore is a little off. I mean, there are Tomkat fanatics out there. Thus, I really don't see the need for that change in the lead. If they were divorced, then, yeah, I could see how they, as a couple, aren't followed anymore. But this issue seems to be solved now anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise. --VKokielov (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TomKat's marriage impossible

Rolfe, Peter (April 20, 2008). "TomKat's marriage impossible: Has Katie Holmes lost that loving feeling for Tom Cruise? Friends say she has finally succumbed to the crushing weight of their high-profile relationship". Herald Sun. News.com.au. Retrieved 2008-04-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Source to use in this article. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When I get a good chance to, I'll add that to this article. Or someone can get to doing that before me, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire piece is unadultered diarrhea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.220.47 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this article's title a joke?

TomKat is not an encyclopedic title for this article! It's like writing an article about Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and calling it Billary. An article about "TomKat" should be about the way the media coined and uses the term. An article about the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes should be called something like Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. --Stellis (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The title is not encyclopedic, but it is the name they, as a couple, are best known by. I mentioned above that since this article is titled TomKat, it seemingly needs some information about the term and that I would do that. However, I've been busy with other matters. The point, though, is that this article can cover information about the term and the couple. I don't feel that it should be split. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly fitting for such an unencyclopedic article, which reads more like celebrity worship and gossip magazine gushing than anything even remotely informational and neutral. I mean, I know Wikipedia has low, low, loooooooow standards, but this article is pushing it even for that. --70.234.224.171 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, c'omn, Wikipedia does not have "low, low, loooooooow standards", considering that just about everything on it must be sourced with valid references. I do not see how this article is like a "celebrity worship and gossip magazine"...seeing as it only explains the couple's history and criticism towards the couple, along with a bit of the couple's controversy. It certainly is not worshiping this couple. In any case, I wouldn't be too opposed to the article being renamed Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Having this article certainly saves from having to duplicte this information in both of their aticles. With the new title, it should also be expanded with more encyclopedic material as well. Hell, it should be expanded with more encuclopedic material either way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because "Sparks flew between the two during the four-hour meeting" is so totally not something you would see in the pages of any gossip rag. And the only controversies I see are the ones related to Suri. What about all the allegations from Holmes' family that Cruise has worked to cut her off from them? Or the popular belief that she was chosen and brainwashed by Scientology to try and mask Cruise's homosexuality? These are kind of looming issues, and if you're going to have a gossip article, you may as well have the juicy stuff. --70.234.224.171 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "sparks flew between the two during the four-hour meeting" part just needs re-wording. As for the controversies, yep, I was talking about Suri. The other controversies are covered in their individual articles. But, really, that "juicy stuff" you mentioned can be presented in an encyclopedic manner; it doesn't make it like the "gossip rags" if that stuff was included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, "sparks flew" part now taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Can we discuss my suggestion of a merge? I can't see anywhere it has been discussed before - can you point me in the right direction Flyer22? I think it should be discussed before we simply remove the tag without a consensus. I am no Wikipedia wizard, but I would like to think my opinion is as important as anyone elses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.87.114 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your opinion is important. If you look in the archive, you'll see that merging this article has been discussed (under WP:NEO). Such as if we were to, do we choose Tom or Katie's article to put it in? And how it would be redundant to put the same exact information in both articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the merge discussion was eventually dropped. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Where is the archive though? I can't see anything on this discussion page. Is there a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.87.114 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Location of archive

Archive is right at the top. Click on the number 1 right next to where it says Archives. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. And it seems everyone but you wanted this article merged or deleted....why hasn't it happened yet?

LOL. It wasn't just me who did not want this article deleted. There was another editor, of course. And that editor should be brought in on this discussion. And, judging by all of the editors who have either contributed to this article or formatted Cruise and Holmes's individual articles to accommodate this one, it is evident that we are not the only ones who have no problem with this article. That is most likely why it hasn't been merged or deleted yet. Just look at their individual articles that point to this one. Furthermore, I was more for making an argument on why this article can stand alone than for any real passion for keeping it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus

I see that you went ahead and listed this at Proposed mergers, but I must also state that, in either discussion, there was no consensus to merge this article. If anything, in that first discussion, consensus was not to merge, considering that it was me and another editor against one opposer. The second discussion was iffy, but wasn't even a real discussion on deciding whether to merge or not. Those two IPs who popped up to say something about this said something before those discussions took place.

This article should not be merged until there is consensus to do so and until how to merge it is figured out in a good way. Your proposal also suggested it be merged into either article. But that's the thing, though, it shouldn't be in one and not the other, and both being redundant with this information is not good either. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is the right place for discussing it, but I agree with the proposal that this article be merged into Tom Cruise. I think it sets a very bad precedent to have a separate article for this relationship, and don't see why we need it at all. Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't make sense for this to be merged into the Tom Cruise article and not the Katie Holmes article. I don't see it setting any more of a bad precedent than the Posh and Becks article. It's not as though all celebrity couples will be able to have their own Wikipedia article. Only the ones with notability and where having a separate article specifically about them, given all the topics to cover about their romance makes more sense than being in both of their individual articles or solely one of their individual articles. What's TomKat's notability? Well, the name certianly took off bigger than most celebrity combined names, and there has been significant obsession/mania with them as a pairing. That's not the case for most celebrity couples. I'm not super opposed to a merge, but I don't see the problem in having a separate article about their relationship either. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

People all over the world?

The article claims that "people all over the world have expectantly followed the couple’s actions". The evidence for this claim is an Ohio newspaper that mentions a single fan in Turkey. Who cares, anyway? --RichardVeryard (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that "fan" runs a website where he witnesses that. Either way, the citation is valid. It's within Wikipedia guidelines to use. That statement was not added to the lead of this article by me, however. If it is removed, we should expand the lead in some other way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)