Talk:List of supercouples/Archive 1

New couple idea
what about charlotte church and gavin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.17.112 (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IKE AND TINA?


 * Yes, Ike and Tina are a supercouple, you're correct. We just need to find a source that states them as such or as a power couple or a dynamic duo and then list them. Lately, I hadn't been thinking about the fact that they weren't listed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Karl and Susan from neighbours?? Or Harold and Madge.  They're true supercouples...   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.39.12 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Shawn and Belle's reference
If you use that as a reference to move them to actual supercouple, you have to move EJ and Sami because they've been on that list on a different week. The thing about the referenced source is it picks new couples every week and almost every couple on a soap has been on that list at one time or another. It's a weak source and should not count. It's not an article, it's an opinion list of who's hot at the minute. KellyAna (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every soap opera couple has been on that list at one point or another. There's a lot of soap opera couples that I searched for on those lists and they were not on there, and have never been on there. I know what you mean about not listing Shawn and Belle. If you feel that it's best to remove them, then do. The thing is, though, Wikipedia is more so about what can be cited. Even when we know most of the soap opera community would not consider Shawn and Belle a supercouple yet, they are cited as one in that valid source. However, I still refuse to list Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer on the main soap opera supercouple list...until they are actually together romantically longer than what they have been, and until it's evident that most of the soap opera community thinks of them as a supercouple. The same for Nicholas Newman and Phyllis Summers. Perhaps, with these new couples, we should have some sort of "they need more than one valid source that cites them as a supercouple" rule, as IrishLass suggested. Or a source that shows that they are thought of as a supercouple by most of the soap opera community, as this article's lead says "couple must be thought of as a supercouple widely enough throughout the soap opera medium or outside of it to appear on main soap opera supercouples list". Anyway, do what you must with the Shawn and Belle listing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, that list, the "TOP 5 SUPERCOUPLES TO WATCH", often lists some of the same couples over and over again. There are actually two different types of lists that source gives for couples: The Top 5 Supercouples To Watch list and then the Top 5 Couples To Watch list. Some couples never make the Top 5 Supercouples To Watch list, thus it does seem that that source is aware that not every soap opera couple is a supercouple. I would say that that source is accurate, except on occasions. What I mean by except on occasions, of course, is their listing any couple (as a supercouple) that is not thought of as a supercouple widely enough throughout the soap opera medium. And again, do what you must with the Shawn and Belle listing in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, they do couples and supercouples. I had not thought about that.  I've watched Days for 40+ years and Shelle has never been my idea of a supercouple.  Less than two months after their wedding, they are already getting divorced and she's cheated on him with Philip.  I think two sources for new couples is a good idea or at least a write up, not just a list.  Lists are subjective to the publishers whim, a write up is much better. KellyAna (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like we should put Luke and Noah higher. By higher, of course I mean on the main soap opera supercouple list now that they have been crowned a supercouple by TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly (the website). Although, if you go to the soap opera boards, Soap Opera Central (SOC) for one, most people do not feel that these two are a supercouple...yet. Some great points were being brought about why these two made Entertainment Weekly's list...and they are not about them being a true supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References?
Many of the "references" used are misleading. I have checked a few randomly and the sources do not refer to these couples as being "supercouples". Tags added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, check sources in the "Supercouples in other media", I could not find one source that verifies the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also check the numerous entries that purportedly are supported by this source: List_of_supercouples. Ditto: nothing about "supercouples". Adding OR tag as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article to become useful and encyclopedic, needs to avoid venturing in original research territory, which it does at the moment. Just read the lead to this list... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the references used are not misleading. All of the soap opera supercouples have references that refer to them as supercouples. The Notable wave section does not have the title of supercouple. The references for the celebrity supercouples refer to them as supercouples. As for the other sections, like the primetime section, it notes them as notable couples or couples that are considered greatest romances, thus nothing is misleading there. If you notice, the primetime section says "Some of the most notable couples within primetime"... It does not say "Some of the most notable supercouples within primetime." Also, the words "power couple" and "dynamic duo" are used interchangeably with the words supercouple, so some couples may be referred to as power couples or dynamic duos.


 * As for the couples where the perfectblend.net source is used, those couples should have never been added, and I didn't add them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "power couple" and "dynamic duo" are used interchangeably with the words supercouple. -- According to whom? Unless we have a source that makes that connection, we are engaging in original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will fix it, and then I will remove the tags you placed on this article. As for "power couple" and "dynamic duo" being used interchangeably with the word "supercouple", check out the Supercouple article talk page you were just at, this has been already addressed there. I would think it's obvious, even without sources that show this, that those three words are used interchangeably. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you feel like you're repeating yourself all over again? Didn't we go through this already???  What is with people targeting these two articles? KellyAna (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken care of the bad source mentioned in this section and tweaked a few other things. Everything else is as I stated. The other types of couples, apart from soap opera and celebrity, have a statement that points to the fact that those couples are simply notable or listed as greatest romances. If anyone would rather I change their heading to just Couple for those couples, then let me know, because that is the only other issue I can see being brought up on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the Primetime, Film, and In other media sections, I changed their heading to the title of Names. Well, except for the Comic book section, which I changed to Dynamic duos, and the Toys section, which I left as Supercouple. Anyway, the ones I did change to the title of Names, I did because while some are referred to as supercouples, not all are, and it's best to just point out that they are notable couples, in order to keep this article out of trouble with other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Pairadox (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That source is now removed. Flyer22 (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brady and Gisele
When will Tom Brady and Gisele be added to this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizenyorii (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I heard over the weekend they broke up so most likely never. They aren't a supercouple, they are just known to some. IrishLass (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Golden Age" supercouples?
I want to put the original supercouples like Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Bacall, Spencer Tracy/Katharine Hepburn, and Laurence Olivier/Vivien Leigh, but there are no possible sources for any of the three. The only thing close would be the DVD sets that advertised the first two, would that be enough?

-flowerkiller1692 22:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If it called them a supercouple or a power couple, sure. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This is a ridiculous entry!! It is nothing more than celebrity gossip and peoples opinon, it is not encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul75 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong! And as I stated in the deletion debate of this article: "How is this article based on opinion? It's not. As Orlady points out, this is not a case of WP:OR. If the public, media, and critics don't define who is a supercouple, then who will? When it comes to lists on Wikipdedia, this is one of the better ones, considering that most lists on Wikipedia are unreferenced or mostly unreferenced. It's not an opinion which couples are supercouples, but a fact. Just like the Associated Press points out that it is fact that Spider-Man (Peter Parker) and Mary Jane Watson are a supercouple. This list was originally in the Supercouple article to give readers a more in-depth view and history of the many supercouples that have come and gone, or are still present today. That's what this article does, with valid references. It was too big to stay in the Supercouple article and needed its own article. It's not that different than having a List of fictional anti-heroes. Except that this list is better formatted."


 * This article is far from ridiculous. If anything is ridiculous about this matter, it's nominating this article for deletion. Ridiculous indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Y&R Couples
We don't have many Y&R couples, do Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters or even Michael and Lauren Baldwin make the the cut? Just asking Carly Greene (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I will respond on your talk page, as I've been meaning to talk with you anyway. Since you're not on Wikipedia as often as us here who have worked on this article, it's better to respond there, as it's evident that this article will be deleted, unless additional Keep "votes" and more argument for its existence comes through. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable wave?
What exactly is a notable wave? If these couples aren't supercouples, then why are they on the list. The entire section seems completely objective and based on opinion. In order for it to stay I think someone is going to have to find a source for what a "notable wave" is, and also find sources for each couple that says they are part of a notable wave. AniMate 22:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article just survived an AfD nomination, the list is sourced and is fine. KellyAna (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but can you actually tell me what a notable wave is and where you got the source for it? AniMate  23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because I'm not the one who put it in but I'm sure Flyer22 can. KellyAna (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed content
An attempt was made to reasonably discuss the removal of content, it only proved futile. KellyAna (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you can't reintroduce it with citations. Your arguments that all worked stopped during the AFD don't hold much water either. During an AFD is when the MOST work should be done on an article. AniMate  23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So now I'm a liar. Wow. KellyAna (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a liar and profusely apologize if anything I said gave you that impression. I'm just saying that the argument isn't a good one or a strong one. Again, I apologize and certainly do not consider you a liar. AniMate  23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For it not to be good it would have to be false and by saying it "didn't hold water" you in turn call me a liar. The fact is nothing was done during the AfD because sources weren't going to help at that point.  The AfD only lifted today and the removal without request for citation is unrealistic and certainly not the most "good faith" edit made especially when you read the policy which says "reasonable time should be given for citations to be added" but you simply deleted without making such a request. KellyAna (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you're determined to think I called you a liar, which wasn't my intention, so I've stricken through it in a show of good faith. However, this article is still fair game for editing despite it having survived its AFD. The material wasn't removed in order to attack you or your work, rather it was removed in an attempt to improve the entry. I sincerely hope you can see that. AniMate  00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not find removal of content for no reason or without acceptable request to fix and given time to do so unacceptable and not in the least a way to improve the article. Again, the policy says "reasonable time to fix" which you did not give. There was never a heads up to source the pairs removed, it was just done for kicks and giggles. KellyAna (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you're determined to take offense and determined to see any removal of information from this list in a negative light. There's nothing I can do. I'd suggest, since it is clearly quite important to you, that instead of getting upset with me or the IP you could use your time and energy to find citations for the the couples you so desperately want to put back into the list. And according to policy "any edit may be removed". Yes, the polite thing would have been to request sources, but when I saw what the IP had done I did some digging, couldn't find any sources, and ultimately agreed with his removal which is why I reverted to his/her version. Since you're determined to be upset, I'm going to leave this discussion, but will put some sort of tag on the "notable wave" category since there is no clear answer for what a notable wave actually is. Seems like a fancy way of saying they're very popular couples but not supercouples. Which begs the question, if they're not supercouples why are they on the list in the first place. AniMate 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

James Ivory/Ismail Merchant?
Just an idea. No idea where a source would be. Snood199 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious work is needed on this article
After digging around in this article a little more, I am shocked at what I have discovered, and if I hadn't already put this article up for deletion, I would be putting it straight up again. A LARGE amount of the cited references DO NOT EXIST. Most worryingly, the header of the article which lists four points describing a supercouple with "each of these examples has been identified by scholars, critics and press as defining a supercouple", out of the 4 references, 2 lead to non-existent web pages, the third leads to a page on Amazon, and the fourth makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the "examples" given by "critics, scholars and press". Whats more, I ask anymore to check out a random selection of "supercouples" listed in this article and click on the reference to verify the claim - I have just looked into ten or so and the cited references do not so much as MENTION the word supercouple - some don't even mention the couple mentioned!! For all the claims that this is a worthy article, based on fact, and not being original research - well, you are going to have to clean this page up mighty fast, or start deleting all the "supercouples" who don't have a verifiable reference. Paul75 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to say "supercouple" exactly. It can be powercouple.  Regardless, it really sounds like sour grapes on your part because you didn't succeed in getting the article deleted. KellyAna (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the references then and get back to me. I don't recall seeing the phrase powercouple anywhere in the references either. Take a look at the references for Nickie Ferrante and Terry McKay, The Beast and Belle, or Archie and Edith Bunker - none mention the word "supercouple" or "powercouple".  I'm sure a lot of entries on this page have valid, legitmate references. A lot however, do not. Paul75 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sour grapes or not, there are problems with original research with this article. AniMate  00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be some line that qualifies what is a supercouple if this article is to be taken seriously. When does "supercouple" apply and when does "powercouple" apply? We can't just chop and change the rules to fit around an entry, it smacks of original research.  And I don't do sour grapes - if you object to people calling you names, then I suggest you also keep your comments on a non-personal levelPaul75 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. A powercouple is not the same thing as a supercouple. If we're going to claim that it is, e have to have a source that says a powercouple is the same thing as a supercouple. AniMate  00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More concerning for me at the moment is the first paragraph of this article - the fact that the references cited don't exist invalidates it completely, which in turns invalidates the entire article, rendering it nothing more than an article of Original Research. We need proof that the term "supercouple" even exists in an academic sense. Paul75 (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned about the references. I'm uncertain if sofeminine.co.uk qualifies as a reliable source, and I'm positive that a book by Bill and Susan Hayes doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Also, I'm not sure what "disputed by rivalry" means and why the two couples involving Brenda have their own section. AniMate  01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out this is not the article, this is the list that was extracted from the original article because the article was too big to contain the list. That was the original reason this offshoot happened, just like the list of episodes happen for television shows, or character lists for shows. This is the same thing and you really need to take that into consideration. KellyAna (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you mean by this comment. Main article or list, this still has to be well referenced and cannot contain original research. AniMate  01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick responses/Sorry that I'm busy
New section, because I can't comment anywhere on this talk page (long story). First off, yes, the word supercouple is used in scholarly. Even if you can't read it, one source is in this article. Two others are in the supercouple article. Second, the Notable wave section is not original research, seeing as they aren't listed as supercouples. They are, as AniMate pointed out, very popular couples who aren't supercouples. It's like an Honorable mentions section. Either change that heading or remove that section. The television, film, and other media section isn't original research. Read this talk page. They aren't listed as supercouples, they are listed as notable romances/romances often cited as the greatest love stories. And, yes, the word Power couple is interchangeable with the word Supercouple. It's done often in very valid references. I can't respond in full right now. But I will say that the Original research tags should be removed. Take some sections out/rename this article/whatever. Excuse my absent sig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Defining a supercouple
Also, the lead of this article that Paul claims to not be property cited, this can be easily fixe, of course -- Format the Martha P. source in book form while it stays in the lead, seeing as that page can no longer be freely viewed in that citation. Take the first source from the Defining a supercouple section in the Supercouple article, which clearly explains what a supercouple is, and add that as the second citation in this lead. That citation can also be used to source some of the film couples listed in this article if Paul and AniMate would rather only couples referenced as supercouples be listed in this article. The third source in the lead...I feel is reliable/fine. All the couples listed in that source are listed as supercouples in other valid sources. The fourth source was about defining a supercouple by their combined name, but go ahead and remove that source. The Soap Opera DIgest source about whether supercouples are more of an 80s thing might be a better replacement for that. I have to go for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Primetime supercouples
Of the 50 or so couples listed with references only 11 or so of the references were actually valid. I read each and every one and using the majority of them to show that a couple is a supercouple is flat out original research. I'm going to tackle the soap couples tomorrow. AniMate 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AniMate, as I just mentioned above, those couples aren't listed as supercouples in this article. therefore there was no original research there. You need to either restore those references or remove those sections completely. The only couples listed as supercouples in this article are the soap opera and celebrity couples (as well as the toy, animation, and other section), and those are mostly, if not all,  well-sourced.
 * You're right. I went ahead and removed every section that wasn't specifically about supercouples. AniMate  05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Favors
AniMate, now that you've boldly removed the couples who are not cited as supercouples from this list, will you remove the links in the Supercouple article that point to those particular lists? I'll add back a television supercouple and film supercouple section to this list with valid references when I get a good chance to. Thank you for being bold. Oh, and remove the original research tags from this article, seeing as they are no longer needed. Alter the lead of this article accordingly as well. I'll get back to heavy working on Wikipedia when I can. Again, excuse my lack of not signing my user name today. I was communicating with you all via the Playstation 3 due to being without computer access at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave the tags there for no until KellyAna and Paul75 have had a chance to look things over. I'll work on the main supercouple links tomorrow when I'm fresh. Sorry about your computer situation and the annoying sinebot messages you're getting. AniMate  06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me to look anything over anymore. I'm done with this article.  You've successfully ruined it.  Hope you are truly happy. KellyAna (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KellyAna, I wish you wouldn't give up on this article. It's actually better like this per Wikipedia policy...unless we rename this article to List of supercouples and other notable couples or something of that nature. I need all the help I can get in maintaining this article and the Supercouple article, especially since IrishLass is busy lately and I'll be even busier soon Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on KellyAna's page, and will reply here as well. I too do not want you to leave the article, though I won't apologize for following policy and do not appreciate being told that I am ruining an article or doing anything out of spite. Moving this to List of supercouples and other notable couples is a really, really bad idea. There are literally thousands of notable couples that could be added, and that list would grow far too long and be unmaintainable. Anyway, I've clearly offended KellyAna, and while I'm unsure why she's so offended, I regret her hurt feelings. AniMate  19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits
It seems to be working better, but we must maintain a definite line on what is and isn't acceptable. The article is a list of SUPERCOUPLES, and we can't include famous celebrity couples, popular soap opera couples or 'homourable' mentions. If we do, then that is clearly Original Research, and it is very dangerous to go down that road. Paul75 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Paul. You wanted the article deleted but when you couldn't get that you completely ruined it.  Congratulations, I hope you are truly happy. KellyAna (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed by this reaction from KellyAna, but there's really not anything to be done about it. This is a list of supercouples and removing couples that aren't considered supercouples and removing a list of great love stories isn't ruining it. If we decide to include all of the great love stories ever described as such or extremely popular couples, this list would be huge and completely unmanageable. Sorry you can't see that. AniMate  16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "ruining it" is the nicest language I can use. Your edits are not improving, they are just pure spite. Soapcentral WAS deemed a valid source so STOP REMOVING THOSE REFERENCES.  I have no words how horribly you've ruined this article. KellyAna (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where this debate was that said polls from Soapcentral were valid references? AniMate  17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's where they debate valid sources.  Flyer22 can tell you.  KellyAna (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a question about this at WP:RS/N to get some outside feedback. AniMate 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, starting a new discussion is so much easier than going and reading the past discussion . It's already been discussed, why don't you read that first. KellyAna (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue of soapcentral.com was already very recently debated at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas before AniMate posted a new section at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it, and it has already been deemed reliable. Here is the link that showcases its in-depth discussion and where it was concluded to be a reliable source for news information. I'm going now to fix up most of the rest of this article. I've only got temporary computer internet access today. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be blunt... you guys got it wrong. Two people from the noticeboard commented, and the rest was decided by your wikiproject. Much of soapcentral is edited and maintained by fans, including character bios. It just isn't reliable. AniMate  19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the citation banner back in Flyer22. I'm guessing it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source that says Greg and Jenny are a supercouple, just as it shouldn't be too hard to find a valid source that says Frisco and Felicia are a supercouple. Still, some of the now unreferenced couples are questionable at best and some with references have probably been given the label under very generous conditions. AniMate 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reply at WP:RS/N until some outsiders have given their opinion. However, while searching Wikipedia for discussions about Soapcentral I came across this. While this person apparently will not be allowed to contribute to the site, the fact that he could have is disturbing. It might be okay for breaking news about actors contract status, but with character histories/plot synopsis being written by volunteers... it's not too far off from me stating X&Y are a supercouple and using an article I wrote on Wikipedia about X&Y as my source. AniMate  19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome for my adding an additional references tag to this article, AniMate. And we didn't get soapcentral.com wrong. As I stated there in the new topic about it, every aspect of that source was discussed. And what was deemed reliable about it was its news source, which is not edited by fans (even though the expert editors there could be considered fans) but rather by expert editors and even the site creator. Their news source is very reliable, no different than a library, except it's a library about soap opera-related topics. Not using that source would be a great disservice to soap opera articles on Wikipedia. And just because most of our project decided on its reliability doesn't mean that we are not objective. Some veteran editors there, as well as not-so-veteran editors who are well-versed in Wiki-ways, are professional enough to come to a truthful consensus about what is reliable and what isn't, and that's what we did. You might have a point about soapcentral.com declaring who is a supercouple (unless it's their news source), but the source for Clint and Viki is from the actor's biography, which is true...they were voted a favorite supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Soap supercouples
I've removed 6 of the most obviously invalid references that don't comply with WP:RS. I haven't really read the content of any of the others, but will be doing so over the next few days to make sure that they actually support the supercouple claims. AniMate 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Forward
I've taken out all of the worst references from both the soap and celebrity lists, but there are still some borderline cases and some of the couples listed as supercouples just don't qualify in my opinion. Still, that is only my opinion and my opinion doesn't belong in the article. I've started this new section because it kind of feels like we're having conversations in several different places, and it might be easier if the discussion continues in this one place. I realize a lot of work went into these lists and that I've boldly hacked away a very generous portion of them and cut out a number of sources as well. I know feelings were hurt and feathers were rankled, but ultimately I think this is going to improve the list. AniMate 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this has improved this list by Wikipedia policy. I mean, a lot of the primetime and film supercouples that were removed, I feel are a no-brainer that they are supercouples. And I'm interested to know who you feel on the soap opera and celebrity lists shouldn't be listed in this artcle. For the longest time, I felt that Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer shouldn't be listed as a supercouple, as a discussion above showcases, but they were named a supercouple by very valid sources. And when I first created the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, I didn't note them as a supercouple there or here, but after doing even more research on them, I found that they were deemed a supercouple by various valid news sources...such as at least two mainstream media sources, some soap opera magazines, and even by Brian Frons himself. So, yes, Wikipedia is more about what can be cited (with valid references), not our opinions. But considering all the mania those two couples caused, I now consider them supercouples.


 * Anyway, I'm about to add back the Primetime, Film, Comic book...and In other media sections, although they will now be considerably shorter until more valid supercouples can be added to those lists. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to request multiple sources be cited for each couple, because the term is so subjective and some of the sources are pretty borderline. As for who shouldn't be on the list... I think Noah and Julia are debatable. From ATWT Craig and Sierra shouldn't be there, nor should Tom and Margo or Steve and Betsey. All popular couples but not supercouples. (Steve and Betsey are debatable as well). Eric and Stephanie aren't a supercouple from B&B, nor are Alan and Monica. Both are extremely long pairings, but neither really qualifies as a supercouple, IMO. There are some questions in my mind about the inclusion of Robert/Holly and Duke/Anna as well (why not Robert/Anna). Roger/Holly I would say no, and Bo/Nora are on the hump. Despite having a citation, Julian/Eve from Passions aren't exactly a supercouple either.
 * The common thread with many of these couples is that they had longevity and screen time, but they didn't dominate their shows focus like some of the no brainers. I still don't see why Brenda's two couples have their own section as being part of two supercouples isn't impossible. Personally, I'm surprised Roman and Marlena aren't listed alongside John and Marlena.
 * As for celebrities... Jude Law/Sadie Frost and Ludacris/Gabrielle Union are both questionable as supercouples. Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens the same. Many of the couples listed are quite popular, but are we actually saying that they deserve the same designation as Bogey and Bacall and Hepburn and Tracey?
 * Frankly the term supercouple is thrown about quite loosely, which is why this list is so troublesome. It's also why we need to set very high standards for our reliable sources, because if we include every couple ever designated by a marginal source as a supercouple... this list could get very long indeed.
 * With that, I'm out for a few hours. I'm home with the flu, and my medicine is finally kicking in (which could go a long way to explaining the jumbled mess I just typed out).

Also, if you insist on adding all of those back in (which really aren't necessary), be extremely careful. If I have to see a list that includes both Princess Sally Acorn from Sonic the Hedgehog and Juliet Capulet, my head might explode. AniMate 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. No. I'm not adding back all those lists, of course...not without valid citations. And, AniMate, do hurry and get better. Sorry to hear you have the flu. The reason that Brenda's two couples are listed the way that they are is because being a part of two supercouples in the fictional world is debatable and whether both or either of those two couples are supercouples is still often debated. I agree that Jude Law/Sadie Frost and Ludacris/Gabrielle Union are both questionable as supercouples. And so are Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens. However, I still don't feel that the term Supercouple is that loosely thrown about. Most fictional couples deemed supercouples by valid sources truly are, the same for most celebrity couples. Having multiple sources for each of these entries was addressed before, above, and that's a good idea, but some fictional couples may not be able to have more than one valid citation due to not all citations being online or due to having been named a supercouple by only one valid citaton. I would say that most entries in this article should go by more than one valid citation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to prove that I'm not the Grinch Who Stole Supercouples, I think Jake McKinnon and Victoria Hudson from Another World should be added to the list. I won't add them until I find a few good sources, but before the show was canceled Jake and Vicky were huge. Hopefully this proves to the contributors who are here mainly for soaps that I'm not some elitist who hates all things pop culture. AniMate  10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And it should be noted, Jake and Vicky were so popular that when Another World was canceled they transferred the characters to another Proctor & Gamble soap: As the World Turns. However, I still won't add them in unless they're properly and well sourced. AniMate  10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Grinch Who Stole Supercouples? Laughing my head off! Too funny. I'm sure that the couple you mentioned will be a great addition to this article, AniMate. Hmm, you mentioned that Noah and Julia is debatable. But I point out that most viewers do state that they were a supercouple. And, yeah, when at least 75% of the audience feels that you are a supercouple, then I don't believe there's any doubt that you are. And sources, though not very good ones online, describe them as the first interracial supercouple. This source, for instance, which does, isn't that bad. I'm not sure we should use it as a citation, though, seeing as there was an editor who objected to that site's use due to feeling that it's not that different than Wikipedia and took the issue to the Noticeboard. I point out, though, that it wasn't banned from use on Wikipedia. And there are most likely some expert writers there. It's not completely like Wikipedia, seeing as they don't have to face vandals.


 * As for Steve and Betsy, if they aren't a supercouple, then whoa. They brought in the second highest ratings for daytime television, right after Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. What else would you call them? And I know that a lot of people consider Bo and Nora to be a supercouple, and I think that couple was deemed a supercouple by a few soap opera magazines. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know why I put the original research tag back in. You said that 75% of the audience feels that you are a supercouple, then I don't believe there's any doubt that you are. While audiences and fans do contribute to the making of supercouple, that kind of claim is unverifiable and original research and we can't cite the feelings of 75% of the audience (and yes I realize that you put that comment on the talkpage not in the main article). You've reintroduced dozens of couples you think or feel are supercouples. Now you have to go and track down sources for them, despite the fact that many of the couples already listed don't have references. Essentially what you're doing is putting your own ideas down as facts and hoping you can find verification for your ideas. On a list that is as inherently subjective as this list is, I really think that you should find the sources THEN add these couples in, because right now about 75% of this article is flat out your own original research. In your head they may be no brainers, but unless you can find some good sources soon I'm going to have to cut everything that isn't well sourced... again. You should probably keep a list of the unsourced couples in your user space rather than just putting your ideas in the encyclopedia. That way you'll know what needs to be tracked down, you can reintroduce them as sources become available, and I won't have to add the original research tag to the top of the article. I know it bothers you, but you have to see that what is on the page is clearly and blatantly original research right now. AniMate 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To reply to KellyAna's comments, I do not believe it is me who "ruined" this article. If an article is full of unverified sources, sources that don't exist, or facts with no sources at all then that article is ruined by whoever put the dodgy sources / non-sources up. It goes against every single thing that Wikipedia stands for. I have added a "citation needed" for all the supercouples who appear in the list, and if a source for them doesn't appear within a reasonable time, then I think we can all agree they should be deleted. Anyone have suggestions for what could be a "reasonable" time??? Paul75 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that I'm the person who ruined this article, not you Paul75. As for a reasonable time... I'd say a couple of days at most. We had a reasonable number of unsourced claims of "supercoupledom" in soaps and celebrities when I weeded things out. Flyer22 decided to add a ton of unreferenced "supercouples" back in, though none of it is (apparently) original research or her ideas. Some of them are couples that she isn't even familiar with, though she felt comfortable adding them back in.
 * Honestly, this list is inherently subjective. I'm ready to slash through this again if good and reliable sources aren't produced quickly. I know that Flyer22 doesn't have great computer access right now, but that really doesn't matter. She felt comfortable enough to put in couples without sources, and I'm comfortable taking them out. As it is, I don't think couples without two really good references should be in the article.  AniMate  03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I think they should be taken down immediately, and not even be up there as it is. If people are prepared to put up "facts" then they should be able to spare the extra five minutes it takes to put in a reference.  If you are putting something up without a reference, then it is clearly your own opinion which in turn is obviously original research.  I don't see how this point can be made any clearer - you are either for Wikipedia and its rules or against it.  Comments like this from Flyer22 - "But considering all the mania those two couples caused, I now consider them supercouples" are not helpful - Wikipedia is not based on what "you consider".  If the basis of this article is formed on what one or more people "considers" are supercouples, then it should be speedily deleted. Please - add a citation if you have a reference for it or remove it! Paul75 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never stated, NEVER stated that they should either be up there or not up there because of what I consider supercouples! The quote from me you just posted was a conversation between AniMate and myself about couples who, to us, should or shouldn't be on this list. It wasn't us saying "Oh, so and so should be listed because [we] feel that they should." I was stating how the very well-sourced article that I created for Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone didn't originally note them as a supercouple, but as I did more research on them, I found that they were deemed a supercouple by more than one valid part of the media. I see that you didn't feel fit to point out AniMate's part of that discussion, but rather mine. I was making a point about how much mania those two couples caused, which is a big part of what being a supercouple is in most cases. And, really, this is to both of you, but I don't know how it can be any clearer that who is or isn't a supercouple is not so much of a subjective thing at all. Most of the soap opera and celebrity supercouples have been deemed supercouples by more than one valid part of the media, as well as called such by viewers, or onlookers in the case of celebrities. Stating that "Supercouple" is subjective is like stating that who is a supermodel, superstar...or superhero is subjective, something I don't believe at all. It's not that difficult to comprehend or differentiate that Jacob Young is a star, but Brad Pitt is a superstar. Or that J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey are a popular fictional couple, but that Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney are a fictional supercouple.


 * AniMate, it's not as if I added a bunch of unreferenced couples back in, though, yes, I did add back in some unreferenced couples, but for a good reason, which I'll get to near the end of this comment. And, yes, none of it is TRULY original research or "my ideas". And, yes, some of them are couples that I'm not even familiar with. And, yes, I felt comfortable adding them back in.


 * Paul, for you to imply that I am against Wikipedia is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.


 * And, AniMate, to again imply that I'm about original research is another one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. If I were, then neither article I nominated to be featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did You Know... section would have made it on there. I've been called the Queen (and King) of sourcing for a reason, as my talk page is evidence to (and, no, not my ego talking, just making a point). However, some of the best editors here at Wikipedia don't feel that uncited information should immediately be taken out. Me included. Fixing up this article requires more than just knocking it down. There is something called going out there and finding sources yourself. With all the invested energy either of you two put into this article, you should be about finding sources for some of the unreferenced entries as well. Especially, seeing as we are the only three even working on this article at this moment. When I do something on Wikipedia, anything on Wikipedia, it is always to better Wikipedia, including having added the couples I added back to this article. I stated that I would take care of this, and I will and am going to now. It's not as if I wasn't going to act on what I stated until another month or two later.


 * Lastly, just because an online link in this article becomes a dead link doesn't mean that the couple that link is for suddenly makes them not a supercouple or that we should remove that couple. All it means is that that reference should be formatted without the link or that a new reference should be found for them. Removing information that was previously cited by a working online link is one of main problems I have with Wikipedia, as if the link not working suddenly makes it "our ideas"... Once the link for the Entertainment Weekly citation for some of the soap opera supercouples goes dead, for instance, that doesn't mean that they should then be removed. What it means is that the reference should be formatted without the link. The dead link doesn't take away the fact that they were cited as supercouples by Entertainment Weekly.


 * All that said, I'm off to improve this list and other articles while I have the time. There are three articles that I will be nominating for Good Article status or Featured Article status soon, and after taking care of this matter, most of my time will be devoted there and fighting vandalism...as well as my personal life. It would be great if you two could continue to keep watch over this article, long after the so-called original research is gone from it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the term "supercouple" IS subjective as are the terms supermodel and superstar are. As I pointed out when I originally put this article up for deletion, one man's supercouple is a "who the hell are they?" to someone else - it is a regional, cultural and, from the media's point of view, a personal opinion.  To use your example of Jacob Young is a star, and Brad Pitt is a superstar - I don't know who the hell Jacob Young is, so he can't be a star in the true sense  - he is a star in your opinion and the cultural landscape of where you live. And no doubt he is considered a star by fans of whatever genre he works in - that is subjective opinion.   It is quite telling that there are no "list of supermodels", "list of superheros" or "list of superstars" on Wikipedia.  The fact that this list could literally go on forever - we could technically list any person whom has attracted public attention and has ever been married or had a best friend and wait until we can find any sort of reference at all - means it is not exactly based in hard facts.  Paul75 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but the term "Supercouple" is NOT inherently subjective. It may be at times to a point, with whether you agree with all the "hoopla" over a couple, but it does not change the fact of that couple having reached popularity or having had impact that is of amazing or, at the very least, impressive proportions. The terms Supermodel, Superstar...and certainly not the term Superhero are not necessarily subjective either. It's like arguing that Superman is only a superhero based on opinion. But, of course, the term Superhero is more of a creation. Most comic book superheroes are created by writers, thus there is no doubt that most of them are superheroes...because they were created as such. And as I pointed out in that deletion debate of yours, one man's supercouple may be a "who the hell are they?" to someone else, and regional and cultural, but it is not simply from the media's point of view, or personal opinion. When a couple has had the type of impact that Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter have had, that's a supercouple. Just because you do not know about them (or do you?), does not mean that they are not a supercouple. A couple does not become a supercouple by simply labeling them as such. That's the point you seem to be missing. If a soap opera magazine were to name just any soap opera couple a supercouple, they would get laughed out of business! These magazines name who are supercouples based on the impact that they had, such as popularity, fascination, the audience citing them as a supercouple. And then, only then (in most cases), is a soap opera couple named a supercouple by a soap opera magazine. It's like that for most celebrity couples as well, considering that the same "selected" ones keep getting called supercouples while most of the same ones who were never called supercouples remain never being called supercouples.


 * Just because you don't know "who the hell" Jacob Young is does not mean that he is not a star. That logic is like saying that if someone does not know "who the hell" Michael Jackson is (let's just imagine that there is one person in this world who doesn't know who he is), then he is not a star or a superstar. Flawed logic. The term "star" is simple when it comes to celebrities. Jacob Young being a star has nothing to do with my opinion. He's an often-cited star. There are porn stars out there, most of them I'm not familiar with, but that does not make them any less of a star.


 * And the only reason that "it is quite telling that there are no 'list of supermodels', 'list of superheros' or 'list of superstars' on Wikipedia" is because of some Wikipedians' grudges against lists on Wikipedia. But, oh, wait, there are some types of lists on Wikipedia about superheroes (List of superheroines and List of black superheroes). Go ahead and look. Is it quite telling that we have a List of fictional anti-heroes? If anything is more so subjective, it's that. What and who is a supercouple is more simple. There's also a list of gay icons in the Gay icon article. That will probably soon be split into its own article as well. And, for the record, this Supercouples list couldn't go on forever (at least not in the way that you're implying), as it's apparent that not just any couple is deemed a supercouple. No, we couldn't "technically list any person whom has attracted public attention and has ever been married or had a best friend and wait until we can find any sort of reference at all". Why? Because a supercouple is not about simply having attracted media attention or any of the things you mentioned as the sole purpose. For most couples who are deemed supercouples, yes, it's based on hard facts.


 * I'm not about to sit here and debate "Supercouple" with you. You have your thoughts on this subject, and I clearly disagree with them. I have an article (this article) to attend to at the moment, since I am the sole person gathering sources for it (whether I put back in some unreferenced couples is not the point, but all working on this article to gather sources for it is). I have work to do on this article, so that I can leave it for a while (kind of take a break from it) and attend to other matters, on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know we do not agree on this, but as you imply I am missing the point, I may as well imply the same for you. A soap opera magazine defining a soap opera couple a supercouple because of the reaction and interest of the fans of the soap opera - well, if that is not subjective then I don't know what is.  It is a clique-y, in-group decision, it doesn't appear to be influenced from outside the soap opera world. Perhaps the problem is here that there are two different definifn criteria for supercouples of the soap opera world, and supercouples from the "celebrity" world.  It seems that a soap supercouple can be defined as such by soap magazines, but celebrity supercouples are defined by the wider media in general.  Perhaps we can divide the list into two, with a preamble stating the difference between the two? Paul75 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a soap opera supercouple is not just "defined by a soap opera magazine defining a soap opera couple a supercouple because of the reaction and interest of the fans of the soap opera." And it's not "just a clique-y, in-group decision that doesn't appear to be influenced from outside the soap opera world." The examples I've given above demonstrate that. There are various factors that make a soap opera supercouple, with some being known more so by the soap opera medium, while others are known both, by the soap opera medium and the outside (non-soap opera press) medium/media (and fans). I cannot see it as too subjective, for all the reasons I've already stated. Though, yes, I admit, it's subjective in some instances. But it's not as though fans just get together and say "Okay, this is a supercouple" and then they become a supercouple. Again, soap opera supercouples are not just defined by soap opera magazines. I mean, Luke Spencer and Laura Webber certainly weren't. I'm not sure when I'm going to fix up that article, because it would take a lot of work, but they are the couple who started this (the Supercouple mania), are written about in all kinds of books and magazines (not just soap opera magazines), and are cited all over the internet. The basic definition for a supercouple is what the first sentence in the lead of the Supercouple article states. And I'm not quoting directly from the Supercouple article at this moment, but a supercouple, no matter what type, is an extremely popular or financially-wealthy couple that has at least intrigued people to the point beyond reason or caused mania that is typically thought of as being reserved for understandable things...such as the mania that the Jurassic Park film caused. It's not as if most couples, real or fictional, do that. Anyway, I wouldn't mind the celebrity supercouples section being split out of this article. But I feel that if that happens, it will most likely be deleted...because most editors here would find it arbitrary. It's also seen as more so subjective than fictional supercouples. I learned that from the debate about Category:Supercouples before it was deleted. Though it was deleted more so for mixing fictional and non-fictional supercouples, sort of like the problem some editors had (and may still have) with this article. Most editors were okay with me creating Category:Soap opera supercouples, though.


 * Hmm, if all three of us come to a conclusion to title this article List of fictional supercouples and create a separate article for List of celebrity supercouples, I wouldn't be too opposed to it, to answer your question. But I'm not sure if creating such an article would be a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These aren't "my ideas"
And the reason that I stated if at least 75% of the audience feels you are a supercouple, then you are a supercouple is because not only is that a no-brainer but it's verified by the soap opera press. Also, I hate that you're implying or rather stating that I'm about original research in concerns to this article. I'm not. Or that these are "my couples". They're not. And I'm not familiar with half of these couples. I'm not about original research with either article I've created or any article I've worked on, including this one. I simply added only some of these couples back, with valid references for several. Adding all the tags you did when all an article requires is additional references is redundant. Several great editors have made points about that type of tagging. Yes, it bothers me, because it's unnecessary.

Look, I can't talk right now. I'll get back to this later. When I'm not busy screenwriting and packing...and when I have computer access again instead of using this Playstation 3 like I am now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)