Talk:Superman and Lois Lane

Page move
I've been bold and moved the page to Clark and Lois. I have to say it's a crackingly well written article, although it could stand references. However, my concerns were with the prominence of a neologism as the main feature of the article, when it's the relationship itself that's being discussed. Given that the term is a fan derived term, it seems to me the best place for this article is to discuss the relationship and discuss the term Clois as an adjunct to that relationship. I've also reordered the sections in chronological order and removed the animated series header until that section gets written. Hiding Talk 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers
We should add a "Spoilers" template to the top of this article and mention the profound implications of Superman Returns in which Lois' child is obviously Superman's 24.13.69.212 04:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question should the title of the page be called LOIS & CLARK since that is the main name used in both the mythology and in ever other incarnation of SUPERMAN ? I mean the Clark & Lois / Clois name is only used in "SMALLVILLE" not in the general Superman comics or any other incarnations it's always been LOIS & CLARK LANE & KENT.

"Clark and Lois (or sometimes known as CLois)" -- This is not common parlance for this relationship. Even in terms of Smallville--a very marginal part of Superman history--it is only used in a few internet forums, and only by people who use similar labels for relationships on any TV series.

Clois is a shipper term, and not widely used by Superman fans, or even the majority of Smallville viewers at all. It's a term used only by a small segment of online posters who know very little about the characters, for the most part, outside of the limited exposure they've had to Smallville's rendition of them.

I don't know where you came up with the notion that most "Cloisers" are unhappy with the way the relationship is portrayed. I see enough posts on the forums to know that that's not necessarily true. Most fans, other than the younger and more unsophisticated viwers, can see the underlying sexual tension and foreshadowing easily. If you want to make this article neutral and useable I suggest you take that line out--or provided verifiable statistical data for it. I'd suggest you keep the shipper acronyms out of any article you'd like to have taken seriously--unless it's an article on shippers, and there's already one of those.

I'd check my canon too. Lois doesn't fall for Superman, as any check of the facts will reveal. She falls for Clark Kent and only later finds out he is Superman. You've posted a misconception as fact.

Also I added the info about Bryan singer revealing that Jason Lane is infact the son of Superman

At the 2006 San Diego Comic Con Bryan Singer answered some fans questions on Superman Returns and The 2009 sequel in one of his answers he revealed The truth about Jason Lane's father.
 * SPOILER WARNING*

'''Jason is 100% Superman's son. It's part of what he most looks forward to exploring about the sequel.'''

Clois & Clana?
I don't think we should use "fanvocabulary" in a wikipedia article when most of the people have no clue what these words mean. It is also confusing because they are not used by fans of any other superman incarnation besides Smallville. --88.115.221.201 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think that the length of hugs is appropriate. --86.134.116.40 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lois clark aqua.jpg
Image:Lois clark aqua.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Folc lnc.jpg
Image:Folc lnc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clois sr.jpg
Image:Clois sr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clois superman.jpg
Image:Clois superman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cloiscomics.jpeg
Image:Cloiscomics.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cloiswedding.jpg
Image:Cloiswedding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Original Research
This article needs to be heavily cleened up, first of all it is filled with unverified claims like;

"Yet, the producers claim they have been limited in the usage of Clark and Lois" or "A disagreement between Margot Kidder and the producers after Superman II led to Lois' character's part being reduced in the third movie".

The NPOV I put up because this article does feel very informal;

"Finally, Clark decided to reveal his real identity to Lois and so they began a long engagement which was complicated by the reintroduction of Lori Lemaris into Clark's life. At last, after a break up and several problems, in 1996, Lois and Clark got married and a wedding album was released." or "What remains to be seen (presumably in the sequel to Superman Returns) is how Bryan Singer will resolve the love triangle between Lois Lane, Superman, and Richard White. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.8 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?
Smallvillecruft, as demonstrated by the earliest version. Wouldn't it be better to split content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.70 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane → ? –
 * , Lois Lane and Clark Kent, Clark Kent and Lois Lane, ? Per WP:COMMONNAME, these proposals are easier to type than the current one. George Ho (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm pretty ambivalent, but we can't use Lois and Clark because of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Jenks. If a change is necessary, I would prefer "Clark Kent and Lois Lane", which is how non-specialist sources would refer to the couple... though I see no reason to drop the "Relationship of" modifier.  (Editorial convenience is not a good metric.)  Powers T 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Relationship of" looks a little too wordy and too colloquial at any standards. Why would I put a "Relationship of" in Sam and Diane? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you? The article isn't about the characters; it's about their relationship.  Like any other subarticle, it ought to be named to represent what the article is actually about.  There are a few rare exceptions like Luke and Laura, but they are rare.  Powers T 23:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about soap opera couples? They don't have "Relationship of." Is that either rare or bad titling? EJ DiMera and Sami Brady, for example. Is that rare? How do you explain it? --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In a collaborative project, inconsistencies pop up from time to time. Just because the article you cited is at that title doesn't mean I agree that it should be at that title.  In addition, usage in reliable sources may very well differ between soap-opera "supercouples" and comic-book "super" couples.  Powers T 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples. Also, I have searched the term, and "Clark and Lois" is used in following sources:, , , , , , , , ,. Some refer as "Lois and Clark": , . One of these sources refer the duo as Superman and Lois Lane or Superman and Lois. More at pre-1993 sources in Google News --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most (if not all) of your provided sources that use just the first names have already established context, which is not possible here. Most of them are just referring to the characters as a pair, and not to their relationship.  And those that do refer to the relationship specify as much: look, for instance, at the Superman II review from The Michigan Daily: "the long-awaited love affair between Lois Lane and Superman/Clark Kent ".  We should name our article similarly.  Powers T 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave as is unless someone can come up with a better idea, which I don't see yet. The wording is a little clunky, granted, but in this particular circumstance, it seems to fit.  I would be against removing the last names with any title, in part because of the potential confusing between the TV show  and this article, which is broader in context.  Dennis Brown (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The examples above are good, 2 people that share one article, but in all those cases those characters doesn't have an article of them own, for example: the adoptive parents of Superman: Jonathan and Martha Kent, they have that article because there is no article for Jonathan and another for Martha. Clark Kent and Lois Lane have them own article each other; and the article we are discussing is about, precisly, their Relationship, no the characters. Greetings Arussom (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what this article discusses: a relationship. In your logic, wouldn't "Relationship of" be required for Sam and Diane, Luke and Laura, other soap opera couples, Jay and Silent Bob? (see Category:fictional duos) --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My answer to that is yes, if the character has its own article. If we have an article that describes the lifes of X and Y, and 2 more articles, one describing the life of X and another the life of Y, the first article is useless; but if this article is about their relationship (and more if there are different stages of the relationship and Earths and things like this) it has a use. Arussom (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, you are correct, however, there are exceptions in that list, including The Tale of Beren and Lúthien, Sticky Fingers (1988 film), The Katzenjammer Kids, Banjo-Kazooie (series) and Blondie (comic strip) (and others), which shows there is room for exceptions within that category. The only question that remains is "is this one of those circumstances that should be an exception?", and that is a valid question.  My answer would be "yes".  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the general rule about this, and what about category:soap opera supercouples? --George Ho (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, we don't have "rules" on Wikipedia. There isn't a "policy" on naming, only "guidelines".  The specific guideline doesn't matter as I had already conceded (and agree) that you normally name articles like you state, first names, simple title.  My point is that the naming here IS an exception to normal naming convention, but for a couple of good reasons, outlined above, and exceptions to any guideline are always allowed (if all else fails, via WP:IAR).  In particular, the shorter name would be more likely to cause confusion than clarity.  Plus, we can't use the shorter form without changing a valid redirect, and causing confusion with a TV show title.  Again, the issue isn't whether simple naming is the general guideline (I think we all agree on that).  I think we can all agree that exceptions are sometimes ok if adequately justified.  The only issue at hand is "is this a valid exception to the normal naming conventions?".  Again, I say yes.  Dropping the last names is a non-starter for me, although I also think making it "Clark Kent and Lois Lane" takes away clarity, rather than adds to it.  No one has yet to suggest a different name that is better, although you are welcome to suggest one.  Additionally, I argue against using WP:COMMONNAME as the article isn't about "Clark Kent and Lois Lane" but IS about their unique relationship.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you logicized that dropping "Relationship of" takes away clarity of its article, despite such guidelines you mentioned. If that's the case, does absense of "Relationship of..." take away clarity of Sam and Diane, EJ DiMera and Sami Brady, and Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio, or these follow WP:COMMONNAMES?
 * Anyway, back on topic, you would rather have "Kent" and "Lane" dropped, correct? So would either Relationship of Superman and Lois, Relationship between Lois and Superman, Relationship between Clark and Lois, or Relationship of Lois and Clark be suitable? --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Dropping the last names is a non-starter for me means it isn't a topic I would be open to under any naming. ie: a "non-starter" by definition means a conversation that someone is not willing to start.  I would always be against dropping their last names.  Even wp:commonname (if you were using that guideline as a point of reference), clearly indicates you would use the last names, as the full first and last names are how they are referred to in common language.  Superman is Clark Kent, not Clark.  His lady friend isn't Lois, its Lois Lane, in virtually all literature that refers to them.  The problem with Relationship of Superman and Lois Lane is that Clark Kent IS Superman, and they had a relationship before she knew he was Superman.  It isn't bad, but I don't think it is as accurate as what the current title is.  The others drop the last name, so I couldn't support them.  The only reason the one TV show dropped the last names was to sound "cool" and keep the title shorter.  If you really want a disambig page, why not just Clark Kent and Lois Lane for the disambig, which would actually make sense to me, while leaving the existing titles as is?  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm agree with Dennis Brown. Keep this article and create a Disambigation page . Greetings Arussom (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the other discussion, they are saying a disambig page is NOT valid because there are only two options. Basically, we need to just leave everything alone and move on with our lives ;)  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think: you already voted "keep"; may I strike that redundant vote out, please? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry... I only mean: "I am agree"... If you think is important, I can take out the 'bold'... Should I do this? Greetings. Arussom (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, strike it, not remove or reformat it . --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Arussom (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated both "Lois and Clark" and "Clark and Lois" for discussion; go to WP:RFD. --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smallville
There is WAY too much space devoted to Smallville in this article. It was just one TV show, people. Cut out that "and then..." stuff, please! -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)