Talk:List of supercouples/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removing unsourced supercouples

I've gone ahead and removed all couples with the {{fact}} tag on them. During my all too brief yet much needed vacation, I see that there were some attempts to add unsourced couples to this list that was reverted by Flyer22. This seems really unfair and a borderline violation of WP:OWN. One editor doesn't get to decide that their unsourced additions are fair game and that another editor's aren't.

I've also removed ABC: Soaps in Depth as a source, since it in no way claims what Flyer22 says it does. According to her, she has seen the source, the seller cannot lie about the cover, and she knows someone who has read the magazine. Here's the link to the eBay lot, here's a link to an online source that specializes in back issues of Soaps in Depth and other soap magazines with a very, very clear picture of the cover. This source doesn't back up the claims, as was the truth with the majority of the sources that I ended up removing weeks ago. AniMate 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to be controversial and say that I think source number 54 is slightly questionable as well. The article is headlined "Super Celebrity Couples" and lists Madonna and Guy Ritchie, Will and Jada Smith etc etc. From my interepretation of English, a "super celebrity couple" is quite different from a "celebrity supercouple". I think the connatations and meanings are at opposite ends of the scale. I guess this is another pointer into the general feeling that this article is not really governed by fact, and more by twisting facts to fit the article, when it should be the other way around. Paul75 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come off your high horse, AniMate. I'm not playing god or ownership of this article. You are. I called out you and Paul only showing up at this article to take away from it rather than add to it, which again does not prove to be a wrong judgment. I'm not deciding which couples stay and go. The both of you are. I reverted unsourced material that I do not have the sources for and you two certainly won't lift a finger to add a source for. I have sources for all the other couples, which I am still tweaking in my Word Document, as friends of mine send me cited issues through email. And don't cite Wikipedia policy to me, because I surely know it better than you, as I've had to correct your edits to the Kendall Hart Slater article when it comes to formatting plot sections for fiction, which you kind of got snarky with me for, and I've had to fix one of your edits where you clearly are not familiar with WP:LAYOUT.

As for the ebay article, I stated what I stated on my talk page. Also, the person who pointed me to that online source has that article. Confirmed that that those couples are cited as supercouples in it. Why do I trust this person? Because this person has never been wrong before. Why do we trust editors here at Wikipedia who claim that they have a magazine page? Well, that's why I trust this person. There's also the fact that, as I just stated, this person has never been wrong before. Plus, has a bunch of soap opera magazines at home. The questions are... Why shouldn't I trust this person? And why would this person lie? I said that I wanted an online source because we have some skeptical editors on this list that I'm working on, thus I was pointed to that online source. No matter what, that issue is correct. And I've changed it from pointing to ebay since that online source is bothering you so much, but it's still valid that they were cited as supercouples in that issue.

And, Paul, oh please, that source is fine. I'm not sure what interpretation of English tells you that a "super celebrity couple" is quite different from a "celebrity supercouple" but I don't have time for it. Not to mention that all of those couples can be cited as supercouples by several sources. Don't start up on "this article is not really governed by fact, and more by twisting facts to fit the article" because, to be frank, it's a load of .... No couple listed on here is original research. And when I add the sources for all the ones that AniMate once again removed, lay off my back.

And if you two are going to guard this article once everything is sourced, revert the freaking vandalism and unsourced stuff. Jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder how you're reconciling your citing of Soaps in Depth with the link that shows this article doesn't seem to appear. Still, you cannot keep your unreferenced additions (even though you claim they aren't yours despite your insistence on adding them back in) while deleting some other editors attempts to add the same kind of references.

As to Paul and I only removing information. Have you ever heard the expression "You can't polish a turd"? It's hard to try and polish a turd, when there is clearly a lot of shit that needs to be taken out. AniMate 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How am I "reconciling my" citing of Soaps in Depth with the link that shows this article doesn't seem to appear? Because the article does, in fact, exist. That's how. Whether it states on the cover that those couples are cited as supercouples or not.

And as for your stating that I cannot keep "my" unreferenced additions (and, yes, they aren't "my" ideas despite my "insistence" to put them back in), while deleting some other editors attempts to add the same kind of references... Oh please! They weren't even editors. And there are plenty of editors here who do not allow new unreferenced material, especially when it's being discussed on the talk page that the unreferenced material that does exist will be taken care of. Not many true editors would allow new unreferenced material. On the other hand, do plenty of true editors allow unreferenced material to stay with citation tags? Yes. Especially when a fellow editor says that it will be taken care of. Trying to blast me for reverting new unreferenced material is crap, plain and simple. Just because it's me doing the reverting shouldn't matter. Any editor supposedly watching over this article should have reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I questioned about the eBay link is the fact that a link to a more reputable source about the magazine didn't mention anything about the supercouple article, when it seems like something they'd mention with all of the detail included. If you say it's there, I'll easily assume good faith, let it go, and believe you since despite us disagreeing about many things I do not think you're a liar or dishonest. We should probably get the name of the author and they page numbers to make it official, though I will not remove it without them. The tone of my comments above isn't necessarily conducive to a good working environment and apologize for that, though I again won't apologize for removing poorly sourced or unsourced couples.

I'd also like to say I still think we need to be very careful about what sources we use. All sources are not created equally. According to a user who clearly doesn't like me or appreciate my contributions here (KellyAna), EJ and Sami from Days of Our Lives were recently mentioned as a supercouple. Said user doesn't agree with the assertion. That's the problem with the supercouple label. Excitement or interest in a fictional couple can lead to the type of hyperbole where a fledgling couple is elevated to the same status as Luke and Laura. That's not okay. That's the reason I think multiple really, really reliable sources need to be used for this list, as opposed to Joe Schmoe's article on SoapCoupleFanCenterOfExcitement.com or Mary Cherry's article in Pop Culture According to the Gal with her Hand on the Pulse of Hoboken's Pop Culture scene.

In regards to my allegations of ownership of the articles, I think they're valid. I don't think it is intentional or malicious, but I think in many ways fans of certain genres (soaps, comic books, tv shows, etc.) are used to operating in a vacuum. When an outsider comes in and questions what is going on, contributors get upset. Fans assume because they're "experts" on their genre, others should defer to their insider knowledge. I think that's why KellyAna was so upset with me. I'm not part of WikiProject Soaps and never will be. I'll never be a huge soap opera contributor. I still think soap articles and their offshoots (this article for instance) should be held to the same standard as every other article. The majority of established contributors stay away from these kinds of article because the reaction of fan contributors to criticism is so rabid, unflinching, and often mean spirited. Still, these articles have to be held to the same standards as all of the others and if that's not okay with a contributors they should probably become contributors at SoapCentral or TelevisionWithoutPity.

Whether you like it or not, it is a subjective term and that above all else is why we must be careful here. All of that having been said, I definitely want to continue working on this article collegially, though I still think much of this list is a turd we're trying to polish. :P AniMate 06:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still say that the term Supercouple is not necessarily subjective. Let's face it: There are couples who are without a doubt supercouples such as Luke and Laura. Yes, I don't like the word "subjective" when it comes to supercouples, because it suggests that just any couple can be considered a supercouple. And we all know that's not true (well, I feel that most people know that that's not true). I've made many points about this subject above. Do I feel that the term can be subjective? Yes. It's just seeing it as flat-out subjective that I disagree with and cannot see as true whatsoever.

As for getting the name of the author and the page numbers of that source we were just debating, I'll email my friend for that and that shouldn't be a problem.

I accept your apology. And I would like to aoplogize as well. I don't feel that I got too out of line, but what I stated in this section still was not for the best, in a working environment such as this. I don't like it being implied that I'm some original research nut. And that's what it felt like, like I was being attacked. It hit my ego as well (though I'm not usually one for bruised egos). The only time I can think of that I was an original research villain is when I created the J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey article, but that was only because I was a newbie and was not familiar with Wiki-ways. I quickly got a kick in the butt when that article was put up for deletion. I listened and learned a lot in my first week here, and was guided by editor Elonka. She was basically my Yoda (just better-looking and without all the lightsabers). Right there I got a crash course in Wiki-ways and improved as an editor month by month. The J.R. and Babe article, for instance, though greatly improved from where it originally was, doesn't even compare to the level that my second article, Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, is on. That is half due to Bianca and Maggie having had more impact than J.R. and Babe, but also due to how much harder I've worked on that article. I know all of Wikipedia's policies like the back of my hand, so I do sometimes get snarky if an editor is pointing out Wikipedia policies to me as in a discussion or debate when I feel attacked. Again, I apologize. My point is...I'm not about original research or trying to lie to people through Wikipedia or any of the sort. Did I make mistakes with this article? Yes. I was surely going to take care of the unsourced material, though. Still am. And was following the editing style that many great editors do here -- leave the uncited material in if there's a good chance that it can be cited, and especially when you're going to take care of it yourself. It's not like the unsourced entries had been tagged with citation tags for the longest time.

Finally, I don't have a problem working with you either, AniMate. I don't, however, want to be the only one watching over this article when stuff like vandalism and unsourced material is added to it, and I ask you two (you and Paul) to help with that, since you're clearly watching this article. If you're just going to leave this article once this article has undergone what I've stated I will take care of, then let me know now. As I always state while on Wikipedia, I've got work to do. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick note, then bed. I don't give up on or stop watching any article I've contributed to. I'll keep this on my watchlist, but this last week I was away on vacation and had way too much fun to bother checking my computer. As for either of us getting out of line, that is ridiculous. We clearly disagree about a lot but you really need to read up on policy if you think our debate on this page has gone too far.

You don't want the term "supercouple" to be subjective. How about we agree that the term is often overused? I suppose the best way to move on is to agree that there have to be some guidelines about how writers use it and how reliable they are as a source. For the record, I'm not trying to denigrate any work you have done by calling it original research, but there isn't any tag for ill-advised research or a tag for research that should have been vetted more. Please, let the tag stay until we have come to an understanding about how to truly reference a supercouple.

We're not that far apart, though I still think this article is kind of a turd. AniMate 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want the term Supercouple to be subjective. It's that in a lot of cases, it truly isn't. No one with a straight face can honestly say that citing Luke and Laura as a supercouple is subjective. And by out of line, I meant what I stated, of course. It certainly wasn't too in line. As for letting the tag stay, no, I don't feel that it should. Your feeling that some of the sources may be used to assert some couples are supercouples who really aren't is off, considering that every couple in this article has a valid source. The only current source or rather main current source that you feel may not be valid is the one we were just debating, but that's not enough for an original research tag. No one here is playing sneaky. Our job is to provide the sources. Valid. Not feel that any are being twisted by editors we are supposed to assume good faith in. Not every reference I add is going to be an online reference, but that does not mean that this article should be tagged for original research just because of an editor's doubt about citations without urls. There are plenty of articles that rely heavily on citations that don't include urls such as Squall Leonhart or Devil May Cry, but I don't doubt that any of those references are true. One, because I'm very familiar with that stuff and that history, but also because I trust those editors. Working on this article is about trust. We are all going to make mistakes, but I won't include a couple being cited as a supercouple unless they are cited as such. That is my word. Could I make a mistake? Sure. But I'm certain that I'll be 99.9% accurate.

And some couples are going to have just one source. Because a lot of couples have been cited as supercouples once by a major magazine or by various magazines offline. One of my early mistakes with this list was judging Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer by having only been cited as a supercouple by one source (TV Guide) pretty early in their union and feeling that they shouldn't be listed as a supercouple. Though, my main feeling was that there was no way that most of the soap opera audience felt/feels that they are a supercouple already. Well, that wasn't my call to make. It's all about what can be cited, even if only once. We shouldn't have waited until Entertainment Weekly also deemed them a supercouple before adding them to the soap opera supercouples list.

I feel that we have a pretty good understanding about sources. Not every source is going to be from Entertainment Weekly and deemed of that high of a standard, but as long as the sources are valid, I don't feel that this article is that turdy. It's not as though we've truly taken liberty with most of the couples currently listed here. And a lot of them have at least two valid sources, which shows it's not just a "one source" thing for a lot of them. But again, not all couples are going to have more than one source.

I'm about to add some couples back right now but with valid references. We can further debate how we want to go about the references issue, of course. But I no longer see the original research tag being needed and will remove it. Talk with you again soon. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just another point that I'm sure will draw even more heated debate...the term "supercouple" is not even defined as a word by the Oxford English Dictionary......if we are working with a word that is not recognised - a non-word to all intents and purposes - I think we can safely assume that a lot of what goes into this article is subjective. And Flyer22, while you often berate myself and AniMate from not contributing to this article and just taking away from it, I think the problem is that if we were ever to work on the article and bring it up to scratch, it would be immediately reverted by yourself. I am happy to work on the article, but there is not much point if it is going to be reverted straight away. Paul75 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word Supercouple not being defined by Oxford English Dictionary means nothing. That dictionary often contradicts other definitions of the same word anyway. A lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias contradict themselves. And, I mean, are you suggesting that the term Supercouple doesn't even exist just because of that? If the term doesn't exist, then I don't see how a lot of people have been using and defining the term since the 1980s. It's not the same thing as using the would-be word "ain't". A lot of words that have only been around since the 1980s or 1990s are not in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I berate you and AniMate? You two often berate me. Don't blame your only taking away from this article on me, or act as though I'm acting as if I own this article. And certainly don't act as though your editing skills are more up to par than mine and that this article would be beautiful if it weren't for mean ole Flyer. I wasn't the one who instantly reverted either of your edits when you two first tag-teamed this article. I was calm, open to listening, and replied. I agreed with removing the popular couples who aren't supercouples such as the "Notable wave" section, and said that its removal would improve this article. I wouldn't revert anything if it's not taking away valid references from this article. And acting as though I'm keeping you from improving this article is silly. Right now, this article has valid sources all the way through, and will have even more as I add to it and add additional references for some already-listed couples. Would I revert your interpretation of a reference that says Super Celebrity Couples just because, for some strange reason, you feel that it does not mean the same thing as a celebrity supercouple? Yes. If you want to do more than take away from this article, then go for it. I certainly wouldn't revert if you are adding valid references to already-listed couples or to couples you are newly adding. And I wouldn't revert if you are truly taking away awful citations. But taking away citations that are valid just because you may feel that they should be of Entertainment Weekly's caliber is not enough. Taking away valid citations that don't have urls would also be off. I have come to better terms with AniMate and I would like to come to better terms with you as well, Paul. I will listen to what you suggest. We should get off of the supercouple debate, however, because it is pointless, and is not improving this article whatsoever. We should be more focused on references, as AniMate has pointed out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you added all of the couples listed by the EW article? AniMate 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Also I just checked out the reference for West Side Story. It's the Mount Holyoke school newspaper. That has to go. AniMate 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd checked it as well, before adding it, AniMate. I don't feel that it has to go. I see it as a reliable source. There are some sources on Wikipedia that are used from College newspapers. You can take it to the Noticeboard if you want and, of course, I'll follow you there. As for listing all the couples from EW (Entertainment Weekly), I basically have. All the soap opera supercouples it names are listed, and it only named a few primetime supercouples. Those are listed as well. I can only think of one supercouple that I haven't used from it, wait make that two, that's the platonic supercouples, which I think is only two. Go ahead and add them if you want, make a sub-section under the soap opera supercouples for the platonic ones. And, yes, I feel that a platonic section is needed for adding platonic supercouples, just like there are ones for the primetime and celebrity sections in this article.

I'm about to go add a few additional references for the celebrity supercouples right now. And as I mentioned before, most of them are named supercouples by many sources. I don't feel that there's any doubt that most of those listed, are, in fact, supercouples. Especially considering that there are a lot of celebrity couples that a person will not be able to find a single reference for stating that they are one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that source has to go. We've agreed that we have to have really good sources. A college newspaper isn't a good source. It's convenient, but considering that the term supercouple is subjective and overused we cannot include the opinion of an amateur college journalist. Relying on these kinds of dubious sources is going to get this article deleted, and it barely survived an AfD the last time. Regardless, no way in hell can anyone actually argue that a journalism student at Mount Holyoke is enough of an authority to define supercouples. AniMate 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You know that I will never see the term Supercouple as flat-out subjective. As for an "amateur college student" not being a good source, then how do you explain college newspapers such as The Northern Light, The Daily Californian, Trinity News...and Felix, etc. being honored as they have for their journalism and having articles on Wikipedia? Yes, I feel that it can be argued that a journalism student at Mount Holyoke is enough of an authority to define supercouples. I never stated that we need "really good" sources. In fact, I made it a point that not all sources are going to be as high as Entertainment Weekly's so-called caliber and shouldn't have to be...as long as they are valid. I stated that we need valid sources. And I feel that that source we are now debating is valid. Also, if the term supercouple was that overused, I'm guessing that this celebrity supercouples list would be a lot longer. It's mainly overused for couples who are actually supercouples. Google Supercouple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and they are titled a supercouple all over the internet. Out of that, we can only use valid sources for this article.

If you feel that using a college paper as a source is going to get this article deleted, then those are your feelings, but I don't agree. It's not like it's everyday that a college paper focuses on supercouples. It's also not like the deletion debate for this article was that much more for deletion or that easy to discern. If it were, it wouldn't have been spared. You seem to suggest that college papers are now going to be used throughout this article. They're not. And there's nothing to fear in using a college paper as a source, especially when they, nor most of the media, focuses that much on writing articles about supercouples...and when college papers have been known to be good sources, as the examples above demonstrate. If you are that hard-pressed on removing this source, then take it to the Noticeboard. I simply cannot agree with you about this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting for one minute that myself or AniMate are superior editors to you Flyer. What I was trying to say is that if I was to contribute to the article itself, my first action would be to slash it down and rewrite it. My fear is that it would be pointless as it would be reverted straight away. As to the Moutn Holyoke school newspaper, well.....it is my opinion as well that it is a fairly poor souce for an encyclopedia. Lists of people must be sourced reliably according to Wikipedia guidance and I doubt that would pass the test...21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I don't see how it would need to be slashed down. Most of the sources in this article are valid. All of the soap opera supercouples have valid sources and all, well, except for one (I'll get to that at the end of this comment) of the celebrity supercouples have valid sources that can be added to additionally. Whether a person considers People Magazine a gossip mag or not, it is considered a reliable source. My point is that most of the sources in this article are valid. There aren't many primetime, film, or comic book supercouples in this article at the moment, but they are all valid and I'm certain that additional references can be added for most of them (we just have to find those additional references). So, yes, I would revert any cutting down you do if it were removing any valid sources. I also don't see how this article (I'm guessing the lead) needs to be rewritten, but I would be/am more than open to any suggestions you make.

As for the Mount Holyoke college newspaper, I've given examples above where college newspapers have been deemed reliable and, in some cases, excellent sources. I don't feel that the Mount Holyoke college newspaper is a great source, but I don't see it as a poor source either. Right now, I'm about sourcing the already-listed supercouples with as many valid sources as I can find. And newly listing any supercouples that have valid sources. I feel that that's what we should be focused on now in concerns to this article. You two have done a great job at weeding out the terrible sources, and now I feel that this article is in pretty good shape. It just needs some more tweaking. I am looking for great sources to add all the time, but going with sources that are more so valid than great is not bad either. I truly won't revert any awful source you remove. I mean, looking at Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson's listing, that looks like an awful source, for instance, and I cannot see where it says that they are a supercouple in that link. Can you? I also cannot find any valid sources online where they are called a supercouple. They should definitely be removed from the celebrity supercouples list. Personally, I can see why they are on there, given the huge success of their sex tape and how they were often then referenced in popular culture, but until we can find a valid source citing them as a supercouple, they should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by slashing the list is to make it smaller. This article/list could literally go on forever - we really don't want to get to that point. I think there should just be a list of "examples" for each category. In fact, I think this list could quite happily be merged with the Supercouples article, I know it was orginally part of that, but the problem I see is that if it is not contained it is just going to grow and grow again and fill up with more unsourced crap, and a year from now we will be in exactly the same situation. Paul75 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Paul has stated this perfectly. Are we going to ever have a definitive list of every supercouple or couple that was ever called a supercouple. No. It's impossible. That's why we need to make sure that the ones listed are sourced very well. We don't have to be "fair" and cover every single soap ever made, we need to be academic and realistic. Sources like Entertainment Weekly, that soap encyclopedia, the soap magazines, and internet divisions from MSN and so forth are great. Student journalists from Mount Holyoke do not fit in that criteria at all. Personally I have no problem citing school newspapers when they're reporting the news, but being a student journalist doesn't make him/her anywhere near qualified as an expert or an authority on pop-culture. I look forward to your reply, but can you please try and be a little more concise? These replies of yours are alot to read. AniMate 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you point out here and in hat context the above cited papers were cited on Wikipedia? I've been looking for Trinity News and haven't found it. AniMate

Part 2

Paul, but I don't see the point in making this article smaller. It's kind of hard for it to go on forever (in the sense that you mean) since, as we see now, coming by valid sources (at least online) that cite couples as supercouples is not a plenty. Or else as I stated before, this article would be a lot longer. I get that you and AniMate mean, like if we were to suddenly have a Cartoon supercouples list. But, really, not many cartoon supercouples can be verified as supercouples on the internet or off. I really don't see "this article may become too big" as the problem. Not any more than it will soon be a problem for List of fictional anti-heroes (and that list grows twice as much as this one) or any other list that continues to grow. If your concern is that this list may grow too big, then when that starts to happen, we could split this list into List of fictional supercouples, List of celebrity supercouples and so on. Although, as I stated before, I really don't feel that List of celebrity supercouples would last that long. I don't see this article in danger of getting too big any time soon, and especially not because of using a college paper as a source. This article has certainly been cut already, mainly because it was also filled with popular couples rather than just supercouples. I don't feel that keeping this article maintained will be a problem, as long we are watching over it. If we ever leave here? Well, I'll still be popping into Wikipedia to keep an eye on articles I've created or contribued heavily to when I become even busier in my life outside of Wikipedia, and will ask trusted editors that I know to watch over this article if it ever comes to that point where it's not watched as much anymore.

Putting examples in the Supercouple article? Bad idea, if you mean an examples list. Examples are already in that article. But an examples list in that article was tried before, as you know, even though it was titled as more so a list. Whether it's titled as a list or as examples (or an examples list), editors and IPs are always tempted to add to it. It happens with the examples list in the Gay icon article, as well as with the examples (and mostly unsourced) list in the Star-crossed article. An editor added to that list two couple articles I created, and even though I know those two couples are star-crossed, those examples are mostly unsourced (though the Famous examples listed there don't really need to be sourced and I suppose a few of the modern day ones suffice because they are sourced in their articles or individual articles). That list, whether sourced or not, could definitely grow much longer than this one.

AniMate, I try to make my replies shorter at times, but sometimes I have a lot to say. My point in listing the college newspapers above is that if some of those journalists are seen as expert enough in reporting other matters, I don't see them as that less qualified to report on popular culture. This doesn't mean that this article is going to be filled with citations from college newspapers. One, because it's not as if we mostly need them. And two, because they or any other media source doesn't often write articles specifically about supercouples (unless it's the soap opera media). As for being an expert on popular culture, a lot of sources that report on popular culture aren't experts on it, but we still use them as valid when they are valid. I understand being picky with sources, but not that picky. Do I get that we shouldn't use a source from some teenager's blog? Of course. But a valid source from a college newspaper specifically about supercouples...I still feel is fine.

I'm not sure if the above cited college papers were cited on Wikipedia. I never stated that they were. You haven't found any articles here on Wikipedia citing Trinity News. Does that mean that you have for the others listed? Besides, there are plenty of other college newspaper articles on Wikipedia, maybe one of them has been cited by Wikipedia as well. I'll look around when I get a good chance to. Regardless, I don't feel that a college newspaper is an awful source. I just can't agree about not using that source we are now debating. I'm about to scour the internet for better sources again, though. And check my new e-mails to see what may be there about any supercouple source information. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A college newspaper is a fine source for facts. A college newspaper is not an adequate source for what is largely opinion or conjecture. There's a reason we trust certain experts, and a reason we do not include the majority of blogs as reliable sources. AniMate 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And I'm stating that a college newspaper is far from a blog, certain valid sources on popular culture aren't always from experts on popular culture...and that this article is not going to be filled with sources from college newspapers. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (about all sources not coming from college newspapers). This article came from this student who has written a total of five articles and all of them came from this year. Come on. AniMate 03:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And she started writing for the paper a little over a month ago! AniMate 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, AniMate, I see that argument as saying that so and so only started writing for the New York Post a little over a month ago and only has five articles. Of course her paper is not on the same level as the New York Post, but I don't feel that that makes her any less versed in popular culture enough to write a valid article on it. It's not like it's a high school paper we're debating here, though there are even high school journalists who have talent that could match the higher level experts. Jeez, now I'm really going to have to hurry up and search Wikipedia and see if any other Wikipedia articles have cited college papers other than the articles on colleges themselves. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to be a joke. It just... it just has to be.

By all means find articles where college newspapers are cited by a writer who started last month and has five articles and where someone has said it is a reliable source. You can't really think this qualifies as a reliable source? Can you? Really? Wow, you're really, really grasping for straws. I mean... come on! AniMate 05:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so, AniMate. But if there are articles on Wikipedia that have cited a college paper other than the source being cited in a Wikipedia article about college itself, it shouldn't matter whether the writer started last month or not. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

College papers like any other paper can report facts, be they about their own college or about actual things happening in the world. You are arguing that an undergrad with all of five articles to her name is a reliable source. Bullshit. AniMate 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable for news, but not for news on popular culture? Actual intelligent, young (and by young, I mean 18 to 24-year-old) people who know more about popular culture (including classic popular culture) than the average 36-year-old? Popular culture is something actually going on in the world. Yes, I'm saying that that source is valid. Look, we can keep going over this until one of us keels over, but I'm not going to condemn that source. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting facts. Yes. Reporting opinions? No. AniMate 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record: according to your standards I am an expert on our current President. I was published in my college newspaper, and you can find my pieces online. Sorry, but this is both ridiculous and embarrassing. AniMate 08:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as you state that who is a supercouple isn't fact, you know that I'm not going to necessarily agree. And no one is an expert on opinions. Ridiculous indeed. And according to "my standards"? Whoa. Not to mention that our President and fictional supercouples are two completely different matters. Whatever. I'm done with this particular debate. Lately, this entrie article has been taking away from time that I need to be spending on articles that actually need a lot of help. And, no, I don't feel that this article needs that much time or help. It needs additional references, so that I can move on even faster to elevating articles I've been working on that are set or soon to be set for Good Article or Featured Article status and so that I can hurry up and have no or very few articles on my "need to do" list once I'm beyond too busy to be on Wikipedia as much as I am now. I shouldn't even be on Wikipedia this much already...as I'm alluding phone calls and my writing partner to take care of things that need to be done. Removing that source from this article is not something that I feel needs to be done. Just know that I plan to step up my game with this article and even further with the Supercouple article, whether it's removing that source you're so adamant on removing or not. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on AniMate's side with this....you cannot seriously, by any stretch of the imagination, quote a college newspaper as a worthwhile source for an encyclopedia. Whilst I have no proof, I'm almost certain this method would not be used by Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't think anything we say or do will make any difference though. The fate of this article is determined by one person and one person only it seems, oblivious to any rules and outlines set out by Wikipedia. I think I give up. Paul75 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude (yes, I just said dude), that issue is already resolved! That source is not used for this article anymore, because AniMate yanked it out. But, really, that writer was right about every single couple, unless you count Wesley and Buttercup, but there are probably sources in books that call them a supercouple as well. That person is a writer, and that source is not banned by Wikipedia, nor did I feel that it constituted as a terrible source...so I used it. Am I still using that source for the Supercouple article? Yes. One, because no complaint about it was taken to the Noticeboard. And two, because other sources can be added to back up eveything that writer stated in that article. And if the fate of this article is determined by one person and one person only, it seems, it's because I am the only person tending to this article at the moment. I'm not deciding anything with this article. You two have! All I have done is listen to YOU TWO, even if I didn't go along with removing that one source AniMate was so adamant on removing. I revert vandalism, unsourced additions to this article, and provide sourced additions to it. There is nothing wrong with this article whatsoever at the moment. You just object to having a supercouple list on Wikipedia at all, as that was your main reasoning for nominating this article for deletion (because of couples being titled supercouples by so-called opinions, even though they were mostly from well-respected sources such as Entertainment Weekly) before you saw that it also included popular couples who are not supercouples and some faulty sources. Perhaps, you should go object to another list, especially one that will grow much longer than this one and is much more subjective than this one such as List of fictional anti-heroes. I don't care.

You continue to insult me, when I have not been about that with you. Have I gotten snipey with you? Yes. But not terribly. And I didn't make you out to be some sorry-*** editor. Saying that I'm oblivious to any rules and outlines set out by Wikipedia is the most ludicrous piece of garbage I've ever read on Wikipedia. If I was so oblivious, then I wouldn't have had to point out Wikipedia formatting to AniMate once and correct AniMate's formatting style in another article. I wouldn't fight vandalism the way that I do, knowing Wikipedia policy like the back of my hand. The articles I've created would have been deleted by now or would be completely unsourced. I wouldn't know how to fix up fictional character articles such as Kendall Hart Slater that would otherwise be easily deleted without my editing to it. Heck, most of the work I've done to soap opera fictional character articles is WAY better than most of the primetime fictional character articles such as Seven of Nine. If I was oblivious to any rules and outlines set out by Wikipedia, I wouldn't have been praised for my work on Wikipedia by way much more experienced Wikipedian editors than any of us here. Yeah, sure, that all equates to my being oblivious to any rules and outlines set out by Wikipedia (sarcasm). Whatever. You quit this article. Fine. It's not my passion, anyway. And it certainly isn't yours. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what Paul75 is trying to say is that your protection of this article isn't necessarily appropriate and the way the article has been developed and expanded isn't the most encyclopedic. Your defense of this college kids article is really, really grasping (and you even almost admit she got one couple wrong). Agreeing with someone does not in anyway make them a reliable source. As for our previous interaction, yes you pointed out a style guideline from Wikiproject Soaps (which could stand for some outside influence), but you also chose to revert to an article (with the summary Back to me...) that said: Kendall is currently in love with the three men in her life, her husband Zachary "Zach" Slater and her two sons, Spike Lavery and Ian Slater.

I know you think this article is fine and has the potential to be great. It simply doesn't at all. It really should've been deleted and a few examples should have been left in the main article. It wasn't, so we have to deal with it now. I'm currently swamped at work, so I probably won't be online much, but I think as a pop culture fan you need to be careful about your additions Flyer22. By adding every couple ever referred to as a supercouple by dubious or borderline sources, you devalue the ones that really should be on the list. Try to remember: Sometimes less is more.

What is needed is a fresh set of eyes. I know that an admin by the name of Elonka has worked with Wikiproject Soaps in the past in regards to soap couples that have articles for both the individual characters and for the couple (correct me if I'm wrong). Why not get her to come and evaluate the state of this article? Hopefully with some outside, dispassionate perspective this article can be brought up to respectable standards or merged back into the main supercouple article. AniMate 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, what you stated is not what Paul was trying to state. And it's not what he stated whatsoever. And my so-called protection of this article isn't inappropriate in any way. I wasn't grasping at any straws by keeping the source from the "college kid". And I never stated that she got one couple wrong, as I'm certain that Wesley and Buttercup are titled a supercouple in sources that I haven't found. I used that source from that "college kid" because it is valid. To act as though it is a high school newspaper or a blog is what is insane. If you wanted others' thoughts on that source, then you should have taken it to the Noticeboard.

I don't need your advice not to add any couple possible that is mentioned as a supercouple. I'll add any couple who is titled a supercouple by valid sources, more so by at least two or more sources. Two or more sources is more than what the List of fictional anti-heroes does. I seriously don't know why you or Paul act as though this article will grow out of hand any more than any other list on Wikipedia has the possibility to do or that it is terrible simply because it is sourced by critics and so-called experts. Um, that's what the best lists on Wikipedia about these types of popular culture subjects are supposed do. It's no more worthy of deletion than any other sourced list on Wikipedia, and certainly no different than any list on Wikipedia that grows at the same rate as this article or faster. Furthermore, couples being titled supercouples by valid sources obviously aren't that easy to find, as is evident by all the couples missing from this list, and by the fact that if you Google the word Supercouple, not a lot of online valid sources come up naming couples as supercouples. So, yes, I find it insane that this list should be treated as some out of control entity when, really, valid sources for supercouples are scarce! So I find your advice to me, Sometimes less is more, as quite off. To suggest that this article is in some huge bad shape or should have been deleted simply because it is a list of supercouples is ludicrous when we have so many other lists on Wikipedia (yes, I mentioned other stuff exists), and the way more subjective List of fictional anti-heroes (that I keep bringing up)! And we already have examples of supercouples in the Supercouple article, but a list of supercouple examples in the Supercouple article is a very bad idea for all the reasons I already brought up above.

As for the Kendall Hart Slater article, when I reverted your edits to that article, it was not simply soap opera formatting that I was reverting. All plot summaries should be written in present tense per Wikipedia policy. I reverted "back to me" for a valid reason, that I left on your talk page. There was the plot summary issue and the fact that I was not about to go through your edits and format the plot summary all over again just to spare your "good edits"... You only made two edits (excluding your fix after I reverted you). Not a succession of edits. I left a message specifically on your talk page stating that you might want to go take care of any good edits I reverted of yours in that instance. It certainly wasn't because I wanted to keep the lead as Kendall is currently in love with the three men in her life, her husband Zachary "Zach" Slater and her two sons, Spike Lavery and Ian Slater. I didn't write that lead, that's for sure. That wasn't the only revert I made to one of your edits, anyway. Recently, I visited an article (a criminals' article; 2006 Richmond spree murders) where you put the References section below the External links section. I certainly had to correct that.

I don't need your advice that, as a pop culture fan, I shouldn't let that cloud my judgment. Nothing is clouding my judgment or editing ability. I just happen to know a lot about popular culture. It doesn't make me some huge fan of it. I'm also quite educated in the sexual and scientific fields, doesn't mean that I'm a huge fan on those subjects either, though I do actually enjoy those topics a lot and much more than fixing up soap opera articles. It just so happens that, hell, there are an awful lot of soap opera articles that need a lot of fixing up and tending to...in order to keep them from being deleted. Even though, really, they aren't in that much more bad shape than most of the primetime articles.

A fresh pair of eyes or several fresh pair of eyes for this article is great. I'm certain that, by what I saw in the deletion debate for this article, there won't be a huge portion to feel that having a list of supercouples is any more unencyclopedic than having a list of anything else. And I most certainly know that there wouldn't be any huge objection if this was simply a List of fictional supercouples. As the main problem editors had with this list is that it also features real couples. Quite frankly, that's the only true objection I can see being made for this list.

My suggestion? If either of you would rather this list be celebrity-supercouple free, then go for it, and rename this article to List of fictional supercouples, because I can guarantee that most editors won't see that as some awful list, and that there will most certainly be a list of fictional supecouples, whether this list is deleted or not. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and contacted Elonka as everyone here seems to be entrenched in their positions. Hopefully, she can get things going on a more productive direction. Criticizing each other isn't going to help this situation, so I'm going to refrain from continuing the discussion about Kendall Hart. I'll be on for about 5 minutes tomorrow night and hopefully something positive will have come from my informal third opinion request. AniMate 10:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. And thank you for removing the bit of your comment that you did. LOL. I can assure you that it wasn't/isn't true, although I can see how you came to that conclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Taylor and Burton

Does anyone have a problem with me adding Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton to the list? I can find about 8,000 reliable sources and they're even referenced on the "supercouple" article on wiki. Dead men's bells (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I just put them in alphabetical order. This article is going by alphabetical order, and for the celebrity supercouples section, we go by the woman's last name. Or, if it's a same-sex couple, by the last name of the person listed second within the couple. Thanks for adding them. It's nice to have someone adding to this article again, besides me, and with valid sources. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Future of the list

There seem to be some fundamental differences in opinion over the direction of this article in the future as well as what does or doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Also, there seems to be some lingering bad feelings that merely popular couples are no longer being included in this as well. I've invited Elonka to peek in and give some opinions. I'd intended for her to participate as a coeditor/third opinion giver, but she's also willing to participate as an uninvolved admin to help structure the debate and make sure things stay civil. Things have gotten a little tense, but for the most part I think we've all kept level heads and civil editing habits.

Personally, I think the article should only include verifiable supercouples. Adding in popular or even extremely popular couples opens the door to so many possible additions that this list would become unmanageable. Sections like the "notable wave" or the "disputed by rivalry" are confusing and open to limitless additions and this article needs to stay manageable and needs to be accessible to people not familiar with the genre. That's also why I'm being a stickler for sources. The term can be overused or applied inappropriately in many cases, in my opinion. Flyer has suggested removing the celebrities section and moving this to List of fictional supercouples. I'm not opposed to that.

I'm really having to limit my self to extremely brief bursts of participation on Wikipedia, since my services are finally in demand again with the end of the writer's strike and I foolishly thought I could handle some print work in addition to graphic work that I'm contractually obliged to finish on time. Regardless, I'll peek in once or twice a day to comment, but doubt I'll be doing any actual editing before next week unless I spot some bad vandalism. I really look forward to hearing others opinions and hope we can work well together. AniMate 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and yes, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and help out. I'm still coming up to speed on past discussions, the refs that are being used on the article, and the comments from the AfD. I do think it's important that we hammer out just what the list's Scope is, before we go any further. So, could I get everyone to weigh in, with just a sentence or two on what you think that this list should be? For example: Fictional, factual, verifiable, unverifiable "everybody knows", raw list, list with descriptions and pictures... What is everyone's vision of what this list could grow up to be? Don't worry about agreeing or disagreeing with other people's interpretations... I just want to find out where everyone's starting from. Thanks, --Elonka 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should only be fictional supercouples with multiple good sources, but that's not going to be a surprise to anyone. AniMate 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My honest opinion? This list is off with the fairies and shouldn't be here to start with with. But to be much more co-operative, I think this should be a list of FICTIONAL supercouples, that can be reliably verified. I would also like it to be more restricted to soap operas and modern day fiction. I think calling fictional couples like Romeo and Juliet supercouples is misguided at the very best, and bordering on sacreligious at worst. I think referring to a couple who were created, or lived and died, centuries before the term was invented is little more then inventing facts. My main reason for restricting this to fictional characters is that no-one, no matter what the references and sources, "becomes" a supercouple- Madonna and Guy Ritchie didn't apply for a supercouple licence, and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie didn't win a Supercouple award at the Oscars. It is a term created and distributed entirely by the opinions of the popular press, in the way supermodels, followed by ubermodels was bandied about in the 1990s. Soap opera supercouples at least are somewhat created by the scripters and producers of the programme. Having said that, the only option I see for this article is to be merged with the Supercouples article, there is really no need for is to exist, it really is just a list of characters from American soap operas, something I don't see as needing it's own article. Controversial probably, and unpopular with some, but that is my view. Paul75 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, went a little over the "sentence or two" requested.....ooops! Paul75 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have sort of the same problem as AniMate with not being on Wikipedia as much anymore. Well, that and my other computer broke down. Anyway, we have all come to an agreement that this list is better-suited, in regards to how Wikipedia treats lists like these, as a list of fictional supercouples. I will state, to address Paul's above statement, that calling fictional couples like Romeo and Juliet supercouples is not "misguided at the very best", and bordering on "sacreligious" at worst. I mean, we do have Doug Williams and Julie Olson, a couple that is considered to a supercouple before the term ever existed. To say that calling a couple a supercouple before the term existed is "inventing facts" is like saying that calling Alexander the Great gay (though some call him "bisexual") is "inventing facts" just because the term Gay (or bisexual), in reference to sexuality, didn't exist back then. Also, Paul is still off about what defines a supercouple, especially fictional supercouples. Of course, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie didn't win a supercouple award. That's not what being a supercouple is about. Fictional supercouples are not made by the writers to be supercouples. Most fictional supercouples became supercouples by accident; it wasn't intentional by the writers. The writers (most, anyway) didn't say, "Okay, this is the new supercouple" and then that couple became a supercouple. Most of them became supercouples due to their chemistry and extreme popularity. To say that there is no need for this list is like saying that there is no need for any list to do with popular culture on Wikipedia, basically. And, of course, I disagree with that. I will bring it up for as many times as I see fit, but if List of fictional anti-heroes, a list way more subjective and growing longer than this one every day can exist, then so can this one. This is not merely a list of soap opera supercouples, and nor should it be.

Anyway, those are my main thoughts for now. In agreement to make this a list solely of fictional supercouples. After all, List of supermodels was deleted due to how it was considered kind of arbitrary in concerns to celebrty supermodels. Then again, it only included celebrity supermodels...because supermodels in fiction aren't as prominent. Not to mention...fictional supermodels are truly made by the writers. In that case, the writer does literally say "You're a supermodel" and then you are one. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Paul about Romeo and Juliet, but also agree with Flyer that this should not be limited to just soap couples. However, it seems we have reached a consensus (of three) that this should be moved to List of fictional supercouples. We can wait until tomorrow in case someone else chimes in. AniMate 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in at the last miniute, feel free to disregard my opinion, but I dont think this list should be limited to just fiction. I think it should perhaps be limited to whether the media specifically brands a couple (fictional or real) as a "supercouple". It's not meant to be about our opinions after all (whether we like the term or not, or think they are a supercouple or not), so if each instance is referenced to an external source, which Flyer and co have done an excellent job in doing, then there's no original research and it wont be based on editor opinion. I dont really agree that it's right to call Romeo and Juliet a supercouple, just because it's a modern term not something I would associate with Shakespeare, though I can see where Flyer is coming from with her reasoning. Perhaps you could change the article title to "list of influential couples" (or something like that, mainly because I see that Brad and Angelina were named most influential couple recently [1]) and make "supercouple" a subsection, using it only for those who have been branded a supercouple by the media. Then you could include influential fictional couples like Romeo and Juliet under a different subcat.Gungadin 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would never disregard your opinion, but I may disagree with it. Unfortunately, I do not think we can change the title to "list of influential couples" because that would open the door to way to much interpretation and it would get out of hand. I still think it's a good idea to at least split the list into an article with celebrity and one with fictional. There's been quite a bit of debate about what sources are reliable, and if the source is reliable than is the statement accurate and it what context it is being made. This list is such a headache, that I think splitting it will at least make it easier to keep an on things. AniMate 08:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also personally oppose limiting it to fictional supercouples. It might be a good idea to split it into "fictional supercouples" and "celebrity supercouples," but to omit a list of celebrity supercouples would be pretty silly IMO, since the actual supercouple article mentions them extensively. Why is the celebrity section less notable or deserving of existence? I heard the word supercouple used to refer to real people much more often than I do fictional characters. None of my male friends know who "Bo and Hope" are, but they're all acquainted with "Brad and Angelina." I don't really understand the reasoning for removing the celebrity section, so I'm going to state my opposition toward it. The word is too closely tied with celebrities that I think it would be bizarre to exclude it. 71.202.238.214 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22, the term "homosexual" and the knowledge of same sex relationships existed at the time of Alexander the Great, the comparison is rather weak. Alexander's contempories knew what he was, probably more then we do what he was actually up to. To state that Romeo and Juilet caused public excitement and press interest in the 1600s is a little misguided. It is only really since the advent of cinema that they have been consumed by the mass media and identified as a 'supercouple'. That's my view for the day, anyway ;) Paul75 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've spent some time thinking about this list. I still have no really strong preference, but here are my thoughts: We need to make this list something that would genuinely be useful for our readers. As a simple collection of data, it seems to run afoul of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." However, I think that this list could be useful. This then boils down to two different ways of looking at it: (1) Which couples should be on this list? and (2) What information about them should be on the list?

To answer #1, which couples should be on the list. I think we really need to limit this, because we're talking about humans here, and humans just naturally pair up. Over 90% of the human race is in couples. So I would say that whoever we list, they would need to be extremely notable for being a "couple", such that their names are usually linked with an "and", and that their relationship be a romantic one. The second factor is extremely important, otherwise we run into questions such as whether or not we should list "Starsky and Hutch" or "Tom and Jerry". However, "Romeo and Juliet" seem reasonable to include. I also think we should limit this list to those couples that actually have "couple" articles on Wikipedia. If a couple is notable enough for their own article, then they're notable enough to be on the list. We can make exceptions to that rule, but they should be rare.

To answer #2, I'd like to see the list actually have some information on the couples. List the couple's name, link to their article, list their dates of activity, their origin, an actual paragraph describing the couple and how they achieved their "super-ness', and if possible, a picture. There are some great Featured lists on Wikipedia, and we could strive to bring this article up to that standard. I know that I, as a reader, would find it interesting to read a bit of information about multiple supercouples, and would find that kind of a list more useful than simply a "collection" list with no additional information. --Elonka 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and doable with some work. I'm still curious to see what you think about using this source which I removed from this list, but which is used as a source extensively in the supercouple article. AniMate 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New Couples

I feel like that we should add Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck to the celebrity couples. I would do it myself, but I'm not very good wiht HTML or whatever this coding language is. Geowhiz1010 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Answers 2

Paul, the Alexander the Great comparison was not weak at all. The term Gay as it is now didn't exist in the time of Alexander the Great, and that was my point. In any case, there are plenty of other comparisons that can be made, such as the other fictional couple I mentioned in that comment. The point is that Romeo and Juliet have been dubbed a supercouple by today's society. No, they didn't cause a media sensation then, seeing as the media didn't exist then as it does now, but they were a sensation and are even more so today. If Romeo and Juliet aren't a supercouple, then it's difficult to say if any couple really is. Just because something didn't have a name back then doesn't mean that it didn't exist back then. Oh, and I reverted all of your edits to the Supercouple article. You went tagging crazy there. Read that talk page, and don't take offense. Elonka, great suggestions, as usual. I'll get back to you all in full when I can. Flyer22 (talk

I don't know. I'm going to need some serious convincing on Romeo and Juliet, as their couple name is a result of their being part of an iconic play, not necessarily as a result of their being part of an iconic couple. It's a fine line and I see no reason to debate it to death. FYI, I'm putting off any drastic changes until Flyer22 can participate more, as this article is important to her... and until work calms down (but it makes me sound like so much more of a gentleman if I say it was all because of Flyer22). AniMate 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This list isn't all that important to me. Also, check the Supercouple article's talk page, guys, for my response there.

Elonka, what I wanted to say earlier was that I feel that limiting the fictional supercouples to only supercouples with articles is not that good of a thing. Fact is...there are some soap opera supercouples that are notable but really can't have that much of an article, and some that just don't have articles. There clearly are many editors on Wikipedia who wouldn't want to make articles for most of those. I dont even feel like making any more couple articles, except one or two more. And the primetime supercouples don't have their own articles. Anyway, I'm not back to full force yet on Wikipedia. I went to another city for a while and came back here. I just had to state that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)