Talk:Supercouple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments 2 Cleanup 3 Someone keeps vandalizing the page 4 JR and Babe 5 'Passions' pairings 6 AW couples 7 Stefan and Laura 8 Suggestions 9 On the lookout for vandals 10 References needed 11 Leo and Greenlee? 12 Days couples

[edit] Comments

AMC: Nico & Cecily? OLTL: Todd & Blair?

Jengod, I've replied on your talk page. Mike H 22:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

WTF. How did this wind up on the front page? Joseph 03:13, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Because it was a new article? Mike H 22:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think Michael/Marcie from OLTL shouldn't qualify. They have fans, but supercouple? Nothing past 1993 is truly a supercouple as too few people are watching. Sam/Amanda from Another World, yes; Steve/Betsy from As the World Turns, yes; Clint/Nola from Guiding Light, yes; Michael/Marcie? No way Juppiter 03:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it can honestly be debated. Largely, the term died out in the early 1990s, but I think their large popularity base had to deal with the fact that neither were especially attractive, and that's what endeared them to viewers. Either way, I don't care. Mike H 18:43, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay, whoa. Bo and Nora? Since when did Soap Digest call them a supercouple? I tried to keep the list to things actually CALLED supercouples by the soap media. Mike H 09:15, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Recently, I think people have simply added the names of couples they personally liked to the list of supercouples, and I'm tempted to ask for multiple sources from outside publications for some of these choices, because I think a few of them need to go, especially if all you're going to write is "they were a supercouple and they were played by these people." Mike H. That's hot 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only AMC super couples there have been are Cliff and Nina, Greg and Jennie, Jessie and Angie and Tad and Dixie. Sorry but Leo and Greenlee don't qualify and neither do Carly and Jack of As The World Turns.

I took out Tom and Margo, Carly and Jack and Leo and Greenlee.

Thanks. I've kept this article on my watchlist but I can't babysit this 24/7, so I'm sure someone is going to add them back soon. Mike H. That's hot 03:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike, but I think that if an article is actually an article and has several paragraphs, people should discuss things here first before removing it from the list (which many people aren't doing), since its removal will obviously offend whoever spent some time working on it. Everyone doing this should also keep in mind that removing content without a valid policy to support the removal is considered vandalism, so don't delete things just because you want them gone.

Alright, I deleted 8 couples off this list, ones that were barely more in their paragraph than "So and So Were/Are A Supercouple." If anyone feels any of the ones I deleted deserve to go back on the list, feel free to put'm back. --Harlequin212121 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone keeps vandalizing the page

Someone erased Victor and Nikki, Y&R, from the list yesterday, and they were one of the originals on the list in the first place. Out of all the supercouples listed, they've been together the longest (since 1981) that are still currently together. I hope the vandal doesn't delete them again - I added them back, but can we keep an eye on this? Thanks.

This list is becoming very POV. I'm thinking we should cut out most of the list and stick to only the most blatant of examples (and yes, I think Victor and Nikki is a good example, and should stay once the list is chopped down). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me who deleted them and I said I was doing it above and did it logged in, so it's hardly vandalizing. Anyways I did it for three reasons: because the list needed to be shortened, because I personally had never heard of them, but in particular because of how unextensive their Wikipedia page was, especially when compared to supercouples like Luke and Laura, Bo and Hope, Jack and Jen. I did say that if anyone felt any couple I removed wasn't deserving of removal to add them back, but a lot of people were mentioning the list needed shortening and I thought getting rid of the articles that were barely more than stubs (whcih your Victor and Nikki is) was a good way to start. Maybe some Victor and Nikki fans can work on extending the article? --Harlequin212121 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike and Harlequin, and sorry I thought you were a vandal, LOL. I think N/V are the most major supercouple out there at the moment, not only because Y&R is #1 in ratings. I'll work on their page (they do have two major websites dedicated to them) - thanks again. :)

No problem! Glad to have been of help. BTW, Harlequin, thanks for deleting the One Life to Live mentions. By its very nature, "supercouple" implies ONE soulmate, so having Viki be on there with three different people is bending the rules a little a lot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then should Stefan and Laura be deleted for General Hospital, if Laura can only have one then? I mean, if we're gonna keep one I'm pretty sure that's gonna be Luke and Laura.--Harlequin212121 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Stefan and Laura are one either. They're a couple, a popular one, but Stefan also had Katherine so it's not exactly a "made in heaven" thing. Stefan and Laura didn't have a happy ending, but neither did Luke and Laura...but you know which one Laura will be with in the end (aka not Stefan). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but the logic that Stefan's relationship with Laura isn't a "made in heaven" thing because he "also had Katherine" seems flawed to me, because by that logic alone, you could say the same thing about Luke and Laura when considering that Laura "also had Scotty." However, if there's a majority view that every character listed in this article should only be mentioned with one other character, then I won't oppose the removal. If not, I say let it stay because Stefan and Laura were indeed notable as a popular alternative to the most famous daytime couple ever.

[edit] JR and Babe

Are they really a super couple? I have a hard time buying any couple on AMC as a super couple at this time. Since the ratings are still below a 3.0 and there hasn't been a gradual increase in ratings for the parent show as a result of the couple. I know that both JR and Babe and Zach and Kendell have internet popularity and are the two most popular couples of the show on the internet but does that make them a super couple?

No. I've removed them from the list a number of times and so have a few other contributors. I say keep them out. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Passions' pairings

I know that Sheridan and Luis can be considered a supercouple, but should Ethan and Theresa really be here? The article, at present, is basically just a few sentences, and are the two of them even currently together?

No, but then Sheridan and Luis aren't together right now either. Supercouples break up all the time. Ethan and Theresa are a lot more popular than Sheridan and Luis are, at least currently, but I suppose that doesn't mean they necessarilly need to be kept. I just don't know that they should be removed for reasons of them not being together. I mean, hell, are Luke and Laura, Bo and Hope and Jack and Jennifer together right now?--Harlequin212121 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The more significant point is that the article is basically a few sentences that says they're a couple and mentions who's played them. It's not really an article so much as it is a comment. (Is there a citation for them being more popular than Sheridan and Luis?). I'm only suggesting that perhaps whoever included it should expand it (and perhaps include the word were or something akin to the past tense).

[edit] AW couples

I added Steve and Alice and Mac and Rachel for AW - don't think you can have Sam and Amanda in there without these two very iconic couples for the show. I'll work on articles for them. NickBurns 14:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan and Laura

Yesterday, I removed Stefan and Laura from this list. It has been restored, and that's fine. However, my edit was labeled as vandalism, which I did not appreciate. (Furthermore, it was labeled as vandalism by an unregistered user.)

I did not mean to slight anyone by deleting that info. I just didn't believe S&L qualified as a supercouple. Were they a valid couple? Certainly. A valid alternative to Luke and Laura! Yes, absolutely. But if I went by the definition of supercouple, I just wouldn't think that they fit. I made a legitimate edit, and not, as was inaccurately suggested, vandalism. "Vandalism" is not every edit you don't agree with, and none of us have ownership of an article.

Thanks. NickBurns 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the claim. Of course it's true that vandalism "is not every edit you don't agree with"; it was just my understanding that removing content without prior discussion or through personal opinion alone qualified as vandalism, but I didn't mean to offend and can understand how the accusation may have seemed harsh.

Apology accepted. I did not realize this had been an issue before, so I can see why you'd react that way.

I just wanna make the article better! I want all the soap related articles on Wikipedia to be as good as they can be. NickBurns 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Okay, sorry to be so verbose on this page about this, but I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share.

• I see that the Mac and Rachel addition was deleted. Which I kinda get, because we're saying that (a) supercouples were not really called "supercouples" until the 1980s, and (b) Doug and Julie were the first. But then we probably need to strike Steve and Alice out too. Maybe there needs to be an article about pre-supercouple supercouples? Because Jeff and Penny on ATWT were definitely a supercouple. They may have actually been the first.
• I still think having Stefan and Laura listed as a supercouple when the justification given on this talk page for it is "they are a viable alternative to the L&L supercouple" isn't correct from an encyclopedic point of view. It's like going to a page on apples and saying "there's this really great orange...." Again, perhaps another article is needed. We could come up with several couples where there was a viable alternative to a supercouple. (Reva and Kyle on GL come to mind, in addition to L&L). But that's my humble opinion - as I said, I'm not going to revert. I just disagree.

Thanks! NickBurns 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Again, perhaps another article is needed. We could come up with several couples where there was a viable alternative to a supercouple."

That may be a big help, considering the nearly combative nature of this page. :)

I think the problem here may be arguments as to the true definition of a "supercouple." We all have a basic understanding of the term but when it gets down to the minutae of who is and who isn't a supercouple we get into arguments (although in a most civil manner, I might add). My definition of a supercouple is a pairing that not only gains viewer attention and causes ratings to spike and many articles to be written in the soap press, but also endears in the viewer's consciousness for a significant period of time and has a significant effect on storyline and show history. Obviously, there are certain pairings here that are a no-brainer to include (Luke and Laura, Bo and Hope, Victor and Nikki) but some I would quibble about including (didn't most of Stefan and Laura's storyline happen offscreen anyway?), but of course I won't remove until there is a consensus. Also, why not include couples that were significant before the term was coined? I think pairings such as Mac and Rachel and especially Doug and Julie (for Heaven's sakes, they made the cover of Time magazine!) should be included due to their significance to their respective programs. Also, would primetime soaps qualify here? Perhaps an article on Blake and Krystle, perhaps J.R. and Sue Ellen (supercouples don't have to like each other, now do they?) -- they were significant pairings.The Invisible Man 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"We all have a basic understanding of the term but when it gets down to the minutae of who is and who isn't a supercouple we get into arguments (although in a most civil manner, I might add)."

Quite true. That's what's made this one of the more respectable discussion pages :)

". . . didn't most of Stefan and Laura's storyline happen offscreen anyway?"

Absolutely not. Just so we don't confuse the two terms, most of their history was off, but most of their story line (including the flashbacks and their present-day reunion) was all on-screen.

". . . Doug and Julie (for Heaven's sakes, they made the cover of Time magazine!)"

Absolutely agree. I don't know enough about them but I'm pretty sure that someone out there does. It's Doug and Julie for crying out loud.

"My definition of a supercouple is a pairing that not only gains viewer attention and causes ratings to spike and many articles to be written in the soap press, but also endears in the viewer's consciousness for a significant period of time . . ."

I agree on that first point, but the second is where bias obviously comes in (perhaps on my own part as well admitedly). I'm with the earlier suggestion of a possible alternate page. "Popular Soap Couples" perhaps? To keep it from becoming the obvious fan-central repository that it sounds like, though, we could vote on ground rules, such as requiring that the pairings have to have a magazine article that's at least five years old, and at least three Websites out there. Just another suggestion.

[edit] On the lookout for vandals

Our most frequent vandals to this article are apparently IP addresses 69.255.37.76 and/or 66.108.249.32. The person(s) associated will make combative edits without citing policy or discussing anything here. I'm asking all who've conducted themselves in a more mature manner to please be on the lookout from time to time in order to deal with this. Thanks.

[edit] References needed

I think that this is a well-written page, but it is a concern that it has no references of any kind, so I have (hopefully temporarily) tagged it as original research. Can anyone provide some sources so that we can properly cite this information, per Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability? --Elonka 03:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Favorite Supercouple" has been a category in the Soap Opera Digest Awards since 1986. Does that sufficiently demonstrate that this isn't original research made up by Wikipedians? Factitious 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a perfect reference to include. Is the list online somewhere, to be used as a reference? Or if not, it might even make sense for us to include the list within the Wikipedia article, showing each couple, and the year that they won the award. --Elonka 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo and Greenlee?

I loved the couple thought they were great and they did go threw alot of trials and tribulations however their was no ratings renewal when they were on as a matter of fact most of the ratings from 99-02 were in decline from AMC they went from 4.3 to a 2.9 during the time the couple was on. So could they really be counted as a super couple if they didn't give AMC a ratings spike during their time together?

I think they could have potentially been a super couple. But I'm going to say no. I don't think they were. They were rabidlly popular with internet fans and the internet community but they didn't factor into ratings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.86.148 (talk • contribs) , on 21:08, October 6, 2006 (UTC)

In order to be called a supercouple, I'd like to see an external source, such as a magazine or newspaper article, that referred to them as such. I'm actually very uncomfortable with a lot of the claims in this Wikipedia article, since it provides no verification, per WP:V. If sources aren't provided, we probably want to go through and start pulling out any claims that are doubtful. --Elonka 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

carly and jack

they are a super couple

P&G actually considers them alone with Lily and Holden the power super couples of ATWT

[edit] Days couples

Anyone think there is just a disproportionately large amount of Days couples listed on this page? I mean, sure, Days probably does have the biggest amount of "supercouples" but... some of these probably don't have to be on there and it would make it look a little less... biased, for lack of a better word? I mean, Bo and Hope, Doug and Julie, Jack and Jennifer... the big ones definitely deserve their place. But do Shane and Kim (who haven't been heard from in going on two decades) count? And do Shawn and Belle who are comparatively recent and only popular among certain sects of Days fans count either? --148.61.83.191 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)