Talk:List of supercouples/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Forking the list

Does anyone have a problem with me forking the list into List of fictional supercouples and List of celebrity supercouples. They're really two very different beasts if you think about it, and if we split it into two different lists we can implement some of the ideas Elonka suggested much easier and keep things manageable in a way that are easily verifiable. AniMate 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus to split this list. I suppose go ahead and do it. But, like I said, the celebrity supercouples list won't last long by itself. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, with the exception of making List of celebrity supercouples. I am not making a List of celebrity supercouples article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith

Even though this couple already have their own article, I have tried to add them to the list several times but my external source, http://perfectblend.net/comment/gc-karlsusan.htm, supposedly isn't good enough. I mean, it calls them a Golden Couple, what more do you want? - Toby Clark 16:57, 22 May 2008

That site is more of a fan site. It is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If it were a site that, in essence, is a fan site but also a reputable publication similar to that of Soap Opera Digest's web site, then it would be fine. What you need is a source like the BBC News calling that couple a supercouple or a book doing so. Them having their own article is not a problem...unless it does not prove their notability, which, currently that article does not.

Plenty of fictional soap opera couples have their own articles, of course. It's a matter of their notability. And, for this list, valid sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PROBLEMS!

Several problems exist including the link to Sonny and Carly Corinthos article leads to "Sonny Corinthos" page. Also, where is the page for "Ridge Forrester & Brooke Logan", their are THOUSANDS of pages, TV-Guide recommendations, and just about everyone who knows of the B&B knows of this legendary supercouple. Also, don't you all think "Krystle Grant & Blake Carrington" of Dynasty should be added!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not problems. Articles on supercouples can only be created if those articles meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. That is why a few of these supercouple articles will be deleted. And a few do not have articles. The link for Sonny/Carly goes to his article because that's where their history is. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Blake and Krystle are on this list. They are in the primetime section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So do you not believe Brooke Logan and Ridge Forrester are notable together??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you hunt down a source for them? I think they probably belong on the list, but angrily complaining isn't going to inspire anyone to do the research that you seem unwilling to do. AniMate 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are on the list. AugustAugust is just not satisfied with that...and also wants them to have a Wikipedia article. Well, to that I say, AugustAugust, it is not a matter of whether I feel they are notable; it is a matter of whether Wikipedia feels they are notable. Read WP:Notability and especially the part about fiction, and you'll see what I mean. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. Ridge and Brooke do not have an article because no one has created one here yet. But I am telling you that if someone does create an article on them here, it had better prove their notable significance not only in the fictional world but in the real-world as well. Meaning their cultural impact, their influence outside of the soap opera cummunity, if any at all, not just within it. I will state that I had a difficult time finding a valid online reference stating them as a supercouple and I relied on a source through an e-mail for a TV Guide reference for them. And I sincerely doubt that there are "THOUSANDS of pages" that call them a supercouple. I do not watch that show, and am not familiar with that couple, but I have heard of them before. Hearing of them, however, does not neceassrily bring in the vaild references. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to question the inclusion of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows as I belive they were real people.

Answer: They were/are also fictional characters in the Bonnie and Clyde (film), as well as other incarnations. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have The Edge of Night listed as a prime time series. That is incorrect, it was a daytime drama that was unusual in that it was shown late in the daytime (the aforementioned "edge of night"). Just a EON fan who saw an error. :)

67.128.197.66 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)EONfan

Yeah, at the time, I confused that series with In the Heat of the Night. Thanks to AniMate for taking care of the error you brought to our attention. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Note: This list was once titled List of supercouples, but changed to solely feature fictional characters, which was an eventual outcome for keeping this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 Reborn (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 June 2008

American bias?

This article has hardly any examples that aren't American in origin. Surely there are more than a handful from the rest of the world. There was much media hype over '"Dirty Den" and Angie' from the soap EastEnders, and many couples from Coronation Street have been included on televised shows about soap couples, for example 'Jack and Vera'. I'm not an expert on fictional supercouples, but I'm surprised that Romeo and Juliet haven't been included under Other Media as I'm sure that they meet at least one criteria. And also, there seems to be no mention of literary supercouples. From the top of my head I'd say that Lizzy and Mr Darcy, and Heathcliff and Catherine should be included. 86.10.75.40 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern. "Dirty Den" and Angie Watts were on this list (and had their own supercouple article here until it was merged into Dirty Den's article), but they were removed from this list because the source did not call them a supercouple; it rather showed their enormous impact on the soap opera meduim. And, yep, Romeo and Juliet were on this list as well, but just like Dirty Den and Angie Watts, the source did not call them a supercouple. They will be on this list if a valid reference is found stating them as a supercouple. Both couples are mentioned in the Supercouple article, though.

If you can find valid references citing the above couples you mentioned or any other non-American fictional couples as supercouples, help us out. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that "supercouple" is an American term, it's hardly bias that most of the couples on the list are American. --1ST7 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jessica/Tess and Nash

I've found a source that refers to Tess (Jesica's alternate personality) and Nash as a supercouple. Should that reference be put in for Jessica and Nash or should I add Tess and Nash to the list as a separate couple? Rocksey (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jessica and Tess are the same person, just different personalities. Viki once said that part of being integrated with her split personalities is taking responsibility for what she, not them, did.

I'm sure that most people know that by Jessica in regards to the Nash and Jessica supercouple, we also mean Tessica. Though I know that people could have loved the Nash and Jessica pairing, but not the Nash and Tess pairing, it did not go down that way; people significantly loved/love both couples. You could note something in the lead of the Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan article about Nash and Tess, and put the reference about them being a supercouple there. And in this article, we could add the reference after tacking on the wording Nash and Tess to Nash and Jessica; it would be Nash and Jessica/Nash and Tess. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See also?

I removed this section, as I'm unsure exactly why I'm also supposed to see these couples? If they're supercouples, they should be on the list with citations. If they're not, they shouldn't be in the article. The section shouldn't become a repository for every popular couple that couldn't quite make the list. AniMate 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, AniMate. See also sections are for topics closely related to the topic of an article or because there's no room for them in an article. That section in this article was/is not a repository for every popular couple that didn't quite make the list. These are all couples that may be of interest to people, considering that they were or are popular couples that readers may not have heard about or otherwise may not know everything about (such as how they were created). A few of them are mentioned in the Supercouple article and have been considered supercouples by fans, even if there are not valid citations calling them supercouples to place them higher on the list. This section is not that much like the former "Notabe wave" sections, since I am quite certain that there is no confusion on the part of the readers that these are supercouples. It's not like every couple can even have a Wikipedia article.

I'm restoring the section for debate, and would love to hear other editors thoughts on this, preferably not just Paul, if he does weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how these couples are closely related to supercouples? I agree that they're fictional soap couples that have articles, but how exactly that translates to them being related to a list of supercouples when they're not actual supercouples is a bit of a mystery. AniMate^talk 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How are these couples closely related to supercouples? In the same way that all other See also sections in articles are closely related to the articles they are in without actually being those topics. Supercouples are very, very popular couples (in basic definition, anyway). These couples are popular or very popular couples. The difference? The ones on the list are either more popular with the supercouple title or simply popular with the supercouple title. Exactly how are they not closely related to this topic? Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Using that rationale, every single couple from the notable wave section could be in the see also section. Your standards for inclusion seem about as rigorous for this new section as they were for the notable wave section. Anything in particular that sets these couples apart from the ones you have excluded? AniMate^talk 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't even remember the ones I have "excluded," LOL. (It's not like only I contributed to "Notable wave" when it was here, and, frankly, I'd rather not remember the state this article used to be in.) If the soap opera section of this article's See also section grows too big, which I don't see how it will, then I will be up for removing it. I'm not totally against removing it now, but would rather have other people weigh in on this decision along with us. "My rationale" for keeping it is no different than how all other See also sections on Wikipedia work. We do not exclude See also sections simply because there may be a lot of things to list in them. Just look at the Adolescence article's See also section that I just visited some minutes ago. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Adolescence and I figured out what is really bothering me about this section. That see also section doesn't actually link to examples of adolescents. I'm probably not going to articulate this very well, though in my head my rationale is quite easy to follow, I just can't find the words to express it. Here goes... if we were to apply the logic that is currently at work in this article to the (nonexistent) List of adolescents the section would include links to Malia and Sasha Obama or Willow Smith since they're almost adolescents. The see also section shouldn't contain almost supercouples, as they're about as relevant to this article as the notable wave section was. Sorry to bring it up, but this is exactly the same. It's just a collection of popular couples arbitrarily chosen by their fans with "see also" substituted for "notable wave". Instead the section should include links to supercouple or other relevant topics involving famous couples or love stories, in my opinion. AniMate^talk 05:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that, AniMate. I mean, I get what you are saying. But the Adolescence article does not have to link to examples of adolescents; it should be for things closely or significantly related to the adolescent topic or particularly because there has been no way to incorporate those links into the body of the article yet. The See also section in this article goes on the same principle, with the exception that none of these couples would be in the body of the article, anyway, without valid sources. But my point is that See also sections on Wikipedia go on the logic that I am using in this discussion.

I don't see how "almost adolescents" are related to the adolescent topic, unless the specific topic of preadolescence is being addressed. But I do see how "almost supercouples" are related to the supercouple topic, considering that both are among the category of popular or very popular couples and especially when some people feel that the term "supercouple" is subjective and consider some of these couples supercouples regardless of them not having that title in this article.

I don't get why you are so adamant on removing the See also section in this article, but, again, I am not thoroughly against removing it. I just wish that we had more people to weigh in on this matter with us. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break: See alsos and random supercouple mentions

I was just going to start a topic about this. While I see how highly notable couples can be closely related to supercouples, especially if they are/were on the verge of becoming a supercouple. My problem is how to stop the list from getting out of control. Some of the couples (Dusty and Lucy, Jonathan and Tammy, Paul and Meg) I've never heard of, so it's difficult to know if they should be included or removed. And what could be the scale we're judging their popularity and notability on? There are couples out there that aren't on the list that are more popular/notable than the ones on it, but if they were added, the See also section would need an article all its own.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but I'm thinking if the See also section does stay, maybe more rules should be set up around it. My opinion is that the couple should be notable enough to have it's own page with real world content establishing notability and background information, because what's the point of directing readers to plot summary? Rocksey (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head with this post. Getting the list into the shape it is now wasn't easy, because everyone thinks their favorite couple should be considered a supercouple. We've made the criteria pretty strict. The see also section has no criteria other than someone thinks a couple is popular and should be listed. Without any real criteria, we might as well link to every fictional couple ever considered popular. AniMate^talk 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have missed this new discussion had I not checked this talk page (I try not to look at my watchlist as much as possible; have not looked at it in months and do not want to remove anything from it).

Notable enough to have its own article does not equate to whether the couple was/is popular or not, of course. But as for AniMate saying that every fictional couple ever considered popular could be added, I have already stated my thoughts about that. The couples should have valid references in their articles showing that they were or are popular couples. If they do not have a couple article, then there should be a valid reference or two (or more) in either of their individual articles showing that couple was or is popular. If there is not, then I am not against removing them. If that section grows too big, like due to other genres, then I am for removing it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that being notable enough to have an article is proof of popularity. I'm just not sure that popularity is enough of a reason for them to be in the See also section even if there were valid sources referring to them as popular/notable. My thing is, I guess I don't see the point in being directed to the plot summary featuring a couple who is popular. If that was the only criteria I can see how that could get out of control because then other popular couples who aren't supercouples would need to be in the section, such as Elizabeth and Jason GH, Elizabth and Lucky GH, Jason and Robin GH, Lily and Cane Y&R, Victor and Ashley Y&R, Nick and Phyllis Y&R, Billy and Mac Y&R, Jack and Erica AMC, Hayley and Mateo AMC, just to name a few.

But I'm not saying that, that part of the list should be taken out. Just given a stricter criteria for inclusion.

Looking deeper into the articles in that section, I see that you're right that it isn't necessary for the couple to have an article. Todd and Téa prove that since that couple is given more notability inside of the Tea Delgado article than other couples who have articles are given. That's a huge contrast to Ryan and Gillian which only points to Ryan Lavery's storyline section. I think the articles should be developed beyond just plot summary to be included. If the articles have real world information about what went into creating the notable couple and their effect on viewers, it could make more sense to have them in that section. Rocksey (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Really good points about simply being redirected to plot summaries, even if the plot summaries have a valid reference showing the couple as popular. But then again, most of those couples you mentioned in the first paragraph of your recent reply do not have valid references in their plot summaries showing the couples as popular. Now that you bring up Nick and Phyllis, though, they have been named a supercouple by Nelson Branco from TV Guide Canada on his official list back in 2007, and should be on this list as well...considering that other couples on this list are going by that list (which at least is not him randomly calling a couple a supercouple and us using that as a so-called valid source). I "have to" add them now, along with the platonic soap opera supercouples.

The See also section has not yet gotten out of control. But if you feel that the "articles" in that section should be developed beyond just plot summary to be included, as in the couples in that section who do not have their own articles and are only a redirect to plot, then go for it. I will not revert you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"But then again, most of those couples you mentioned in the first paragraph of your recent reply do not have valid references in their plot summaries showing the couples as popular." You're right. I just listed a few of the couples I know or am pretty sure who's popularity can be "proven" by a few references. Also, should we add Reva and Jeffery to the list too since they're listed in the same reference used for Nick and Phyllis? I also noticed some couples included in the Shawn and Belle references [1][2] aren't on this list. Rocksey (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If Jeffrey and Reva are not a platonic couple, then list them on the main soap opera supercouples list. Any platonic soap opera supercouple, however, should be on its subsection platonic list (which I'll make soon, after being lazy). As for the couples in the Shawn and Belle link, we should have more than just that reference calling those couples supercouples. That Nelson Branco list is not necessarily official and is a list of his favorite week-to-week couples. If we go by that list alone, then basically almost any couple could be on this list. It's not like his official 2007 supercouple list, of course. And that second Shawn and Belle reference should be removed...because it is not about supercouples, though it does include a few. That reference was back in the horrid days of this list when we were also including popular couples who are not supercouples in what was called the Notable wave section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, about that second Shawn and Belle reference, perhaps it should not be removed. I am not sure whether we should really count it as saying that Shawn and Belle are a supercouple. It does say, "Like any supercouple," but still...

In either case, this is what it fully says in regards to the supercouple bit about them:

They may be a few years behind their respective supercouple parents, but they are traveling down the same path of obstacles their parents faced: serial killers, kidnappings, amnesia and ill-fated weddings. Belle is currently married to Shawn’s best friend, but like any supercouple they won’t let that small issue keep them from being together.

Shawn and Belle are basically on this list of ours because of both references (that week-to-week Nelson Branco favorites list and that second reference). But, for those other couples in that second Shawn and Belle reference, if the reference is not naming them as a supercouple, they cannot be added. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That's what I get for not thoroughly reading. I guess I assumed the reference was there because they were nominated for for the "Emmy award". Rocksey (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no problem, of course. I mean, that second reference is being used for Shawn and Belle; it is only natural to wonder why they are on the list by that reference when some of those other couples in that reference are not. It is simply a matter of the word "supercouple" in the text for Shawn and Belle; it can be taken as calling Shawn and Belle a supercouple. I am just not sure that we should go by that type of thing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think that's a good source to use since it doesn't directly say they are a supercouple I looked around to find another source that did. Though, while I was looking I realized just how much this phrase is used. If we listed every couple referred to as a supercouple we would have to add Todd and Marty [3], David and Dorian [4] OLTL, Dimitri and Alex (magazine reference from his article), and Reese and Bianca [5] AMC. This may sound a "little" drastic but maybe we should require two references instead of one. Rocksey (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am saying about Nelson Branco. You are not telling me anything I do not know on that front, LOL. He calls any couple he likes, even if brand new and not even introduced onto the scene yet (as he did with Reese and Bianca) a supercouple. Not even Wikipedia could take him calling Reese and Bianca a supercouple seriously when he did so before they were even an onscreen romance or onscreen couple, with the audience not yet knowing Reese and with hardly anyone rooting for the couple yet (which I was already aware of him having done so); it goes against the very definition of what a supercouple is. And everyone knows that Todd and Marty are not a supercouple. For him to even state that, given how much he hated that pairing, is laughable.

Using two valid sources is not the main answer...though I did suggest it as the answer when using a source of Branco's week-to-week favorites list. The answer would be to typically not use any source, no matter how valid, where it is randomly calling a couple a supercouple. It should instead be some sort of official supercouple list. If we do use a source randomly calling a couple a supercouple, then it should be backed up by a more valid source/sources of an official supercouple list or by commentary on that couple discussing them as a supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I was showing you something you have never seen before. I was just pointing out what I noticed. It was just an idea. If you're against it I won't push for it. The only difficulty is, how do we decide what is random and what isn't? That would seem hard to do without putting personal opinion in. Though the David and Dorian one is pretty obvious since he doesn't expect anyone to agree with him and so is the Bianca and Reese one since it was stated before they even aired as a couple. Rocksey (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rocksey, I was not trying to be rude when I said, " You are not telling me anything I do not know on that front." That is why I included the "LOL (Laughing Out Loud)" bit on to that.

I did not say I was entirely against the "two sources" thing. I explained my thoughts about that, in what I feel is the best way in using the "two sources" thing.

As for random, it seems obvious to me. An editor simply saying supercouple [fill in blank here], without it really being a topic about supercouples or about discussing that couple as a supercouple. Random, in this sense, is what Branco often does, just like he randomly called Reese and Bianca a supercouple before they were even introduced as a couple onscreen. In the source for Brian Frons calling Bianca and Maggie a supercouple, for example, it is not random. He goes into a little detail about what contributed to their supercouple status. I mean, according to fans, Brian Frons also predicted that Ryan Lavery and Annie McDermott (her former last name) would be a supercouple. But we cannot add a random prediction like that as a valid source for Ryan and Annie being a supercouple. Frons turned out to be wrong with that prediction, anyway. Branco calling Reese and Bianca a supercouple as early as he did was also basically a random prediction that has not yet come true; he later titled them a supercouple in his report about their wedding, which led to other valid sites copying his report and making it seem as though Reese and Bianca are a legit supercouple. I am not sure on how else to convey to you what I view as random. I know I state "I" in that sentence, but I would think that most people are pretty much in agreement of what random is. In any case, I said that if we use a random title of supercouple for any of the couples, then we should add another valid source titling them a supercouple as well -- one that is not random or at least not as random (preferably an official supercouple list or article/section about how that couple is a supercouple). I am still going by your two sources suggestion on that front, just not by using two sources in general for any couple we list. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Rocksey that we need more than a link to a storyline article, I think it important to ask, "What defines popular?". Are these couples that have been called popular by respected sources or fans? If it's popularity by fans we have a problem, because with very few exceptions we have couples that at some point a group of fans have supported. If it's by respected sources, what exact criteria are we using for inclusion? As it stands this section isn't ever going to be manageable, since I could add every soap opera couple, literary couple, or prime time couple I know and it would be up to another editor to prove they aren't popular enough to be considered related to a supercouple. Can we please get rid of this listing of couples who have had a "notable wave" of popularity? AniMate^talk 08:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not get what you mean. Of course, the couples are determined popular by valid sources...because that is how Wikipedia works. You keep saying that you could add any couple you want, but I have already gone over that. No, you could not. It would not be "up to another editor to prove they aren't popular enough to be considered related to a supercouple." It would have to be up to you to make sure that they are "popular enough," with valid sources; there would have to be valid sources in either of their individual articles or their couple article showing them as popular. Not only that, but Rocksey has now suggested that couples without articles and couples without a section about their creation/impact in either of their individual articles if they do not have couple articles not be added to the See also section. It is quite simple, really, and does not allow any couple you want to be added at all. I see the section as very manageable, especially with Rocksey's criteria (which also corresponds to Wikipedia's emphasis on valid sourcing, as did mine) now in place. (Rocksey's criteria takes it a step further to correspond to how Wikipedia says articles about fiction should be written.) Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are they?

I'm surprised Jim and Pam from the Office aren't on here. And Homer and Marge Simpson. 24.14.255.20 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You gotta have valid sources calling them supercouples in order to put them on here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

soaps.com Survey Results for Favorite Supercouple of All time

I am not seeing how the soaps.com Survey Results for Favorite Supercouple of All time lists (which I've seen months before now) are valid lists. It is simply a poll decided by fans who on they think are supercouples. Sure, the fans make supercouples. The problem with this soaps.com survey, however, was that it allowed fans to vote couples on these lists who are obviously not supercouples. An example would be the former couple John McBain and Natalie Buchanan.

Why should these supercouple lists from this site be taken seriously? In addition, there are also a few editors here contributing to Wikipedia soap opera articles who are not too fond of using soaps.com as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about soaps.com, but isn't it a fansite? If it is, I don't think it should be used.Rocksey (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a fansite, but they do interviews with some soap opera stars at times, like Soap Opera Central. Soap Opera Central is considered the far more reliable site out of the two, however. But just like I would not use a fan poll from Soap Opera Central to source a couple as a supercouple, I would not use one from soaps.com. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com , and random supercouple mentions Part 2

Anyone know how reliable Examiner.com is? I can see that it is clearly right about the events of Cole Thornhart and Starr Manning's wedding, [http //www.examiner.com/x-10494-LA-Weddings-Examiner~y2009m7d7-One-Life-To-Lives-Starr-and-Coles-wedding-fashions-at-La-Boulie as seen in this link] (though I am not sure about the information about the wardrobe picks, since I do not have the Soap Opera Weekly issue it is reporting on). It certainly looks like a reliable site, but calling this couple a supercouple, really? This just shows how carelessly the term supercouple is thrown around these days and why random supercouple mentions (as noted above) should not be allowed on this list...unless backed up by additional references titling those couples as supercouples. Viper10803 obviously wants Cole and Starr on this list. I told Viper10803 I would discuss it here, and had previously pointed that editor to the discussion above about random supercouple mentions. We really need to do something about these random mentions, which essentially mean nothing, such as Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery being titled a supercouple by TV Guide's Nelson before they even debuted as a couple and when their romance was later criticized by him and a lot of others for being horribly told (though Reese and Bianca are not on this list...yet, thankfully). That couple obviously never reached supercouple status. But do we list them here as a supercouple simply because a reliable source called them one before their romance tanked with most viewers? I, of course, say not. But how can I really argue with Wikipedia's policy on reporting what the sources say instead of always reporting truth? This is frustrating. I really hope that no fan of the Reese and Bianca pairing comes along to add them to this list. But due to Branco and his calling them a supercouple having been reported in other reliable sources besides TV Guide, there really would not be much I could do to stop them from being added to this list. So I say perhaps we need a section in the Soap opera section titled "Recent supercouples" or (like we sort of had before) "Disputed supercouples." I already plan to add a Notes section to the format of this list; there in the Notes section, beside whichever couple who has been titled a supercouple but is reported as unpopular in other sources, we could note that dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it so I can't say if it's reliable, but it seems like your major problem with this source is the couple that it names as a supercouple. If it was being used as a source for a couple you might find less random such as Luke and Laura, John and Marlena, Bianca and Maggie, Nikki and Victor, or Bo and Hope, would it be an issue? My problem, like I said above, is that I don't understand how we can decide which sources that name a couple a supercouple are random or careless. It still just seems like personal opinion to me. If Branco Nelson is a reliable enough source to be used in other articles, it seems like he would be reliable enough to use here. Then there's this source which is reliable enough to be used in the Supercouple article but isn't reliable enough to be used here. I don't see how we can pick and choose which couples get to be listed and which don't when having a reliable source doesn't seem to be the only factor necessary. Rocksey (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rocksey, as you and I both stated above, it would be best to have more than one source naming these couples as supercouples, given how carelessly the term is thrown around these days. I do not see how "random" is difficult to be defined. Random, in this case, is a simple mention of a couple being a supercouple without discussing how that couple is a supercouple. This is one of the very reasons you suggested more than one source be attributed to these couples. Otherwise, almost any couple would be on here. Branco made an official list of supercouples. His random week-to-week lists where he names almost any couple as a supercouple is not the same thing. The couples in this article which are attributed to his random week-to-week lists can be backed up as supercouples by other reliable sources. It is not like their only chance of being named a supercouple is due to Branco's whim of calling a couple a supercouple one day. In fact, I am all for not using Branco's week-to-week supercouple lists for this article, considering that it would weed out which couples are really supercouples and which couples were simply "lucky enough" to be titled one by a person who is reporting from a reliable publication. I would not have to use Examiner.com as a source for any of the well-known supercouples because far more reliable sources name them as supercouples. And this source that is in the Supercouple article is presented as an opinion, not as any of those couples it mentions as actually being supercouples. I use it as an opinion piece about Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe being a "supercouple redefined." The author attributes them as a supercouple in her definition of what a supercouple is -- what she believes the definition should be. That is why that source is not used for this list. While we can say that the term Supercouple is an opinion, we all know that it largely is not. The term Supercouple very clearly means an extremely popular couple that fascinates the public in an intense or obsessive fashion, unless also talking about couples whose combined finances have made them "super" to a lot of people. What is and what is not an extremely popular couple is not an opinion. Leo and Greenlee are sometimes considered a supercouple because they were an extremely popular couple. The only problem with listing them here is that we have not yet found a reliable source naming them as a supercouple. I am worried about presenting couples on this list who are clearly not popular couples but have been titled supercouples for whatever careless reason. It makes no sense that Cole and Starr, a couple who are not exactly extremely or any sort of popular, be listed as a supercouple here...when Leo and Greeenlee, an actual extremely popular couple, are not (except by Wikipedia's preference of reporting what sources say even over the truth). That is my problem. Obviously, Wikipedia does not care about fair too much (unless speaking of WP:Neutral), and I get that (something I even recently stated to another editor on my talk page), but I am concerned with how to present this list as accurately as I can. I have nothing against the Cole and Starr couple, but calling them a supercouple is silly; in all my reading of soap opera magazines and soap opera boards, I have not seen any sign from fans or critics that this couple is any sort of popular. Thus, I am saying that if we are going to list any and all couples called supercouples on this list, no matter if they are supercouples or not, we should have a Notes section besides the "Source" section specifying any unpopular couple we list here as being unpopular despite having been randomly titled a supercouple. Wikipedia definitely allows us to present both sides. If one valid source has called a couple a supercouple, but another valid source shows that same couple to be unpopular, both can be presented. Wikipedia is laughed at enough. Adding largely unpopular couples to this list simply because they somehow managed to be titled supercouples by a reliable source does not exactly add to this list's credibility; it rather gets it laughed at. Putting a couple on here who clearly contradicts the term Supercouple, as defined in the Supercouple article, is simply inaccurate. If this list is going to become utterly ridiculous, then it is best that it not exist. Sure, there are a lot of people who would not consider Nick and Phyllis to be a supercouple (and I was one of those people), but there is at least no denying that they are a very popular couple. Even Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, who were titled a supercouple very quickly, fit the term. A lot of long-time soap opera fans felt and still feel that they do not deserve the title because they were not a couple that long before being given that title. But when it all comes down to it, they were/are an extremely popular couple who fascinated/fascinates the public in an intense or obsessive fashion.

This list is not the only list here at Wikipedia that has had "selective" issues due to wanting to be clear. List of honorific titles in popular music, which is now currently up for deletion, has had to deal with the fact that titles like "King of Rock and Roll" and other famous titles have also been given to other people besides the most famous people of those nicknames. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I could alter the lead of this article to state that some couples are titled as supercouples by the media even when they do not fit the definition of a supercouple (though I would word everything quite well). Anything that completely clarifies how just about any couple may get on this list. This would be sort of similar to how the lead of "List of honorific titles in popular music" specifies that more than one musical artist may have been given the same title. The lead of this article needs to be altered from its primary list format, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and soon start formatting this article in the way I recently noted above. If someone wants to put Cole and Starr on the list after I am done, then oh well...as long as there is more than Examiner.com naming them a supercouple. I will also note them as "A recently titled teen supercouple" in their Notes section, and perhaps the sources that named them a supercouple...if they are added. As for the couples I have not added to this list, such as Reese and Bianca...it is not my job to add every couple I see randomly titled a supercouple, and I am certainly more inclined not to add them to this list when I know for certain that they most definitely were nowhere close to being a supercouple. If by "supercouple," we mean gained mainstream media attention, then okay. But I would hope that no one expects me to add couples to this list in which will make this list largely look like a joke and as though anyone can simply add their favorite couples here. Enough people already believe that all you have to do regarding this list is add any couple you like to it...until they actually get to this list and really examine it and see that that's not the case. As someone arguing for the deletion of List of honorific titles in popular music said, just because a reliable newspaper attributes a certain title to a musical artist, it does not make that title true for that artist. The same thing is true of some of these valid sources throwing the term supercouple around for some of these soap opera couples. In some cases, it is clear that they do not even mean "supercouple" in the way it is truly defined, but rather mean it as "couple." "Supercouple" simply sounds and looks more flashy. If someone wants to add Reese and Bianca to this list with the sources due to Nelson Branco's early silliness about the couple, then I will have to let it stand...unless there is WP:Consensus not to include them for the reasons I have noted above. But I would most certainly note their unpopularity in the Notes section beside their listing. My not listing that couple here has not been about any personal hate for that couple or my preference for the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone pairing, but rather what I have stated above. If I were truly biased, I would have tried to add JR Chandler and Babe Carey to this list by now. They, in their original version (Jacob Young and Alexa Havins), are one of my favorite couples, but I have removed them from this list every time they were added. Part of the reason is no reputable source labeling them a supercouple, and the main part is that I know damn well they are no supercouple. They were a popular couple to enough fans, but they were by no means a supercouple. Even if I saw them titled a supercouple by a reputable source, I would not list them here. Someone else would have to do it. And if they were to, I would note what I have to in the Notes section beside their listing.

Anyway, a Notes section will be good for this for particular couples...such as noting Jesse and Angie as the first African American supercouple. One thing I have thought about is if a source were to recently name Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery as a supercouple. It would be best to note that year they were named such, or else it would confuse people; they would draw the conclusion that Lena and Bianca were/are the first lesbian supercouple in American soap opera history. But, according to every source I have seen, the first lesbian supercouple in American soap opera history and probably in television in general was/is Bianca and Maggie. However, this could become like a Doug Williams and Julie Olson vs. Luke and Laura type of thing. Apparently, Doug and Julie are considered the first supercouple, and yet Luke and Laura are credited with having created/defined the term. With Lena and Bianca, it could be said by some reliable source that they were soap opera's first lesbian supercouple, though, from what we know, Bianca and Maggie were the first ones to be titled such. If both are ever called "the first," it would be good to list that in the Notes sections beside their listings. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 14 ~August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is user generated and can't be considered a reliable source. Any one of us could easily be a writer for that website. AniMate^draw

Okay, thanks for the note, AniMate. Still, if Cole and Starr are titled a supercouple by any reliable source any time soon, preferably two reliable sources, I will do what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. Knowing my aversion to Soapcentral.com you can't be surprised that I loathe Examiner.com as a source. ;) AniMate^draw 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Well, if Cole and Starr are ever titled a supercouple by more than one reliable source, I will not be the one adding them here. I will leave that to Viper10803 or someone else, and simply contribute to the Notes section in that case. But then again, that couple could have become hugely popular by then. Who knows? Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that when making unrelated changes to this page, the examiner.com link above registered as "a new external link" added by me, preventing me from saving changes. I don't know why this false positive occurred, but I've broken up the link for now. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Clint and Viki?

Under One Life to Live, I didn't see a listing for Clint and Viki Buchanan. I would think they would qualify right? Or maybe they need their own page for that, which I don't think they do... could be wrong though. Anyway, I do think they should be listed in some way unless I missed it. --Pix88 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You missed it. Clint and Viki are there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Norman and Rita

Norman Harrington and Rita Jacks (Harrington) of Peyton Place were without a doubt a supercouple. In the 1960s, they were so popular that the producers even arranged a relationship between the two to please the fans and media (and thus garning some publicity). All characters had their drama, but Norman and Rita were the only ones to have a stable marriage throughout the show. Can anyone find a source so they can be added to the list? Moviefan (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to look for a reliable source stating them as a supercouple, Moviefan. Although, with random supercouple mentions (see above), we prefer that at least two different reliable sources are calling the couple a supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more names you guys can add to the list

There are 2 supercouples from the show ER, Doug Ross and Carol Hathaway and then later on Abby and Luka to a lesser extent.97.91.177.81 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are my sources to support my claims: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2188035/the_top_10_couples_in_a_television.html?cat=2

Article 2 this link is broken, it didn't copy and paste correctly so go ahead and ignore it...97.91.177.81 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Associated Content doesn't count as a WP:Reliable source. That's basically what we go by in listing couples here these days. Sources calling couples "supercouples," although it has been suggested above that the couples be backed up as such by more than one reliable source...since so many websites, and people in general, now randomly throw around the word "supercouple." Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

People magazine's list of All My Children supercouples

In People magazine's special addition issue focusing on All My Children they list supercouples for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. I thought I should start a discussion about whether we should list them first because some of them might be considered controversial. Others are already on the list and this would just be an added source. So the couples listed are Stuart and Cindy, Greg and Jenny, Nina and Cliff, Jesse and Angie, Hayley and Mateo, Tad and Dixie, Edmund and Maria, Julia and Noah, Babe and JR, Kendall and Zach, Amanda and Jake, and Ryan and Greenlee. Any thoughts on whether the ones not listed should be added or not? Rocksey (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ryan and Greenlee would be controversial without a doubt (I mentioned that before). And Jake and Amanda would be considered "too new" to be a supercouple. JR and Babe would be contested by some, but they do meet the supercouple requirements that are usually listed by soap opera fans...aside from those who say true supercouples are the ones that are recognized outside of the soap opera medium (Luke and Laura, etc.).

But all that said, I did word the very end of the lead this way months ago: In recent years, the supercouple title has been used more subjectively and sometimes by random, as opposed to reference to significantly positive impact; due to this, some couples listed may not fit the traditional or "ideal" definition of a supercouple. That should tell readers, if they bother to read it, that not all these couples are what would be considered "legitimate supercouples." We can also add a Notes section to the bracket aspects of the lists, as I suggested before, to explain a little bit about these couples' backgrounds and/or why some of them have been listed as supercouples (named a supercouple by [so and so magazine], were "the first" this or that, etc.). Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently learned that there are some errors in the People magazine tribute, which fans are complaining about. Not just the tribute's supercouple declarations. I'll still use the source in the lead of the JR and Babe article (to note that People magazine named them a supercouple), as well as a backup source for the other supercouple articles. But I'm not comfortable adding JR and Babe, Jake and Amanda or Ryan and Greenlee to the supercouple list, especially given the errors in the magazine's tribute. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Doug Ross and Carol Hathaway of ER?

Those two characters Dr. Doug Ross (George Clooney) and Nurse Carol Hathaway (Julianna Margulies) are very much considered the best and most-favorited couple on the medical drama ER and they should be listed as a supercouple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know that they have to have required sources, but they are considered a supercouple to most fans on ER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Like you stated, sources are needed. Ones that are WP:Reliable and are referring to them as a supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, sometimes some critics don't know the term supercouples and that's probably the reason that they don't list some fictional couples as supercouples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What about that source? http://communities.dose.ca/dose/blogs/watercooler/archive/2009/01/26/another-day-another-drama-monday-january-26-2009.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattleshipMan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verfiability#Reliable sources and what it says about blogs. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Recently removed sources

I understand why Raintheone removed the sources he did, mostly anyway. However, I want to discuss two of the removals -- this one and this one. In the first one, the sources are attributed to Soap Opera Digest. I can't access the first instance, but the second instance is viewable. Are we not to trust the second instance because it's not being reported by a reliable site? Maybe if it showed the date and author, it'd be okay? As for the second removal, fansites are okay to use for exclusive interviews. That interview is exclusive to that site, which is why I use it in the main couple article with regard to what the actor had to say about his interference in the couple's relationship. Is it not appropriate to use it for citing the couple as a supercouple because it's the website calling them one? Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about this removal. It did give the date. Shouldn't we have simply tagged it as needing the page number? I mean, I've seen good and featured articles only cite the author and year. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested 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. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

---

List of fictional supercouples → List of fictional couples considered supercouples – According to recent AFD, changing this title is suggested. Which couple is truly defined as supercouple? One says this; other says that; other says both; other says whatever... I could go on. Seriously, sources must cite actually defined couples if someone opposes this proposal. In my opinion, for supporting this proposal, sources must verify opinions of others. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – while I'm usually a proponent of precision in titling, I'd call this overly so. The criteria for being in the list should be in the article, not in the title. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? How is supercouple actually defined? How does Luke and Laura fit the definition of a supercouple? --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it doesn't need to be defined in the title. Can you decide what you want to scope of "supercouples" to be and define it in the article? Obviously, it has be in terms of information in WP:RSs. I see the article does say already: "fictional couples who have been titled supercouples by the media." About what one would expect from the title, I'd say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I begin to suspect that you haven't read the AFD discussions, have you? Supercouples are defined in different ways, and this list doesn't explain why else the couple is a "supercouple" other than the source "says so". One defines it this way; the other defines it that way. One says this definition is true; other says this definition is false. One says that definition is true; other says it is false... You get the idea.
        This list should explain more about how and why else a couple fits the term. Luke and Laura, for example, can't be a "supercouple" just because the producers, writers, viewers, and tabloid critics call them this way. In fact, a valid reason must be explained in this list, especially if you are opposing this proposal. I mean, why doesn't "supercouple" need to be defined if you are opposing it? --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't read the AFD stuff. I just don't see how putting "considered" in the title helps anything. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Even though reading past AFDs help, I would say this, in case that you don't need to: putting "considered" verifies the opinions of critics who call a couple a "supercouple". --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; "couples considered" is implied in the current title and needn't be explicitly stated. Powers ^T 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To imply, name changing won't solve issues, correct? --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If there are issues, I don't think a name change would resolve them. Powers ^T 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary. AniMate 00:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with those above, this does not need to be explicitly stated. Jenks24 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with all said about. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:28, 18 April 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.

Quite frankly, I would have been content if this article had been deleted and would have preferred that my sibling not basically save it, because I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. (Looks like he looked at past deletion debates for this and the Supercouple article and then went straight for the attack, using a few of my past arguments.) But, George Ho, I also don't understand your issue. Telling us that "this list doesn't explain why else the couple is a 'supercouple' other than the source 'says so'" is baffling to me. If supercouples are not determined by reliable sources, in what way do you think supercouples are determined? You are looking at the term as a matter of fact, that it should be fact that these couples are supercouples. But it's already been explained to you that the term is often opinionated. Despite my past protests, it's not all that objective of a term. However, it's not true that "one defines it this way; the other defines it that way. One says this definition is true; other says this definition is false. One says that definition is true; other says it is false." The sources defining the term define it as very popular couples who made a cultural impact, except for the additional definition given for celebrity couples. The sources, except for one criticizing how the term is used for soap opera couples, aren't disputing supercouple definitions.

You are saying that we shouldn't rely on reliable sources. If we don't, just what are we supposed to rely on to define "supercouple"? It's true that Luke and Laura are a supercouple because viewers, writers and magazines say so. But it's not like we're ever going solely on what viewers and writers say. It's about what a published source says. These sources say that the couple's impact on popular culture earned them the title of supercouple. Sources do not say that Luke and Laura are a supercouple just to say it. They say so based on their (Luke and Laura's impact) on popular culture. Unlike my brother, I'm not going to debate this with you. We have a system we are supposed to follow. That's all this list needs to do. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There are concerns about reliability of sources and definition of a supercouple. People say that Ken and Barbie are supercouples because they say so. I am not sure how much impact each couple did; in fact, there is no hint of whether their impact made themselves a supercouple. --George Ho (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the concerns about the reliability of the sources? Any concerns can be relieved by reading over WP:Reliable sources or going to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. How a supercouple is determined is determined by what writers, viewers, and magazines and tabloid critics say, all realized in a published source affirming the couple as a supercouple. That's defined in the lead. See above for more of my reply. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Scorpio and Holly Sutton

Please discuss concerns with the inclusion or non-inclusion of this couple. I myself am looking for some sources now to end concerns. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

History of General Hospital lists them in the super couple section, with a source. Why can't that source be used here?Caringtype1 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually copied that reference from here, and it is in question that they might not be included in that source. As it's print it's hard to confirm. I do believe that they were considered one of GH's supercouples in that era but haven't had luck yet finding an online source to add. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What more is there to discuss that wasn't mentioned in this[6] and this[7] discussion? Just provide a WP:Reliable source calling them a supercouple. Even the term "power couple" should be sufficient, since it's commonly an alternative term for "supercouple" and is included in the intro. The reason I removed Robert Scorpio and Holly Sutton is in the linked discussions. That editor faked the source, just like others have done. Within this list, there are even invisible notes about faking sources. It explicitly tells editors not to do it. That editor did it anyway. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand and apologize. The problem is there are no ONLINE sources. I have a bunch of published articles from Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly stating Robert & Holly are a supercouple - but they are not online. What if I scanned them (with the date published) to a site? Would be legitimate enough for a source?

--OldGHFan (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE that I have mentioned a few times now, that will explain how to cite print sources. But be sure they use the term super couple rather than just saying they are popular, or a great love story, etc. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey - does this work?

http://soapcentral.com/gh/news/2006/0403-monty.php

--OldGHFan (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I found another one:

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/bright-promise/200240

--OldGHFan (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Both are fine. It's fine for you to add this couple now, using those or other reliable sources obviously. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would use this link: http://www.tvguide.com/soaps/sad-news-legendary-56505.aspx since it goes directly to the full article, less chance of link rot. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! I would add "Robert and Holly" right under "Luke and Laura". I would put "1982-1985, 1992, 2012" and then "General Hospital". However, I really don't know how to add the source. Can either one of you do it? I don't want to screw anything up. If you don't want to do it, can you at least show me how to add the source? I don't want to "fake source" again. Thanks!

--OldGHFan (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 2012 should be counted, they are not a couple now. I'm not sure about 1992 either, I believe Robert was with Anna then right before they were presumed dead. Please read WP:CITE for instructions on citations. The cite feature in the editing userface is also helpful. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand. But if we're going to get nit-picky about dates, then you need to change Robert & Anna's dates. They were only a couple from 1991-1992. Can someone change that then? Thanks.

--OldGHFan (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, how does one add a reference? Can I just edit it in the list and then reference Robert & Holly? Thanks.

--OldGHFan (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, seeing as they were married and had a child beforehand. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

They were married in 1978 and their marriage lasted 2 weeks. You can put that down. They were NOT a couple in the other years. Just because they had a child together, it doesn't make them a couple. See AJ and Carly.

--OldGHFan (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's Christmas Eve so I decided to change back the dates to 1985-1992 for Robert & Anna. Clearly, this is important to you so Merry Christmas. I guess if Robert & Holly ever get a kid, I may change the dates for them. In the meantime, it truly boggles my mind that I have to work so hard to get Robert & Holly on the supercouple list. I would think anyone who is aware of soaps in the 80s would know that they were a supercouple. I also don't see anyone else working this hard to get a couple on the list. Did the Spinelli and Maxie fans have to have a page long discussion in whether or not they would be included? It looks like Robert & Holly are the only couple to have some deep discussion on it. Who makes this list anyway? Clearly, someone monitors it as I am having trouble including a legit supercouple here. Anyway, I guess I'll look at Referencing for Beginners after the holidays as it doesn't look to easy to me. Meanwhile, it seems SOMEONE just added a reference on December 22 (SoapNet). Can this person add a reference for R&H? It would seem an easy thing to do. If not, I guess I'll get to it later. Have a nice holiday.

--OldGHFan (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what is important to one editor or another, it has to do with facts and sourcing. I brought the discussion here because I thought it would help you get the best answers to what types of sources you needed to find to add them to this list. Every entry needs to provide reliable sources, however much effort that takes. As for Robert and Anna, it is my opinion that the dates should remain, unless editors form consensus otherwise. Looking at the other couples for examples there doesn't seem to be a very consistent method for choosing the dates, in regards to break ups, etc, at least that I can tell. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to cite my source. At first it seemed to go through but now it's not. I followed what seemed to be good for all the other couples. Can anyone let me know why this is not working? I would appreciate any insight. Thank you.

--OldGHFan (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever helped me add the source correctly.

--OldGHFan (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What about ABC's TV series Castle's Richard Castle and Kate Beckett?

There are two characters from the ABC's TV series Castle's Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion) and Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) that should be considered favorited couple on Primetime, plus three time award winner of TV guide favorite couple since 2011. They should be listed as a supercouple, soon. — Katarina79 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, they should be listed on Prime time television supercouples after all the WON three years in a row TV Guide Magazine's Fan Favorite Couple awards back since 2011. StarbriteQueen (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that describes them as such. --1ST7 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

There seems to be an issue with some of the sources supplied not supporting the couples on the list. To be included, each example needs to have at least one reliable source that uses the term "supercouple" (or one of its synonyms, like "power couple" or "dynamic duo"). --1ST7 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal

|Tyler Lockwood and Caroline Forbes .

@Prettylittlelittle:, care to explain why you keep trying to omit this super couple? Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Because they are no longer (and never were) a super couple, now leave me alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettylittlelittle (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

First names

Why is it that only the couples listed under the Soap opera section have just their first names written? For the sake of consistency, I think either all the characters should have their full names written out (unless they don't have a given last name) or all the characters should just list their first names. Sunny Nights (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)