Talk:List of supercouples/Archive 4

Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have clear consensus against moving the page; further it appears that there's consensus that the lists should contain whatever "supercouples", real or no, that can be properly sourced. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

List of supercouples → List of fictional supercouples – I just saw that per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 20#List of supercouples involving Steel1943, Ivanvector, Legacypac, SimonTrew (Si Trew), BDD and myself, this article was moved to List of supercouples and broadened to include real-life supercouples. I argue that this is a mistake for reasons made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercouples and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 4#Category:Supercouples (back when I was a newbie); those discussions resulted in this article focusing on fictional characters only, and the deletion of the supercouple category including real-life people, due to WP:BLP concerns, inclusion concerns, size/management concerns (meaning the inclusion of a never-ending list of celebrities along with many fictional characters), and trivia concerns. All of that is why this article currently only deals with fictional supercouples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oppose move back - I don't think there are any more valid BLP concerns for real-life supercouples than there would be OR concerns for fictional ones. Follow the sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose move back the information is best presented as Section 1: real life and Section 2: in fiction. There is much in common including most of the wrote on what it is. I have no doubts that editors can figure out who are supercouples and who are not, based on RS. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note: I alerted this and this WikiProject, and the WP:BLP talk page (seen here), to this discussion. A bot already alerted WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The scope now matches its parent Supercouple (which covers both real and fictional couples), and that is a step in the right direction. Now all the list needs is a new section that lists those mentioned at Supercouple#Celebrity, and I don't see anyone trying to get that section removed from the article. This would only add ~10 supercouples to the list, which hopefully isn't too big a burden. Fictional or not, if an entry gets added without sources or with BLP concerns, it should be removed instantly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tavix, there is no need for this article to match the Supercouple article's Celebrity section. If the content is already covered there, we don't need to duplicate it here. Furthermore, that article gives better context; it's not just lists. That article gives examples, and this one list couples that are not in that article because this is the list page. Do any of you think that a List of celebrity supercouples article would hold up? If so, I can safely predict that it would not, for the same reasons that editors sought to have the TomKat and Brangelina articles deleted: We don't need a separate article for such material; of course, editors gave other reasons as well. Really, read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 4#Category:Supercouples. So why should we essentially have a List of celebrity supercouples in this article, with editors adding any celebrity couple who has been called a "supercouple" even on a whim by an author or simply because the couple is a celebrity couple? As past discussions about this have made clear, a celebrity couple might be called a supercouple just for the hell of it by an author. There is no criteria for a celebrity supercouple in the same way that there are for fictional supercouples (particularly soap opera supercouples). The current lead of this article doesn't even extend to celebrities, except for the "real" part that was recently added. Looking back, I can't even believe I supported this list including real-life couples (then again, I was a newbie back then). We already have to deal with WP:OR at this list, and people faking couples. The last thing it needs to be is a BLP magnet as well, with even more POV concerns and edit warring over favorite real-life couples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was the closer for that RfD, not a participant, but I support the consensus there, in that if this article is moved back, "List of supercouples" should be red. If we describe Supercouples as both real and fictional but only list the latter, we shouldn't mislead readers with the broader redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose move back Supercouple is more of a press term for contemporary figures. Its use for fictional characters is not particularly common. Dimadick (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dimadick, you stated, "Its use for fictional characters is not particularly common." The current state of the Supercouple article, and Googling the term supercouple on regular Google and on Google Books show otherwise. When one searches the term on regular Google, most of the hits are about fictional characters, particularly soap opera characters. There are barely any hits for the term on Google Books; that is, when one searches "supercouple" there. When one searches "celebrity supercouple" on Google Books, it's simply authors randomly naming celebrity couples as "supercouples"; there is no encyclopedic discussion of celebrity supercouples, except for this 2015 First Comes Love: Power Couples, Celebrity Kinship and Cultural Politics source, from Bloomsbury Publishing USA. But when one searches "soap opera supercouple" on regular Google or on Google Books, there is encyclopedic discussion of the topic, as seen here, here, here, here, and here. The term was coined by the soap opera medium, and is far more prevalent in the soap opera medium than it is in the primetime show medium or celebrity medium, which is why the Supercouple article mostly focuses on soap opera; it's also why this list mostly focuses on soap opera couples. There is barely any encyclopedic discussion of the term with regard to celebrity couples, which is why the Celebrity section in the Supercouple article is just naming couples and their histories, with one solid source actually discussing how the term may apply to celebrities. Except for this Comcast/Comcast Interactive Media "Top Celebrity Supercouples of All Time" list and this Elle "Celebrity Supercouple Nicknames" source, rarely will you see WP:Reliable sources actually taking the time to compile a list of the top celebrity supercouples. I'm not sure that this Whatculture.com "5 New Celebrity Super Couples For 2014" source counts as WP:Reliable. Even lists like this this Entertainment Weekly "15 TV Teen Super Couples" list and this MSN "Where are these TV super couples now?" list are not common, but I've seen them appear more often than sources specifically about celebrity supercouples. When a celebrity couple is called a supercouple, it is usually due to some author randomly calling the couple that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

AussieLegend, judging by your recent edits to the article, I take it you got the note about this discussion at WP:TV? So do you feel that this list should include celebrities? If so, why, especially given what I stated above? By the way, I don't know why my brain keeps confusing you for AngusWOOF at times; he might also have something to state on this supercouple topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Personally I think "supercouple" makes about as much sense as "bhxhyssdlzxkcgsdbnvdshgmsbhdmxsfmnbgffgdrwbhw". It's fan fiction and doesn't really apply to the real world. None of the alleged "real life" "supercouples" have leaped over a tall building, brought peace to the Middle East or ended world hunger. Simply calling someone "super" doesn't actually make it so. The article certainly should not be expanded to include real people unless these people can verifiably demonstrate a superpower and so yes, the article should be moved to List of fictional supercouples. For the record, my edits to the article were only aimed at ensuring the tables include accessibility compliance per MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTT. I also did some sorely needed cleanup, during which I noticed problems with several citations. They really need a good going through to ensure their validity before anyone considers expanding this nightmare. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

AussieLegend, thanks for the help with the list and for commenting. I'd rather that this list be deleted, especially since I'm the main one maintaining it (by that, I mean reverting unsourced couples, editors faking couples, vandalism, etc.). I just don't see it the same way that I used to. That's what several extra years of editing Wikipedia will do to you; I'm not that newbie or otherwise significantly inexperienced editor anymore. That stated, I can significantly improve the Supercouple article, but I've been slow to doing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

On a side note: I went ahead and alerted the WP:BLP noticeboard to this discussion since the WikiProjects and WP:BLP talk page I alerted don't seem interested in the issue. I initially passed on alerting the WP:BLP noticeboard since I'd already alerted the WP:BLP talk page, and since I didn't want to incite any overzealous cutting regarding living people at the Supercouple article; while that article clearly needs work, I don't see any WP:BLP violations there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oppose move back as the main article includes non-fictional supercouples like Brangelina, they can be listed in their own section, and on their own merits.

Comment on trimming list Criteria for the list should be news and academic articles that actually use the title supercouple, just like with supermodel. There are plenty of models that were popular before the supermodel term was propagated. Similarly there are lots of couples that are popular that do not get that label. I would remove power couples that are there just because they are world leaders, otherwise every King and Queen would be listed along with Presidents and First Ladies, and so forth, although if the term really forces that issue then that's that. I'd also get rid of "years of reign" as that is open to interpretation as to when someone is considered a couple and when they actually become a couple on screen. What if they are paired up just for dating but that's about it? And it would require a heck of a lot of sources. As with List of programs broadcast on (channel), it is sufficient to just list their premiere year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

AngusWOOF, despite my having compared the term supercouple to supermodel in my newbie days, real-life supercouples are barely comparable to the topic of supermodels, since there has actually been criteria put forth for supermodels and models are not as randomly titled supermodels as much as celebrity couples are randomly titled supercouples. Per what I stated above, I cannot support the current title or the inclusion of real-life people on the list. It will be a far more arbitrary list than it is now, since there is actually criteria for fictional supercouples, especially soap opera supercouples, and there is none for celebrity couples. The list included celebrity couples before, and editors did not like the mixing, for valid reasons. This link shows what the list looked like after its first deletion nomination. I predict that this new one will be a disaster. And even if it is not, it will eventually be nominated for deletion again; and I'll be there to support its deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

But as you said, there's criteria to quality a supermodel, there should be criteria to qualify a supercouple, and if it is strictly by the soap opera definition and terminology, then use only that, and it will naturally exclude those who aren't involved in the industry. It's the same as who is considered a saint. There's the strict Catholic qualification of sainthood, and then the common term for those who are called "saint", "knight" or "award-winning". If there are no such criteria then it'll just be a loose list and category where it just needs someone with a reliable source and authority to attribute the title to the couple. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean when it comes to extending the criteria. If the criteria is specifically for fictional supercouples (particularly soap opera supercouples), which is indeed the case, it would be WP:Synthesis to extend that to criteria to real-life couples. Look at the Definitions section and the Origins section at the Supercouple article; the criteria (not certain aspects that are shared by both groups) is for fictional characters, not real-life people. As for a loose list, yes, that's my issue, per above. This is one of those topics where I must agree to disagree with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

A moving back to fictional supercouples would then result in a possible List of real-life supercouples article, which would be a loose list (criterion: reliable sources name them a supercouple) as with saints and all the variants of saints. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I highly doubt that a move-back would result in a List of real-life supercouples article. See the two previous AfDs, and the aforementioned category deletion. If it did, that list would be deleted. This list has survived for years with no one (that I know of) feeling the need to create a List of celebrity supercouples article or a List of real-life supercouples article. Like I stated to Tavix above, "there is no need for this article to match the Supercouple article's Celebrity section. If the content is already covered there, we don't need to duplicate it here. Furthermore, that article gives better context; it's not just lists. That article gives examples, and this one list couples that are not in that article because this is the list page. Do any of you think that a List of celebrity supercouples article would hold up? If so, I can safely predict that it would not [...]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response edit

My response is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic