Talk:Luke and Laura

Really more of a Twin Peaks kinda song

Shouldn't some mention be made of Christopher Cross' "Think of Laura"? It wasn't intended as a tie-in to the Luke-and-Laura phenomenon, but the fact that it was largely perceived that way is worth noting, at least as a measure of the popularity of the couple even beyond typical soap-opera audiences.

Removal of History Section

Due to lack of citations/references. Feel free to readd once it is referenced Corpx 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Luke's rape of Laura and the intro

When I read the previous version of the intro I found the comment about the critical reaction to the compelling of rapist with his rape victim to come out of left field. It seemed as if possibly if the author had forgotten that not every reader would know about the rape so I added sentence mentioning it to the first paragraph. I feel the intro could still use some work though. --

Suggest splitting the articles

Though it's definitely worth having a "Luke and Laura" relationship page, I think it's also worth having separate pages on each of them, since Luke's storyline has been substantially diverging from Laura's over the last year. For example, if Luke's character is involved in a storyline with Tracey Quartermaine or Anna Devane, it doesn't seem to make sense to link to "Luke and Laura" everytime Luke's name comes up. What do other people think? --Elonka 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this again, since every other character has their own, and with Laura being catatonic and Genie Francis rumors of return slowly dwindling it may make sense. Especially with Luke being married to Tracy now. DJ-Siren 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Recommending page move

Per WP:NAME, an article should be named by what the general public most commonly recognizes. For this particular subject, that should be Luke and Laura. Do other editors agree? --Elonka 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and the words "Luke and Laura" are also quicker to type. Flyer22 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I came back to this section to state that I now disagree with moving this article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? "Luke and Laura" is clearly the most well-known name for this couple. Powers ^T 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied below. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a criticism page because I can imagine there'd be quite a lot of controversy portray rape in such a positive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.250.2 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nikolas' and Lucky's birth years (revised)

If Luke and Laura got married in November 1981, and Laura disappeared in early 1982, Nikolas would have to have been born in the fall of 1982. If, according to his character page, he was born in 1981, Nikolas would have been born before Luke & Laura wed. Luke & Laura reunited near the end of 1983. Lucky could have been born in the fall of 1984. When they aged Lucky (as stated on his character page), they should have changed his year of birth from 1985 to 1984 instead of to 1982. - NBK1122 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Luke Spencer and Laura Webber → Luke and Laura — WP:UCN is clear: use the most common name. Very few people would refer to this couple by their full names; it's almost always just "Luke and Laura". As the latter is unambiguous (a redirect to this article) there is no need to disambiguate by using surnames. Powers ^T 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this should have been done. I am aware of WP:COMMONNAME, and have cited it often, but when presenting this couple in an encyclopedic manner, it seems best that their first and last names be in the title and listed when first referring to them in other articles...such as in the lead of the Supercouple article. Of course, that could be pipelinked. But my point is that we do not always go by the most common name. One example would be TomKat (real-life supercouple Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes), which was changed to a more "encyclopedic" title to cut down on people targeting the article for deletion; it, and cleanup, seems to have worked. Another of the many examples would be Beyoncé; she is clearly better known as Beyoncé than as Beyoncé Knowles, and yet her article is titled Beyoncé Knowles. I am not strongly for one title over the other in the case of Luke and Laura, but I hope that this does not cause other editors to start titling these soap opera couple articles by only their first names, as was done in the past. The classic American soap opera couples were/are better known and mostly referred to by their first names when mentioned as a couple; we have kept this tradition in the Supercouple article, and in the List of fictional supercouples article even with more mordern couples, but I still feel that the more encyclopedic thing to do in all these cases is to have the articles titled with their full names (excluding middle names, of course). Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why exclude middle names? I think that points to the arbitrariness of saying that first- and last-names should be used. I don't know anything about any other supercouple, but Luke and Laura are obviously the ur-example and are referred to in that manner even by publications outside of the normal soap-opera sources (unlike other supercouples, to my knowledge, and (it seems to me) more often than "TomKat" (although "Bennifer" was all over the place there for a while, wasn't it?)). As the usage is not in any way limited to the fandom, I see no reason it can't be a perfectly good encyclopedia title. In my opinion, using their full names implies that the article is about the individuals (i.e., Luke Spencer and Laura Webber), whereas the more common phrasing clearly indicates that the subject is the relationship between the individual characters. (Likewise, we wouldn't title an article Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.) Powers ^T 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why exclude middle names? For the same reason we exclude middle names from most titles in Wikipedia articles, of real or fictional people. Most people's middle names are excluded when referring to them. Middles names are usually not as common. I am not even sure what this couple's middle names are, if they have any. Additionally, I do not have any visible proof with me that Luke and Laura is used more than "TomKat" when it comes to couple names, but it seems that "TomKat" wins these days; the celebrity media is bigger than the soap opera media. However, none of that was/is my point. I stated my point above. Like you, regarding what can be a perfectly good encyclopedic title, I said the same thing about "TomKat"...and yet people complained about that title. I am not saying people are going to complain about this article being titled Luke and Laura; I am just stating my thoughts, partly that I would prefer all soap opera couple titles to be consistent in presentation. I do not exactly get your reasoning that using a couple's first and last names in titles implies that the articles are about the individuals rather than couples. Take, for example, John and Lorena Bobbitt; the aricle is about them as a couple more than as individuals. But oh well. To me, re-naming all the soap opera couple articles to their first names only is too fanboy-ish and fangirl-ish, whether a fan or not. What I mean by that is...the soap opera community commonly refers to Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery as Reese and Bianca, Rianca, Breese, or even Reeks (Reeks, by haters of the couple), but that does not mean that we should name their article to any of those alternate titles...not even the most common of those titles. Without a doubt, the names Rianca and Breese, names this couple were/are commonly referred to by, would be considered less encyclopedic than the title Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery. That is my point. In the case of Luke and Laura, however, since they are so widely known by that name, I do not have a strong objection to this title. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter part of your message reinforces my point -- while the "soap opera community" may refer to them as "Rianca and Breese" or whatever, the wider community likely wouldn't recognize those names. "Luke and Laura", however, was used extensively outside the soap opera community (to my recollection) and thus needs no other qualifiers. In many ways, the article is as much about the "Luke and Laura" phenomenon, which was notable even outside soap opera-dom, as it is about the characters' relationship; and that former aspect was never known as "Luke Spencer and Laura Webber". Powers ^T 12:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that I get your point; it is part of the reason I gave the Reese and Bianca example. Do you get my point? I do not want other soap opera couple articles here at Wikipedia to start going by their first names again; in other words, I was saying that I do not want this article to set that type of precedent or rather "re-precedent." Editors could easily argue that other soap opera couple articles should simply go by their first names due to the fact that these couples are commonly referred to by the shorter couple names and nicknames. It does not matter that these names are more common within the soap opera community than outside of it. Why? Because the soap opera community is the main audience for these couples. WP:COMMONNAME cannot really apply to the non-soap opera community in these cases, except for in the case of Luke and Laura. When we apply WP:COMMONNAME for these soap opera characters, it is about their common name in regards to the soap opera community -- what they are commonly known by to the public; this public, as we know, is mostly, and all in most cases, soap opera viewers. That is what I am saying. Again, I am not strongly against this article being titled Luke and Laura. I did have to state my reasons for why I am not all for it either, however. Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the slippery slope argument is a good one, I guess. This is and should remain an isolated exception, although other potential names more along the lines of the Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes article may be warranted for non-L&L cases. Powers ^T 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised if someone wants to simply name a soap opera couple article by the couple's first names on the basis that they should be able to if the Luke and Laura article can get away with it. What valid point would we have, other than how tacky the title may be, if so, per Wikipedia's policies, to argue against that if the title they are suggesting is more common than the full and last names title? And, LOL, I doubt we need to name any of the soap opera couple articles "Relationship of ... (fill in blank here)" or that doing so would be the best route to go. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be surprised. The defense is that this is a single case and that any other articles need to demonstrate similar levels of widespread usage to be changed. Powers ^T 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And I do not believe that defense would be too valid, if "widespread use" is also about its use in the non-soap opera community, for the reasons I stated above. "When we apply WP:COMMONNAME for these soap opera characters, it is about their common name in regards to the soap opera community -- what they are commonly known by" to that public...because that is the main, and sometimes only, audience for these couples. Sure, I would use the defense you cite, but I do not believe there is any real validity to it...since WP:COMMONNAME cannot apply to the non-soap opera community for these couples (seeing as the non-soap opera community are not the main audience; most do not watch soap operas). Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is written for a general audience. The soap opera community already knows much of these things, and they have their own Wiki on which to expound upon plot details and the like. Powers ^T 22:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For the general audience or not, when I state that Kendall Hart Slater is one of Kendall's common names, that is in regards to what she is largely known by (either one of the two names; her article can be titled either Kendall Hart or Kendall Hart Slater while still being her common name). And who is she largely known by this to? The soap opera community, not the general public, because most of the general public is unfamiliar with who she is. I do not need to ponder what she is known by to the general public before moving her article to its common name, which happens to be the result of how often she is referred to by this on the show and by viewers/fans. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: I have also noticed that the Kendall Hart Slater article needs some cleanup (fixing of broken links, for one example), and I will do that when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luke and Laura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012033937/http://abc.go.com/daytime/generalhospital/ to http://abc.go.com/daytime/generalhospital

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)