Talk:Lois Lane

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to an issue of Times Magazine way back in 1988 Lois was based on a girl name Lois Amster who was a student in the very same class as Siegel and Shuster who both had a tender crush on her. In the Times article an aged Ms. Amster is quoted to say she never conceived of being a reporter but was seeking to become a detective

I haven't read many Superman comics in the past decade or so. But from the 1950s through the 1980s, Lois's parents (who first appeared in "Superman's Girlfriend, Lois Lane" #13, dated November 1959) were named Sam and Ella Lane. This article says that Lois's mother is named Ellen. I don't want to correct it, because I don't know if it's a typo, or if the character's name has actually been changed in recent years (possibly to put an end to the "salmonella" jokes that fans were making). Is there a valid source for the name "Ellen?"

Why does someone keep taking out the picture of Lesley Ann Warren? —scarecroe 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a clean up:

• Some actress have photos, but others don't.
• Smallville has it's own section... why?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question. The Smallville Lois Lane section should only be reduced to one paragraph like the others, with the link to its main page on top intact.

--p4 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)p4poetic--p4 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at

There are blatant inaccuracies here. This was written by an anti-Lois fan, as the false material provided is what is commonly attributed to Smallville's Lois Lane to degrade her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.45.29 (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of having a folded out article is to keep the information short. We don't need to describe every time Lois appears in the show, just a general gist of who her character is. — trlkly 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is the writer trying to say in the last paragraph under biography? Needs some clean up, but I haven't caught up on the Superman books enough to figure out what is being said. Anyone able to decipher/proof read? 214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Steve[reply]

I proposed splitting the Lois Lane in other media section because it is growing and it length are long enough that believe it should should split to a subpage.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The media page for Lois could be extensively detailed if it's split off from the main page. She's been around for about 70 years and is Superman's love interest, at this point she has to have been in enough media to warrant a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.215.215 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at least until a serious effort is made to reduce the amount of plot and trivia currently dumped on the majority of this article. Once that is done, looking at the need for a split can be revisited. - J Greb (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, The article is not big enough to require splitting. The article scope is "Lois Lane" and not "Lois Lane in specific media" Op47 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get rid of this? It mostly contains lyrics that include the Superman/Lois Lane comparison and is super long. 4.79.1.1 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get some kind of other opinion on this? Its seems unnecessary to have all this trivia here. KatCheez 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image fails to meet

• There is no free equivalent picture of the character as portrayed by the actress, therefore a free promotional picture (cropped and of lower resolution) fits under WP:NFCC guidelines. As for contextual significance, I argue that it does have, the same way every picture under that section and the one below it do. ~How all of a sudden this picture is different than the rest is beyond me, but I'm open to hear any good arguments. LusoEditor (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the actress is in makeup or costuming that makes her so different in her role that it grants some vast understanding of the subject that otherwise would not exist. As such, it most certainly fails

Ghost 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I expect some kind of coherence when making an edit. Why take one while leaving the rest? My argument is that this one is appropriate, the same way the others are (and because I think I do, I've uploaded the picture and put it in the article).

P.S: And again, this doesn't fail NFCC #1 because there is no free equivalent picture of the character as portrayed by the actress. A mere picture of the actress wouldn't represent the character or it's portrayal, therefore I believe that's not a reasonable argument. LusoEditor (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how it is appropriate, and it doesn't matter if you believe it's a reasonable argument, that doesn't make it less valid. This has been explained to you by other editors on your talk page, but the image is a non-free image of the actress, a living person and fails to meet

Ghost 02:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

http://allied-authors.org/2013/07/24/watch-out-for-these-five-overused-words/ "'also' seldom adds anything meaningful to a sentence. It belongs to a family of adverbs that show a relationship between ideas, but like its relatives “both” and “either,” “also” can quickly cause sentences to slog, especially if used habitually."

http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/however/

"However is a useful and forceful word that is weakened by misuse and overuse."

172.56.12.180 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get with an English teacher because you obviously need somebody to go over this and point out all the sentence fragments, which is bad English. Once you know where they are, fix them. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, the most important fact about her (superman's girlfriend) should go first. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the in-universe aspects of the character are not discussed in the opening sentence. The current format is consistent with virtually all other comics character articles. —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually a good reason for that? What would it be? Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the most important fact about Lois Lane is that she is a fictional character. Discussing her fictional biography in the lead sentence may give readers unfamiliar with the topic the impression she's a real person. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how about "Lois Lane is a fictional character who is the primary love interest of Superman. " ? Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference with that wording. The in-universe information is still being discussed before the real-world information. The above comments still apply. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Lois) So we still seem to be missing a good reason. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Mary Jane) we have a

WP:OSE Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speak of other stuff, "The Penguin (Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot) is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly as an adversary of the superhero Batman. " "The Joker, the archenemy of the comic book superhero Batman, has appeared in various forms of media." "Catwoman is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly in association with the superhero Batman. "Two-Face (Harvey Dent) is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly as an adversary of the superhero Batman. " Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a change to how lead sentences of comics-related articles should be formatted,

main article on the character, which does not use the wording you prefer. The three articles all at least mention the publication before the in-universe details. They do mention in-universe information in the opening sentence but not in the exact manner you prefer. One could argue that such wording is redundant when you consider that the same information is often-times mentioned in the very next sentence. "[Character] in other media" and similar articles are unrelated here and articles like Joker (character) shouldn't exist. One last thing, do you need to post like that? It's not going to get you blocked but I find it hard to believe that anybody will take you seriously in a "trainwreck" discussion when you post that way. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

So there is no strict guideline, and you don't appear to be able to come up with a good reason not to put the most important information first, as per the part of

WP:LEAD which says "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Are we doing OSE or not? How about Prince Hamlet and Lara Croft? Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What happened to "moving on"? Whatever. The above comments make several valid points. Consider reading them again. You say I have not provided valid reasoning. What about your points? What exactly is your argument? You do know that the lead is not just the first sentence, right? None of the guidelines you cite back your preferred wording. I will stress this again, if you want to change how things are done around here, this talk page is not the place to do it. What exactly do you want from me? I couldn't care less about this at the end of the day. If you managed to actually gain support for your wacky ways, then they will be the new standard and I would not dispute it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want from you is to stop reverting improvements. My point is that when you put the most important thing first, that tells readers what the most important thing is, in this case the most important thing to know about Lois is that she is Superman's girlfriend. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to actually provide anything that supports your view and the only two users who have replied to you here both disagree with you and your preferred wording. You can either take this elsewhere to ignite discussion regarding all comics-related articles rather than just this one or you can "move forward". —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why we can't give her the category of 'Fictional victims of kidnapping' when that would happen to so often in the comics and in other forms of media. It almost happened to her as much as Princess Peach. She probably even got captured more often than Daphne Blake and Mary Jane Watson and they have that category listed at the bottom of their pages. Why can't we include it for Lois?

Sb1990 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lois Lane. 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/20150922134458/http://tvdramas.about.com/od/smallville/a/ericaduranceint.htm to http://tvdramas.about.com/od/smallville/a/ericaduranceint.htm

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.

• 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) 08:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that section Lois Lane#In other media be split into a separate page called Lois Lane in other media. The content of the current page seems long is large enough to make its own page. NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah wow I can definitely see what you mean. It could also probably lend to expanding the shorter paragraphs of the section that were probably trimmed because the article was so big--Fradio71 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it large enough for

Wp:Gng well enough. So  Done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It was reverted though. I reverted back for now. Will invite other contributors as well.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was named after Lois Long, a famous investigative journalist who went by the pseudonym “Lipstick” in the 1920s. Duh. 71.236.206.225 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]