Jump to content

Talk:Star-crossed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove the section "Famous examples of "star crossed lovers"

[edit]

This section is not related to the actual word and should be removed. Does anyone agree? If so, I shall remve it. GreaterWikiholic 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see your point. Although I agree that the examples expand upon the concept of love predestined to failure or tragedy, I'm not sure what exactly makes them 'star-crossed' lovers, so to speak. Shakespeare didn't 'invent' the notion of ill-fated love, he simply phrased it eloquently and memorably.
And some of the examples don't make that much sense anyway. Are Buffy and Angel doomed from the start? Are Catherine and Heathcliff? In the case of Romeo/Juliet and Pyramus/Thisby, the love is declared to be doomed by a prologue before the action even begins.

The phrase Star-crossed lovers does not always mean doomed from the start. It can simply mean unlucky, as in a constant difficult time for the two lovers in either getting together romantically or remaining together without really bad drama wrecking their love life with each other after having been together for not too long. As for Buffy and Angel, I would/will say, yes, that they were doomed from the start romantically. But even star-crossed lovers can and do eventually end up together without any more of the super angst or difficulty in trying to be together romantically, even the ones who were/are doomed from the start. Though Buffy and Angel still are not romantically together in the official sense, of course, since 2000 when they got that magical day of a romantic reunion with each other. Flyer22 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These vague associations with people who have had romantic relationships beset by difficulty are not really related to the term, which has its roots in the Elizabethan concept of dramatic tragedy and in astrology. I'm strongly against retaining these lists in the article, partly for that reason, and partly because such lists always grow bigger than the article itself and tend to overbalance it. This is especially true when, as here, there is only a very vague association with the meaning of the term. --Tony Sidaway 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. However, I say that the list of modern star-crossed examples is the one that should go. Flyer22 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of star-crossed lovers

[edit]

I've removed the uncited portions of the list - if a reference can be found describing the couple as "star-crossed" can be found, then they can be readded. --Malkinann (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the current list from list form to paragraph form, seeing as having that information in list form in that way is discouraged and this (my changing it) reduces the chances of people adding unsourced couples. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important enough

[edit]

is "star crossed" really important enough to warrant an article????

The answer is yes. The term is extremely notable, of course, and a much bigger article could be made of this on Wikipedia than what it is now. Whether this article will be expanded soon to more than what it is now is uncertain, however. Flyer22 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But Flyer22, how is this not a dictionary definition and a list of examples? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, as you can see, that old comment of mine is from 2007. I was a newbie back then, and heavily focused on soap opera content, especially soap opera couples. That is how I came across Wikipedia. Your ping didn't work because you pinged my old username. Over the years at this article, I've been concerned with unsourced additions and POV editing. I see that you cut the "Modern examples" section. I'm not broken up about that. If you want to take this article to AfD or change it to a Wiktionary redirect page, I won't be broken up about that either. As we know, WP:Notability isn't about the current state of the article. Having just looked for sources on this topic, I'm not sure it passes WP:Notable. As for WP:Dictionary, it states that a Wikipedia article should go beyond what is found in a dictionary entry. This article at least does that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flyer22 Reborn, yes I saw the date--I thought it was really charming! Ah we were all so young and beautiful... Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, very early on in WP-time, lots of articles were created for literary tropes, themes, motifs, stock characters, stereotypes, archetypes (though that word is usually misapplied), etc., and not all of them have been developed much, nor "policed" for trivia/cruft. This isn't the first one that's been suggested for transwiki, but its been my experience (see, e.g., overhaul of Shrew (stock character)) that on average they can be worked up. A good type of source will be works specifically on allusions, themes/motifs, and so on (though some may only qualify as tertiary sources, so some additional and more clearly secondary ones may also be needed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet

[edit]

Romeo and Juliet has lasted for so many years and continues to leave audiences mistified because the audience, even today, can relate to the feelings of the first time they fell in love. The consept of young love is so universal and it touches the deepest place in our hearts where we keep our own memories of love found and love lost that we don't share with anyone. That is how the story of Romeo and Juliet stays alive and will stay alive for centuries to come.

Content question - Twilight - Edward and Isabella.

[edit]

I haven't read all of the novels, but from what I can assume from the novel by Stephanie Meyer, Isabella and Edward are NOT starcrossed lovers. I was under the impression that starcrossed means they will never get together, either separated by circumstance or death or some other tragedy. In Twilight, it is quite obvious that Isabella and Edward DO get together and though they face hardships in the books to come, they are not driven apart by anything that would make the starcrossed lovers. Their relationship, though rocky, is successful and there has yet to be a novel to confirm that they will not be together.

So. Yeah. I didn't want to modify it myself, but I thought I'd bring it to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.81.199 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star-crossed doesn't have to mean a tragic or forever doomed romance, of course. Sometimes star-crossed just means temporarily doomed, LOL. Because, really, a lot of instances exist where even star-crossed lovers eventually get together. Now however long that "get together" lasts is another topic. If Isabella and Edward kept having significant obstacles thrown in their way to being together and if it kept looking as though they would never get together, they can be classified as star-crossed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gatsby "star-crossed"?

[edit]

In F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, are Jay Gatsby and Daisy "star crossed" lovers? If so, I'll add them to the list. MarianKroy (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your opinion, I guess, and interpretation of the book. For example, did Daisy really love Gatsby? Does the circumstance surrounding their inability to get together {being Daisy's inability to wait more than her marriage} count as something that would classify them as being star crossed? In some ways, due to them not being together, Gatsby's sacrifice for Daisy and his incomparable love for Daisy, that would make them star crossed. But Daisy's apparent fickleness, lack of passion and conviction and the way she plays Gatsby would not. Someone else might disagree, but I don't think they are star crossed. Tragic, of course, but not star crossed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.81.199 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. MarianKroy (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better answer to the question would be: they are star-crossed lovers if a reliable source describes them as such. If not, the answer is purely the opinion of the editor. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more on this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Taken from my (Flyer22's) talk page:

Flyer, though your idea to limit uncited additions to the modern examples via paragraph form was a good idea, the manner in which you carried out the reformatting procedure was decidedly biased and therefore unprofessional. You cannot enhance an informative summation with personal opinion, even if it is echoed by an editorial/review source. The fact you centralize a Buffy-Angel relationship (and, by your page inputs it is noted that you are a personal fan), is unacceptable. Rpg/video game references are not appropriate additions for what is supposed to be a non-opinionated, brief (viz., non-esoteric) list of couples which are synonymous with modern day versions of Romeo and Juliet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eos11Eastw (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get what you mean. Directly biased? Not at all. It's in the citations. I am not a fan of the Buffy and Angel pairing. I'm just quite familiar with the notability/popularity of that pairing (don't know what you mean by my "page imputs"). I personally prefer Spike and Buffy over Buffy and Angel. Cannot have personal opinion, even if it is echoed by an editorial/review source? Wrong. Stating that a couple is one of the most notable prime time couples when it is backed up by reliable sources is quite allowed by Wikipedia. The personal opinion by many that the couple is notable is what makes it fact. And, yes, Rpg/video game references are appropriate when sourced with reliable sources.
That messy list is what is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Paragraph form is preferred. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I am not someone who is from your past. I do not agree with how you have opted to dominate an article based on personal opinion. That is not what Wikipedia is about. I changed the list back to a list, as that is the format that best serves the topic input. Moreover, it agrees with the standard outlay of the page. You cannot threaten to "bring editors in" because you "prefer" a certain format. Please provide a justification for the paragraph form, which introduces a biased subtext. Even if you were to remove the comment about Buffy being one of the most...etc. couples, you'd still need a logical reason to validate introduction of extraneous information. I feel preventing improper/lack of citation is important, as do you -- yet there should be a better way. Again, a list for this particular type of information is the optimal format, according to sound organizational reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.200.247 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. As I stated to a Wikipedia administrator: "That section was in messy list format, which is discouraged by Wikipedia, and it only served to tempt people to continue to add uncited couples to it. It was also tagged as needing to comply to Wikipedia standards. I rewrote the section in paragraph form, which was/is cited and valid to comply with Wikipedia standards, and to cut back on people adding uncited modern day star-crossed couples to it, which it did/does. But the editor reverting it, who also recently once blanked the page as an IP and was warned about it, has stated that it's biased. I explained on my talk page that it is not biased whatsoever. The fact that it mentions Buffy and Angel as a notable star-crossed couple is backed up by a reliable source, and can be backed up by more; I hardly see it as biased. The way I worded that section is quite allowed by Wikipedia and preferred over messy list format.
Furthermore, this editor/IP has stated that anime/video games cannot be added to the Star-crossed article, as if there are no anime/video game star-crossed couples."
You say that I have opted to "to dominate an article based on personal opinion." Wrong again. I opted to clean up part of that messy article. And a fictional couple being star-crossed is not a "personal opinion" when they are written that way and there is a valid source to back it up.
It's not a matter of my "threatining" to bring editors in because I "prefer" a certain format; that is the format that Wikipedia prefers; it's Wikipedia's preference. Please provide a justification for the paragraph form, which introduces a biased subtext? There is nothing biased by stating that a couple is a notable star-crossed couple when valid references back it up! And the tag that was on that section, which you can go back in the edit history and find, clearly shows that Wikipedia is against your style of formatting.
A logical reason to validate introduction of extraneous information? It's not "extraneous." It's paragraph form with valid sources. And if you haven't noticed, the Supercouple, Supermodel, and various other articles on Wikipedia are backed up by "personal opinion" of valid sources of what those terms mean and the couples/people who fit those terms. The Star-crossed couple article, however, is more about a couple literally being written as star-crossed. And when valid sources say that a star-crossed couple is notable, it can be added to the Wikipedia article about Star-crossed couples...just like that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


While Wikipedia prefers concise, thorough coverage of a topic, I believe the aim is for an unbiased entry. The manner in which you present modern examples would not be found,say, in an encyclopedia. In most instances, a list format is unideal, but in this particular case, and with respect to the "classic" examples list preceding it, the bulleted output best serves to convey the information.

The way in which you present Buffy is biased. Even if a source claims the couple to be "one of the most notable" doesn't make it a fact worth "reporting" : an editorial which claims a certain film to be the most memorable film of 2008, doesn't make it thus. The subject is "Modern Examples" -- and so modern examples should be provided. No more. To included video game characters and so forth could make for a tediously long list. It is best to stick to easily recognized/commonly agreed upon (via several sources) examples.

I do not wish to argue with you; it is my hope that a neutral third-party can resolve this issue in the manner that best serves the content (as it has been requested; I have also linked to this page). It is nothing personal. Please realize that.

And so I wish you well, and peace. You seem to be a good editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.200.247 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, as I've stated more than once. The manner in which I put the present modern examples is found, say, in this encyclopedia. I noted one couple as notable. And, yes, by Wikipedia policy, if a valid source claims the couple to be "one of the most notable," it does make it a "fact" and worth reporting in an article about the subject. The subject is about star-crossed couples. Romeo and Juliet are noted as a notable star-crossed couple (the most notable, in fact). I simply put Buffy and Angel as a notable prime time star-crossed couple, backed up by a reliable source. It work this way in the Supercouple article as well. What are you going to do, go to that article and remove all that stuff and say that it's "simply opinion"? If you did, you would be seen as a vandal. And, really, I do not see that what you have done to the Star-crossed article, reverting it back to that mess, as that different than vandalism.
Wikipedia also does not go by your standard of this: "To included video game characters and so forth could make for a tediously long list. It is best to stick to easily recognized/commonly agreed upon (via several sources) examples."
WRONG!!!! If the couple has a valid source listing it as a star-crossed couple, it can be added. What don't you get about that? I go by Wikipedia's rules on this, not yours. And your revert to that messy list is the main thing that is going to "make for a tediously long list," as has been witnessed many times in the past.
As for "respect to the 'classic' examples list preceding it," that section will be changed into paragraph form as well, as I was planning on doing. The way I had the Modern day examples section is not something I was planning on having that way forever (not that it would last forever, anyway), seeing as I was going to expand on it, and make it more encyclopedic. It was temporary, and a start in moving away from a mess that has plagued that article ever since that list was introduced to it. Your couples list format is what most definitely would not be found in a, say, encyclopedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another thing: The Buffy and Angel part could easily be reworded to state that they are considered a notable prime time star-crossed couple (as in using the word "considered" to convey that that is the thought of others). Thus, I really am not getting your problem with my rewrite of that section. You simply seem opposed to the Buffy and Angel couple; that's all. Because reverting that whole section all because it names Buffy and Angel as a notable star-crossed couple (and because it names anime and video games couples) is ridiculous. The rest of that section in the way I worded it simply lists star-crossed couples in paragraph form. With the exception of paragraphs and Wikipedia's preference, it's not that different than list form. Flyer22 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion

[edit]

I am posting here in response to a request from Flyer22 on my Talk page.

Firstly, let me say that I don't have the answers. I do not know what is the best layout or the correct content for this article. However, I hope I can help the involved editors to find those answers. I think the most important thing is to avoid reverting one another's edits, to discuss matters here, and to avoid confusing the question of content with that of formatting.

  • As far as content is concerned (who should be included), the discussion should focus on what secondary sources have written about the characters in question.
  • As far as formatting is concerned, the discussion should be based on policies or guidelines wherever possible. The Manual of Style can help, and perhaps WP:LIST can provide information. If you find any other policy/guideline you think is applicable, post a link!

There are a number of dispute resolution tools available to help determine consensus, a process that should be applied to each question. If I can help in any way, drop me a line on my Talk. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Sheff. Yes, the editor I'm in debate with over this has chosen a dispute resolution tool, by WP:Third opinion. I, however, wanted more than one outside opinion on this.
I obviously do not see any fault in what I have done on this matter. The Buffy and Angel part, as I've stated above, can be easily reworded. But there is nothing wrong with listing them as a notable prime time star-crossed couple when sources back that up. It's not "biased" to state that whatsoever, at least not by Wikipedia standards (This is not a real-life couple, as we know.) It's not as though the text called them "the best prime time star-crossed couple ever." I could easily put "...Buffy and Angel are considered a notable star-crossed couple." Or "IGN considers Buffy and Angel one of the most tragic star-crossed couples." But to undo that entire section I rewrote, when those two sections should be in paragraph form, is simply wrong. A list like that will only serve to grow bigger and bigger, and with uncited star-crossed couples, as has been seen many times in the past in regards to that list. I mean, is this editor challenging my edit going to watch this article to make sure that that list stays clean? Even if so, when a valid source is added along with any addition, he cannot say, "Oh, anime/video game couples cannot be added...because I don't want them to." These are all of my issues with this editor's revert of my edit on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article, not a list, so the content should be prose information presented in paragraphs rather than bullet points. This revision of the page is therefore the preferable one. Listing names would be appropiate for List of star-crossed lovers page, but not an article describing the concept of star-crossed lovers. Also, if there is sufficient commentary in reliable sources describing Buffy/Angel as star-crossed lovers, it's in no way biased to present that sourced info here.  Paul  730 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting on this as well, Paul.
I contacted 3 Wikipedia editors to weigh in on this. First, an administrator (who seems to have declined to comment), then an excellent editor of articles having to do with fiction, and then another administrator. The first administrator I contacted was because I know that administrator to often be stern. I contacted Paul because of his experience with creating/improving great articles about fiction. And I contacted Sheff because I know Sheff to be fair. When I said I was going to "bring editors in" to comment on this issue/discussion, it's because I knew that that would be the best route to take instead of reverting again and that I would contact editors familiar with a lot (if not all) of Wikipedia's policies. Obviously, I did so feeling that I am right, and I still do.
Though I was not planning on rewriting this article's section about classic examples of star-crossed couples this soon (I was planning on doing that later, as mentioned above), I will be more than willing to do so within the next few days if it will help Eos11Eastw better accept that both sections should be in paragraph form. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3POx3 I'm removing the 3PO request as two other opinions are now given. Both Sheffield and Paul give excellent advise, and I endorse their statements. Prose is preferable to lists, notable secondary sources are required, and guidelines and MOS are the best resource for style questions. If rewriting the sections now is what it takes to reach a compromise, that sounds like an important next step. NJGW (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]
Here is what I found in regard to the Buffy comment.

Note that an article [1] calls Jack and Ennis "one of filmdom’s most memorable star-crossed lovers." I'm providing this only to illustrate the editorial nature of the claim. Even if the source is given, it does not seem to justify adding the opinion for any particular pairing over another. (Otherwise, you might have conflicting sources which claim any of the given films/TV series are one of the "most tragic" or "most notable.")

Taken directly From Wikipedia, I found the following information on the Neutral POV page: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion."

It seems that the comment about Buffy would fall into the latter (i.e., "The Beatles were the greatest band") category. Even if you presented the information as "X-Source considers the Beatles one of the best bands," it still represents a "matter subject to dispute.”

Wiki notes, “The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular.”

However, to describe all/or even some of the conflicting views about which modern example is the more notable/tragic would detract from the true objective, which is really to provide a series of modern star-crossed couples.IpEditor/Eos 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.200.247 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


One more thing -- Paul, Flyer22 does a separate list page sound like a good idea? That way, information, aside from the comment referenced above (unless there is something I'm missing?) could be kept as is? Is that a good resolve?

-Ip Editor/Eos --70.185.200.247 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP, as I have stated more than once now, it is not biased to state that a fictional couple is considered notable or one of the greatest love stories or one of the greatest star-crossed couples when it is backed up by reliable sources. In the same way that it is not biased to state that Angelina Jolie is considered one of the world's most beautiful women. If I put IGN considers Buffy and Angel one of the most tragic star-crossed lovers, which I did, that is very much allowed and is not biased in any way, especially since I am noting the reliable source who stated that. I do not see how it is "conflicting sources" when other sources state other couples as one of the most tragic. Why? Because it is saying "one of the most," not "the most." If we are going to put "the most," then it should be backed up by several reliable sources even then, of course, where we still use the word "considered." Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough are considered to be the greatest/most tragic star-crossed couple in the history of video gaming (though they were never truly a romantic couple; their romance did not get a proper chance), which is backed up by several reliable sources. I could put several more sources listing them as such. Yes, I am sure that there are some people out there who do not consider Cloud and Aerith to be the greatest or most tragic star-crossed couple in the history of video gaming, but that does not stop the fact that they are still considered such by many (and putting that they are considered such, when a reliable source is present to back up the statement, is very much allowed by Wikipedia).
Where you say Wikipedia says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," I say that Wikipedia does allow opinions. In the Theft article, we can most certainly put that stealing is considered wrong or immoral (or both) by society...when it is backed up by a reliable source (or sources). We can certainly put that The Beatles are considered one of the greatest bands in history in their article. In fact, there are things like that in those articles. There is no doubt that opinions about The Beatles, regarding their impact on society, is there in their article here. And the sources of those opinions are likely to be noted, as they are in the lead (intro) of that article. Just as I have done with IGN in regards to Buffy and Angel. I am not sure what your problem is with noting Buffy and Angel as one of the most tragic star-crossed couples, but it seems to come off as you simply not liking that couple. This article now states that IGN considers them one of the most tragic star-crossed couples; there is absolutely nothing (NOTHING) wrong with that. In the same way that, in Cloud's article, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that he is an iconic character or what IGN thinks of Cloud's impact on the video gaming industry. If you want it noted that not everyone considers Buffy and Angel to be one of the most tragic star-crossed couples, something that is quite obvious (in the same way that not everyone loves the same food), then add a reliable source backing that up with such an addition (no matter how off-topic it would be).
If you want to make a separate article, a list of star-crossed lovers, then go for it. Just make sure that it is well-sourced...like List of fictional anti-heroes and List of fictional supercouples. But, of course, that does not mean that the information in this article should be reverted back to list form or removed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to what you stated to Sheff, my recent contributions to Wikipedia have not been Buffy the Vampire Slayer-related articles. Nor am I male. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a list could be made if people consider it necessary. I'm not really familar with list policies, so you should read up on them before starting one. Again, everything would need to be sourced. Also, the opinions of reliable sources are perfectly acceptable content for the article so long as we identify them as opinions. For example, we can't say "Buffy and Angel are one of the most tragic...", we would have to say "IGN believes that Buffy and Angel are one of the most tragic..." This is how we provide commentary on a subject. I've seen readers get very upset when they see an opinion they don't like in an article, even when the opinion is clearly that of a notable individual and not presented as neutral fact. It seems to be a case of people not wanting anything they disagree with to be in the article in any form.  Paul  730 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

I have noticed that the text-based visual novel games section has been removed when they contain some of the most notable examples. I suggest that we include the couples Fuminori Sakisaka and Saya from Saya no Uta (this is an extremely tragic example), as well as the couples from Umineko no Naku Koro Ni (Jessica and Kanon, George and Shannon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.63 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by an editor because it was uncited. The couples should be attributed as star-crossed to reliable sources, per WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So should I link it to the game's official site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.57 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I just now saw your follow-up comment. If the official site calls them star-crossed, you can include the link here and I'll properly format it as a reference with the inclusion of the couple in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Chava & Fyedka from Fiddler on the Roof?--Splashen (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Need reliable sources calling them star-crossed to include them. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern examples

[edit]

where it talks about modern novels and books i think that the hunger games should be included because of its great popularity and because it uses the allusion everywhere. just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.174.17 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with what "Hunger" games you are referring to. But as long as the games have star-crossed couple examples, and this can be backed up by WP:Reliable sources, then they can be added. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing Cloud and Aerith for two reasons. The first one is that the notations do not lead to what they are supposed to be noting. And second, Square Enix has never officially described Cloud and Aerith as a couple. Only Cloud and Tifa. The sources for that are numerous. But they include the FFVII 10th Anniversary Ultimania. The FF 20th Anniversary Ultimania. The FFVII Advent Children Reunion files. (I could go on at some length about this). Also the Mega Man X4 example has no notations. So I am removing that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJaff (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheJaff, regarding this edit you made, one of those sources is not an online one, and the other two are WP:Dead links (which can likely be fixed via Internet Archive); one of the sources calls Cloud and Aerith a star-crossed couple, and all three listed Cloud and Aerith as a couple. It does not matter that "Square Enix has never officially described Cloud and Aerith as a couple"; all that we need to do is go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, and there was undoubtedly a love triangle between Tifa, Cloud and Aerith. That stated, I am not too bothered by your aforementioned edit. Years ago, I would have been; if you look at the dates of the posts above, you can see that this thread is years old. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your edit history, including this edit, I also see that the love triangle is apparently a sour note for you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the text stating "Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough from Final Fantasy VII have been called video games' greatest, as well as its most tragic, star-crossed love story.", as it did, does not mean that it is stating that the two were a couple. It's the other text about them that used the word couple. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there was a love triangle isn't really important. It just means both Aerith and Tifa liked him. While we have from Cloud's profile in the FFVII 10th Anv. Ult. that he was unaware of either girls feelings for him while Aerith was alive. But I digress. What we have here are dead links. I'm sure new ones could be found. But new ones that run contradictory of those could also be found. And there could be much back and fourth. So instead of opening that can of worms I just went with SE. Which is that Cloud and Aerith are not a tragic love story. At least not from Cloud's perspective.TheJaff (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheJaff, again, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state; many WP:Reliable sources state that Cloud and Aerith are a tragic, star-crossed love story, and that many gamers were saddened by and/or cried at her death partly or mainly because of that. This is also covered in the Reception section of the Aerith Gainsborough article. That article also includes an archived version of one of the sources you removed from the Star-crossed article. You should not, for example, go and remove any of that material because you do not like it; most (maybe all) of that material should remain per all of it being well-documented WP:Reliably sourced aspects regarding that character's reception. And as for dead links, the WP:Dead link page is clear that dead links generally should not be removed solely because they are dead links; it explains why. Anyway, going back to the Star-crossed article: Per what the lead of WP:Verifiability states about presenting all sides if there is more than one side, we could also add that some fans didn't consider Cloud and Aerith's interaction a tragic love story. But I don't much care these days about including or excluding this material in/from the Star-crossed article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheJaff, regarding this and the back and forth editing between the IPs, I take it that you are one of the IPs? Either way, see what I stated in my "06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources you included even states, "Many would cite Cloud and Aeris as the tragic romance of Final Fantasy VII, but the really sad story comes from the prequel, Crisis Core." And just a note: "Tragic" does not mean "star-crossed." So do review the WP:Original research policy, especially the WP:Synthesis part of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, none of the sources that the Cloud/Aerith fans put in mention star-crossed anywhere. I see some gushing about how they are the "greatest couple ever" (as if that was relevant) But not so much star-crossed. Heck half of them don't seem to lead anywhere at all. So I guess they got to go. TheJaff (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? https://books.google.com/books?id=JUuvAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=cloud+aerith+star+crossed+lovers&source=bl&ots=2HMu-7uEux&sig=6Yv9hxOwC9tq5IMtAc5GSmt9SZU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCWoVChMI3M6fh_6pxwIVQtUeCh2p-gUd#v=onepage&q=cloud%20aerith%20star%20crossed%20lovers&f=false (This book link explicitly says just that that Cloud/Aerith are starcrossed lovers. Another article calls them similar to Romeo and Juliet and what are they oh wait? Starcrossed lovers. Plus your Zack/Aerith fan edits didn't mentioned starcrossed anywhere either just as Flyer22 named. Stop removing Cloud and Aerith from the list as "I don't like it" basis, and that "many WP:Reliable sources state that Cloud and Aerith are a tragic, star-crossed love story." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.95.119 (talk • contribs)

I am well aware of rules lawyering that goes on on Wikiepedia. And how if you can pull enough sources out of the ether even demonstrably false things can't be removed. But in this case those were the links I had handy. Maybe it was foolish of me not to have on hand the citations from the Ultimania and Dengeki profiles about fated encounters and being torn apart by fate yadda yadda. But I figured those could be added later. TheJaff (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TheJaff, my point is that, like I stated above, we shouldn't be removing things on an "I don't like it" basis, and that "many WP:Reliable sources state that Cloud and Aerith are a tragic, star-crossed love story." This is why you cannot validly reject Cloud and Aerith being noted as a star-crossed couple in the article. There is no reason that both couples can't be included...as long as there are reliable sources calling the couple you added "star-crossed." The type of bias you are displaying on this topic is not supposed to have a place at Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Flyer22 Reborn, he removed my edit which consisted of one book which you see here: https://books.google.com/books?id=JUuvAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=cloud+aerith+star+crossed+lovers&source=bl&ots=2HMu-7uEux&sig=6Yv9hxOwC9tq5IMtAc5GSmt9SZU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCWoVChMI3M6fh_6pxwIVQtUeCh2p-gUd#v=onepage&q=cloud%20aerith%20star%20crossed%20lovers&f=false and some other articles solely because I don't like it" basis and the articles were sourced I think to the WP Reliable source standard solely because they are "WP:Reliable sources state that Cloud and Aerith are a tragic, star-crossed love story." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.93.231 (talk • contribs)

TheJaff, regarding this and the back and forth editing between the IPs, I take it that you are one of the IPs? Either way, see what I stated in my "06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC) - TheJaff is neither of the IPs. That would be me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.93.231 (talk • contribs)

I'm talking about the IPs WP:Edit warring with each other. One IP will re-add Cloud and Aerith, and then another will remove them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was actually only one person me. I was trying to fix the article (I have more than one computer) and it required some touching up since TheJaff was correct that the Cloud and Aerith section had deadlinks and I was trying to figure out how to source my edits but the IP war didn't happen until this morning when TheJaff erased the Cloud and Aerith section since he has a record of hating the pairing and deleting anything that even refers to them as a couple no matter how well sourced it is (I included a book even and it got deleted) I did however remove his Zack and Aerith edit because its falling under WP:Original research policy, especially the WP:Synthesis part of it as tragic is not automatically equal starcrossed but I do not mind its return as long as there are adequate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.93.231 (talk • contribs)

Note: The book source that the IP is talking about clearly plagiarized Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the book source plagiarized Wikipedia or it wouldn't have been published plus there are citations on at least one page so maybe its in the back. Also Wikipedia is not an academic source so we don't know that the author of the book didn't write a part of the article on Wikipedia plus its even possible that Wikipedia plagiarized from the book. I haven't looked though the whole edit history so I don't want to claim that the author plagiarized anyone without edit history proof as plagiarism is a serious charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.94.232 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed plagiarized Wikipedia; that wording (most of the "Today" paragraph) was in this article first. And it's very common for published books to plagiarize Wikipedia; Google it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the mass of dead an unnecessary links (none of which said anything about star-crossed) and replaced them with a well known video game couple that is stated as star-crossed in the reference link.TheJaff (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.TheJaff, I don't have anything more to state to you about this. Above, I've already told you the way Wikipedia works...with wikilinks to boot. In the case of this article, you are clearly only interested in keeping Cloud and Aerith from being categorized as star-crossed, no matter what the sources state (I've already been clear above about dead links, what the sources state, etc.). If I continue to see this slow-burn WP:Edit war, I am likely to report it. Slow-burn edits wars also are not tolerated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I undid TheJaff's edit but kept his Tidus and Yuna reference. TheJaff, there is no official canon couple in Final Fantasy VII however in official Square Enix translations in Japanese: http://s217.photobucket.com/user/aerithlove1010/media/149.jpg.html (クラウドは女の友人であり、恋人であり), French: https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/1918907_10208188352456535_4945743540031330442_n.jpg?oh=7878a7a28be9dd11691504c0350af818&oe=56FC1D64, "Cloud avait ete son ami, et son amant", and German: http://s3.postimg.org/pjnx1xu3n/Geliebter.png (Cloud war ihr Freund, ihr Geliebter") Cloud has been called Aerith's kobito 恋人/sweetheart while Tifa has been called kobito/sweetheart http://thelifestream.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ddssd141.jpg too minus any reference to Cloud. Just because you hate Cloud/Aerith as a couple does not mean you can just erase my edits especially since Cloud/Aerith are a very known starcrossed couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.95.119 (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheJaff, Here are the official copyrights showing the French and German translations of kobito/sweetheart of Cloud/Aerith are Square approved: https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10345573_10208188356456635_7156312929494632118_n.jpg?oh=c372a5d9223c10fda40e9793715339ed&oe=572A5978, https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/1468506_10208188367216904_4210871081576578804_n.jpg?oh=319f3161a4434112adf9aac707305c2c&oe=572FC056. So I would suggest abandoning your idea that Cloud/Tifa have been canonized by Square. They have not as Aerith, Cloud and Tifa are Final Fantasy's only unsolved love triangle, plus Cloud/Tifa have had no hug or kiss that would show the Love Triangle been cemented like Squall/Rinoa, Zidane/Garnet, Tidua/Yuna, Snow/Serah, Noel/Yeul. Your opinion is not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.95.119 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since TheJaff is acting extreme against the idea of Cloud/Aerith being in the list, I updated all of the deadlinks with links that point to the original and included a source for the book that explicitly states Cloud/Aerith are starcrossed lovers since he did it for Tidus/Yuna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.86.112 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50.37.88.69, please stop re-adding all the unnecessary bits about Cloud and Aerith's entry. The links are already there and you're just making things redundant by repeating the same things. Also, please look at how you edit things: it's a cluttered mess. TheJaff has already stopped removing Cloud and Aerith and at this point this is just a pointless edit war. I am a Clerith fan and even I can see that adding lines like "one of the most famous examples" isn't really necessary within the context of the fact that the are indeed star-crossed lovers. Just the concise acknowledgement that they are is enough, as it should be within the rules of Wikipedia. Please, just let it rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.79.41 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pretending. You two have been edit warring for months now, whether you are logged in or not, and a stop will eventually be put to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually tragic"

[edit]

Usually tragic, indeed. Are there any examples where the star-crossed couple come to some resolution where they're both happy? The only one I can think of that comes close is "Roman Holiday", and you can see that as being cut off at the climax of a five act, with the rest of the story hanging. htom (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I know what you mean. There are some examples in television of star-crossed couples who had a happy ending to their love story. One of those couples is Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer, and they are mentioned in the article. I'm not sure about any couples in classic literature who are star-crossed yet have a happy ending to their love story. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if you count Jake and Neytiri from Avatar as star-crossed, and who are also mentioned in the article, they have a relatively happy ending thus far (hope I'm not spoiling that for anyone who hasn't seen the film). Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed my question poorly. Alice and Bob are star-crossed lovers; they eventually find romantic happiness as two couples, Alice & Alan and Bob & Betty, and then, finally, gain addition happiness as platonic friends Alice and Bob. htom (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask who are Alice and Bob (what work are they from), but then I located the Alice and Bob article, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, clearly, I found your original wording to be clearer/fine. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you've clarified that you mean "happy without ending up together romantically." And I can't think of any instance off the top of my head at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheJaff's repeated deletion of Cloud/Aerith

[edit]

User:Flyer22, is there anyway to ban User:TheJaff from editing this article? He clearly hates Cloud and Aerith and deleted it yet again despite my having posted articles/books that specifically state Cloud/Aerith are starcrossed and I even found article sources from the archives to make sure there were no articles which had dead links to appease him and he still deletes it. This appears to be willful and intentional and I think he has violated Wikipedia rules repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.94.86 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Vigilance (talk · contribs), you had better not be TheJaff (talk · contribs). And lying about it will not help you if you are. See WP:Socking and WP:CheckUser. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the #Modern examples section above and in this one, TheJaff continues to engage in a slow edit war with an IP hopper regarding the Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough (from Final Fantasy VII) mention. This shows the latest edit by TheJaff, which I reverted. This shows me cleaning up the material. A number of WP:Reliable sources support listing Cloud and Aerith either as star-crossed or tragic and/or as one of the greatest love stories in the history of video gaming. Some of these sources are in the article. Despite this, TheJaff keeps removing the couple while leaving his favored Aerith and Zack Fair couple (from the prequel Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII). Neither this thelifestream.net source nor this videogamesblogger.com source support Aerith and Zack as a star-crossed couple. Both sources are also poor sources. Therefore, I removed those sources. I left in mention of Aerith and Zack, but they need to be sourced as a star-crossed couple, and the source should be WP:Reliable.

As for TheJaff, if he or one of his WP:Socks continues to remove Cloud and Aerith without a valid reason (as in a policy or guideline-based reason), I will report him at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or WP:ANI. Slow edit wars are not any more tolerated than speedy ones. Neither is BLANKING.

I will go ahead and alert WP:WikiProject Video games and WP:WikiProject Square Enix to this issue to see if anyone at those WikiProjects have something to state about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Greatest love stories in the history of video gaming"? She dies a third of the way through the game, he has a crush on her as an extension of his mental issues projecting himself on her former boyfriend, and the only reciprocation is that she's one of three options that he can take on a "date". Even within the game, Cloud/Tifa is more of a love story. The sentence is cited to 4 listicles. Even if the listing is kept, I'd drop the second half of the sentence. --PresN 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some spinoffs like that novel where Aerith states she actually liked Cloud but I think it wasn't even canon. From what a guidebook said, the love in FFVII isn't that strong considering the writers simply wrote it as one of those love triangles seen in school stories so I agree with PresN. From what I get in both Tactics and Advent Children, Cloud doesn't feel love for Aerith but more survivor guilt.Tintor2 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with PresN. There is nothing scholarly that says that Cloud/Aeris is the greatest love story in gaming, just unreliable sources and clickbait. Granted, games aren't really good at romance in general, but including it in this article seems fancrufty to the extreme.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, Tintor2 and ZXCVBNM, thanks for weighing in. So you support retaining the star-crossed mention, but removing the rest? As for the reported greatness of the Cloud and Aerith story, the thing is that WP:Reliable sources state this. IGN, GamesRadar and Electronic Gaming Monthly are WP:Reliable sources. We can disagree with WP:Reliable sources, but we are not supposed to remove things simply because we don't like them. In the case of this article, however, the topic is about star-crossed couples, not the greatest couples. So removing that Cloud and Aerith are "one of video games' greatest and most tragic love stories" and that they are "one of the most well-known video game couples in the series and in the history of video gaming" seems reasonable. The only reason I don't object to retaining this information, however, is because it provides context, as is provided for some other couples mentioned in the article. I don't see other Final Fantasy couples get nearly as much attention in sources when it comes to tragedy and supposed greatness. This technobuffalo.com source, which I do ponder the reliability of, states, "Though their romance is ultimately short-lived, many gamers will look at Final Fantasy VII‘s iconic couple and say that it is the epitome of love in gaming. It left many yearning for more, as Aerith is killed in the middle of a game. It left many feeling the same way as Cloud – heartbroken." This is the common theme in sources that report on this couple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with inclusion too. The book source is pretty direct, and we're only talking about a single sentence here. I'd say to make the sentence less prominent if people feel it's not the strongest example, but it's already not very prominent as is... Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would just include it as an example, without making any claims or superlatives about it. Keep the first sentence and remove these parts: "as well as one of video games' greatest and most tragic love stories. The couple is also one of the most well-known video game couples in the series and in the history of video gaming." Ultimately I think it should read like this: "Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough from Final Fantasy VII have been cited as a well-known star-crossed love story." (the well-known is the only thing I added). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, the book source, which I think somewhat copied Wikipedia, only mentions that the two are star-crossed.
ZXCVBNM, okay, I'll go with your wording and see if that stops the edit warring between TheJaff and the IP hopper. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section because it seemed wholly unnecessary to have a line and link spam in the star crossed page so a shipper, who only seems to edit this page, can gush about their OTP. Why it was ever left in is beyond me.TheJaff (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheJaff, per previous discussion, it is clear that you kept removing Cloud and Aerith because you did/do not view them as a couple, which matters not a lick when it comes to what reliable sources state. On Wikipedia, editors' personal opinions do not trump what reliable sources state. And while removing Cloud and Aerith, you kept adding Zack and Aerith in their place. Like the IP noted, the sources did not support Zack and Aerith as star-crossed. Furthermore, Zack and Aerith do not get even one tenth of the attention that Cloud and Aerith do. This is obviously because of the way that Aerith died and the way it impacted gamers. If the Zack and Aerith material remains unsourced (it needs to be supported by a reliable source, not a blog or similar), it will be removed. If you remove Cloud and Aerith again (either as an IP, another account, or under your current account), despite the consensus to retain them, there will be an issue. I might simply start a WP:RfC on it instead of reporting you. Either way, the unjustified removal will stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So despite my latest edit being justified you feel the need to continually wiki threaten me? You don't impress me Flyer. I think it's clear that this nonsense only existed because you wanted it to. Your only mistake was bringing in others to the discussion.TheJaff (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheJaff, how was your latest edit justified? You removed any mention of Cloud and Aerith as a couple or being a part of a love story, and all based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, which is invalid; the editors above only supported removing what they feel is excessive detail, not the removal of everything. And Sergecross73 seems to support the inclusion of the supposed excessive detail. I watched as you edit warred with the IP time and again. I wasn't the one restoring the Cloud and Aerith material. In the #Modern examples section above, I was clear that I was not too concerned about Cloud and Aerith not being mentioned. My concern was you invalidly removing them and edit warring with the IP. So, no, there was no mistake in me bringing in others to weigh in. I'm sure that an RfC would also prove to not be a mistake. The mistake will be if you continue to remove Cloud and Aerith. Now, if you excuse me, I am off to remove your unsourced Zack and Aerith addition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just now looked for solid sources referring to Zack and Aerith as star-crossed, and I came across none. The closest one (reliability-wise) is this vgamerz.com source, but I am willing to bet that WP:WikiProject Video games and WP:WikiProject Square Enix do not consider vgamerz.com a reliable source. I don't see that this source is used anywhere on Wikipedia when searching for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No threats were made (beyond "stop that" type stuff, which is fine) and Flyer only neutrally notified the relevant Wikiproject, which is acceptable. This is another one if those situations where I don't understand what the big issue is. It's a simple, single sentence. It's not a big deal. It a very small, minor part of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing everyone who has never played Final Fantasy 7 knows is that "your girlfriend dies" so I think it qualifies for a mention. While we're on the subject Cloud didn't even know Zack had a girlfriend so that can't be why, she's the most likely option for that date as well, and while Tifa might be alive for more of the game her relationship to Cloud is only directly relevant in the middle of disc 2 while the relationship Cloud has with Aerith (which nobody thinks is platonic) is relevant to the story until the very end.Faerghast (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that the developers have said many times they have the player, as Cloud, spend the most one on one time with her and then kill her as a tragic romance narrative (it's on her own wiki page). I also don't know why you bring up Tactics and Advent Children but why would they use Aerith as the avatar of his guilt if she wasn't more than just a friend? I feel like this is trying to avoid a conclusion. If she's included in a love triangle then obviously that means he had feelings for her on its own. At the very least that should be your first guess. I don't really know how the story is served by making her a delusional love interest when they clearly want her death to be like that of a real love interest's. It's just sort of silly. One user says the relationship is just a mental projection but then the fact it lingers within the main character is written off as "guilt" because guilt cannot come from where love once existed? Faerghast (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star-crossed. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Madigan

[edit]

Perhaps the real-life couple Elvira Madigan and Sixten Sparre, and the treatments of their tragic affair in three movies, deserve a mention - the classical stories poosibly influenced their actions and certainly their legend.--Nø (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Music

[edit]

The tune "Star Crossed Lovers" by Bily Strayhorn / Duke Ellington should be quoted as an example of compositions with this title. It is a part of the 12-parts Suite "Such Sweet Thunder" (1957) played beautifully by the great Johnny Hodges. The Suite was inspired by the works of W. Shakespeare. Simoneschiaffino (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey Musgraves

[edit]

Star-Crossed is the term used to title Kacey Musgraves’ fifth studio album depicting the divorce of her short lived marriage with her ex-husband released September of 2021. A film titled “Star-Crossed: The Film” was released as a visual/musical production of the album and has had great success. 2600:1700:14D0:8110:8DFC:A78C:FC4A:6C98 (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star-crossed&oldid=1212321958"