Talk:Lois Lane

Inspiration for the name Lois Lane

I question whether, as asserted, Jerry Siegel took the character's name from Lola Lane. Action Comics 1 was released on 18 April 1938. Lola Lane appeared as Torchy Blane only in Torchy Blane in Panama, which wasn't released until 7 May. It's possible, of course, that Siegel knew of the upcoming movie. But it seems just as plausible that the name Lane was chosen by taking the B off Blane. Enoent (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Lionel Luthor

I removed Lionel luthor from the LL initial criteria, because Lex's father is never given a name beyond Luthor in the comics, also is only referenced, never seen.

But he was seen, and named, in Secret Origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.49.147 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Link Under Erica

The link under Erica now leads to the Smallvile TV series wiki, not the town.(CloneArmyCommander 23:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

Jim lee pic

Can't someone change the main pic to one pencilled by Jim lee? That one is ugly. --Dangerous-Boy 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were referring to the Byrne Lois drawing pic, I agree (think it looks rather dated/ugly in a way the other versions of Lois don't)... thus the reason I scanned in and put the "10 cent adventure" picture at the top (though moved the Byrne version to the "Modern Age" section). Though would rather see a Curt Swan or Kurt Schaffenberger rendition of Lois (the two artists most associated with her over the decades, particularly Schaffenberger) over Jim Lee's, myself. :-) Anthony Dean 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

doesn't matter. drbat keeps putting the image from byrne just because he found it.75.4.34.253 05:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a better image then do so, but the scan from 10-cent was ugly. The quality is also lower. --DrBat 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

User:Exvicious tagged this article for "cleanup"---but of what specifically? The article as a whole? Or just the opening section? I thought the article itself looks reasonably fine to me... Anthony Dean 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought a lot of the top part should be integrated into the main article and the other media appearances is a mess with the random placement of the actress's pictures Exvicious 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lois Kent

Anyone think we should split off an article for golden age lois? Exvicious 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Kaijan 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of the Earth-Two Superman having his own page and two media versions of Lois Lane having their own pages, I am proposing that we split the Earth-Two version of Lois Lane to that page with the Red Tornado from Earth 2 also being transferred there like @Exvicious: previously proposed. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is in need of cleanup

If you ask me, this article is somewhat poorly set up. The pictures of all the Lois Lanes need to be deleted or put into different sections. There needs to be a new section about Lois Lane in the Superman movies & Lois Lane on Smallville & in the animated series of Superman. Son of Kong

New Lois image

File:Lois lane comics 1155574583.jpg

Lois

I found this image in a Google search, but can't find any information about the issue comes from or the artist (although the style is pretty similar to Jim Lee). Without that information, this image is useless, but either way this article needs a good artwork of the mainstream Modern Age Lois. Jonny2x4 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

-Pretty sure that's Ian Churchill from one of the recent "Countdown to Infinite Crisis" Superman/Shazam team-ups.

-That picture is from Action Comics 826, page 14. --Led Zeppelin Destroyer

Change to "C" class

I think this article needs more citations to be "B" class.--Rockfang (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Smallvile

we REALY need seperate pages for the smallville characters

yeah, and maybe actually add some information about the character Lois Lane from Smallville?

Lois Lane appears in more programmes than Smallville, why say To see the TV character see Lois Lane (Smallville)? 78.151.102.118 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neilll.jpg

Image:Neilll.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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)

Lois Amster?

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

Lois's mother

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?"

Lesley Ann Warren

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

Other Media section...

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)

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)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Smallville Inaccuracies

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)

Smallville section is too long

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)

Can't decipher new information

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

Split

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

In Popular Culture

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)

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)

Concerning the Man of Steel image

The image fails to meet WP:NFCC, so it doesn't belong on the article. As a living person a non-free image of the actress fails WP:NFCC #1 and also fails to meet WP:NFCC #8, since this image provides no understanding of the subject that a free image of the actress would not also achieve. - SudoGhost 01:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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 WP:NFCC #1 and #8. It's not a matter of "all of a sudden", this image fails to meet the requirements. Whether the other images do or not I don't know, but if the other images are inappropriate that doesn't make this one somehow more appropriate. - SudoGhost 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 WP:NFCC #1. The image does not present any information that a normal photograph of the actress would not also convey, so it also fails WP:NFCC #8. If the character had extensive costuming or makeup or CGI effects then that might be a good argument, since the character and the actress would not look similar enough to convey the same information, but that's nowhere near the case here. - SudoGhost 02:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive use of the same two words over and over and over and over again.

This article had a surplus of the words "however" and "also". These words serve little function and make the article read like it was written by someone with a fifth-grade education. It's similar to listening to a teenage overuse the word "like" in a conversation. "She also does this" "Lois also did that" "Superman also...". The word "however" is even more useless here.

Read these helpful links:

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)

BAD ENGLISH

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)

the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic,

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

(Mary Jane) we have a guideline here, you guys have an un-guideline WP:OSE Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

If you want to propose a change to how lead sentences of comics-related articles should be formatted, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics is more appropriate than some random talk page. As far as I am aware, there is no strict guideline (which would be why they vary), probably because nobody has argued over such a thing. There is nothing broken about how the opening sentences of articles on comics characters are arranged. It's not like the content you are saying should be in the opening sentence isn't in the article at all. Without an explanation as to exactly how those two guidelines you linked to support your argument, they are barely relevant. What specifically at either one backs up your argument? Speaking of that argument, your initial post here is a barely-comprehensible, grammatical mess. I suggest rewording it if you plan to take this further. You also refer to other stuff to back your argument, after linking to the guideline discouraging just that. Regarding those examples, three of the four are not the same wording you are supporting, and the fourth – taken from Joker in other media – isn't from the 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Being a fictional victim of kidnapping

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)

External links modified

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. 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

Splitting proposal

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)

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)

Not only is it large enough for Wp:split. It seems to pass the criteria for Wp:Gng well enough. So  Done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Lola Lane? I think not.

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)