Talk:List of villains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-14. The result of the discussion was keep.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Getting started and criteria, Deletions, Marcus2 and Mojo Jojo, Darth Sidious,
George W Bush, Spoiler for Scooby Doo, getting silly, Biblical and mythological villains,
Page Split, Non-fictional POV, Vandalism, To Turnstep, More Doctor Who villains,
Vandalism 2, Editing by 213.114.215.199 / Alphabetizing, Major revert, Split, again,
Splitups, Hittler and Mussolini, More splitups, Comment from T-man, Removed sentence,
About comics, Rupert Thorne, Doctor Who links, Edit conflict, anime,
What to do to Avoid Repeating (or "what to do to Avoid Repeating?" ha, ha), Case-by-case basis,
Power Rangers Villains why bother?, a couple things that need to be done, while i'm gone (or kinda gone),
Knock it off, 213.114.215.199!, An Idea for further Changes: Author and First Apparition,
The list of Real Villains
  • Archive 2 (next to start):

Contents

[edit] Reversions by 213.114.215.199 and straw poll on format

User:213.114.215.199 has once again reverted the page to the old alphabetical format. I thought that, based on the AfC, there was a consensus for organizing the list by categories, so I've re-reverted. But I don't want to get into an edit war (even a slow-motion one), so I thought we should make it explicit and formal. Let's have a vote on whether we to work on the alphabetical or categorized versions.

Things to keep in mind include the results of the most recent AfD, which included two explicit calls for the page to be kept and reorganized and several implicit criticisms of the previous organization by users who voted to delete. On the other hand, the categorization is proceeding very slowly, and it will probably be some time before it is "complete". Editors voting here should consider their own aesthetic preferences, what will make the page most useful to others, and what will make the page most likely to survive another AfD. (These three criteria are not necessarily the same.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Wikipedia:straw polls says that we should have an end date. Let's say that this poll closes on December 13, at 23:59 UTC. That gives us a week to sort this out. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, with all that preamble over, I'll cast the first vote:

  • Categorized. I came upon this list when it was alphabetized by the character's first name, which struck me as unhelpful. I started to organize it by last name before realizing that there wasn't a consensus behind that. T-man, the Wise Scarecrow came to the page and had a similar reaction — that it was an interesting tool badly organized — and initiated the current categorization. It's still got a long way to go, but I think this is the correct road. Other opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorized. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorized. --Happylobster 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alphabetical unless we can agree upon a categorization scheme, and it can be implemented in a timely manner. The page is currently in a very sorry state, and would probably not survive another AfD as it is. I've never been opposed to categorizing per se, but I was opposed to the mass changing of the page from an orderly list into the chaos of semi-categorized and random text that it kept getting changed to (without any talk page discussion or edit summaries). It's a little better now, but still needs some serious work. (It would have been far better to use a sub-page to get all the categorizing in place, and then change the main page when it was in a good state.) Water under the bridge though, I suppose all we can do at this point is clean up what is there and see how it works out. Turnstep 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that a large part of the problem comes from the way that T-man started his changes, without discussing them beforehand (and with a heap of attitude that wasn't particularly conducive to acheiving consensus). But as you say, that's water under the bridge. I think the important thing now is to get that consensus clear, and proceed from there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorized but if it must be alphabetical then it should be by last name. There are too many lists here in alphabetical order by first name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a lot of names that wouldn't lend themselves well to that. Consider Ra's Al-Ghul. I'd rather locate him under Batman than under the A's or the G's. --Happylobster 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
...or R's... besides, by having categories, users can get more info. For example, Ra's Al Ghul is a Batman villain. Batman is a Dc Comics, Sequential art character; or the wicked witch is a snow white villain from the grimm brothers literature...--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Categorized i'm aware that a an article with a huge index of categories not completelly filled and an incomplete alphabetical list is not very atractive... that's why we should keep working to complete the new organization by moving the characters on the alphabetical list to their right category. it is a very tiresome activity, but that's the only way for this page to get some respect. My theory was that a fully organized list of villains (that could start considering to change its name to "list villains in fiction", due to the new modifications, by the way) correctly categorized would be more useful to the average user and will stop getting nomited to deletion on a regular basis... not that an incomplete-kinda-l. o. v. by categories-with-a-messy-alphabetical-list-at-the-end-to-make-up-for-it, would be useful to the average yadda-yadda-yadda... as i promesed before i'll keep working on the page next week, but it shouldn't be work of one person. the bigger number of colaboratosr, the better and richer the article will be.--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The straw poll is now closed. The results were 5 votes for categorized and one (conditional) vote for alphabetical. Unfortunately, 213.114.215.199, whose reversions prompted this straw poll, did not choose to participate (although his preference is, I think, clear). Nevertheless, it appears that the current categorization in progress has a consensus supporting it, and if 213.114.215.199 reverts again we can point him to this straw poll. Thank you all for your participation and discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polls are not evil

(Moved from above so as not to confuse the vote) After I set up this vote, I recalled seeing somewhere that polls are evil. That seemed odd to me, but I did a bit of research, and discovered that Wikipedia distinguishes consensus from majoritarian voting. I do think that we'd reached a rough consensus, but since 213.etc. (how about a name, here?) seems not to recognize it, I still think it's a good idea to make it explicit. So instead of a vote, let's call it a straw poll. The page on straw polls says, "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." So, to that end, here's a proposed straw poll:

Should List of villains be organized alphabetically or categorized by medium?

(Please note that, per Wikipedia:Straw polls, we're not voting on this yet, just determining whether this wording is acceptable for the later straw poll. I know it sounds needlessly bureaucratic, but with 213.114.215.199's refusal to accept the categorization, I think it's important that we do this by the book.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Polls are not evil. Discussion and attempts to build consensus are helpful, but having a poll is also a helpful way to get a sense of how different opinions are represented, numberwise. For example, if five vocal users support an idea, and 18 less vocal users oppose it, the fact that one side has a clear majority is more obvious with a poll than with trying to sort out lines upon lines of discussion. A poll is simply an easy way of saying "Ok, so who and how many people support this idea, and who is opposed to it?". Ideally, we can have both polls and quality discussion to go with them.Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just going by m:polls are evil and Wikipedia:straw poll, but I'm happy not to have to wait for a week for some bureaucratic apparatus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real people in the list

Josiah Rowe and myself have removed several real people that were in the list. However, there are still some that I'm not sure about removing. There is a section called List of villains#Villains from the Bible. Now, some like Ramses II are real and should come out. But are we claiming that the Bible is a work of fiction? While I don't mind claiming that it's fiction to do so does seem a bit POV in this case. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do about that, myself. Should the Bible villains be moved to List of historical people portrayed as villains (maybe in a separate section there)? That's arguably POV as well. (The historical villains were only recently split off from this page, leaving this for fictional characters alone.) I'm not sure what the best course is there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that villainous characters in the Bible should be regarded as villains as much as characters in any other book. As much as I pause to compare the Author/authors of the Bible to Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, it's fair to say that both recount an interpretation of factual events in a story form. Regardless of how one interprets the Bible, I don't think one can doubt that a villain is a villain. --Happylobster 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article reads "This is a list of fictional characters depicted as villains." So the implication is that the Bible is fiction. While I don't think the Bible is true I feel that it's POV to claim this in this article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps that sentence should altered to something like, "This is a list of well-known villains in various media." --Happylobster 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
yeah, and a lot of the people bible are historical and more documented than most of the historical people from other cultures. maybe the historical villains should stay here. i mean, its original medium is history or reality but they have the characteristic quality of being portrayes as villains in some mediums of fiction--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yoda921 Yoda921 4:16 15 November 2006

Characters from the Bible shouldn't be listed here - they should be moved to a "historical villains" page, or to a separate one altogether.

[edit] The list is organized by the medium in which they originated

If so then why are all villains from James Bond listed in the movie section. They should be under List of villains#Villains from prose fiction (novels, novellas, and short stories). There are others but I was just using that as an example. I know that most people though will associate the villains more with the movie than the book. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs to be fixed at some point. The list needs a lot of work across the board. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't explain that too good. What I mean is if someone is looking for the James Bond villians where will they look first, movies or books? Hmm! Now I seem to be disagreeing with CambridgeBayWeather from the straw poll above in that I would appear to be saying that the list would be better in alphabetical order (Wanders off to give himself a good talking to). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... do you think it would be better to say, "The list is organized by the medium with which the character is most widely associated"? That could also take care of oddities like the Doctor Who characters created for the spin-off novels and comics... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought at first yes as that would fit the Bond movies very well but then where do you put Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. My first thought for both is books but it's possible that a lot of people would look for Lord of the Rings under movies. Wanders off to think again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have thought this over and they should be listed by original source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should be informing not following popular misconceptions. Using again the Bond reference they should be in the book section and a link could be provided to the Bond movies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right. Of course, that's going to take more work, because (continuing with the Bond example) some of the characters originated in Ian Fleming's novels, while others were created for the films. That won't be terribly difficult to separate, but what about (say) characters from Pokemon or DragonBall Z or whatever — correct me if I'm wrong (I know almost nothing about these franchises) but don't some of those characters originate in manga, others in anime, video games or other merchandise? I suppose we should hold ourselves to a high standard rather than taking the easy path. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, CambridgeBayWeather is totally right, bond should be in novels and stuff. if the villain has not apeared in a james bond novel yet, or has his origin in the movies there should be a specification. but the bond villains definetively belong to the novels category... by the way, why novels and not literature? i gues there is areason, but can somebody ilustrate me?--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rediculous

WOW! This is rediculous. Who ever started this mess should partition it. GEEZE!!! JedOs 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i kinda agree. but can we ignore this an move on? agreed? anyone?--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 07:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, this has to be the silliest article I have ever come across here on Wikipedia. This is completely superfluous. Isn't there something better to spend time and server space on? And uh, it's rIdiculous as well.--Electronic.mayhem 05:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that there isn't anything better to spend time and server space on. Who knew? Bryan 06:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we list here some historical figures, in the right written piece?

For Example: Cortez in "Road to El Dorado"; Rasputin, from his crazy movie 'Rasputin, the mad Monk"; the Cardinal Richelieu, from "the 3 Musketeers"; Saddam Hussein, from "Hot-shots" and SNL, where he is the "Joker to Bush's Batman", or sir William Gull, from "From Hell"... and so on. I think it will soon be necesary--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 07:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] who messed with the animation section?

(personal attack removed by Bryan) --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 02:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. Please refrain from namecalling. Discuss the edit, not the editor. If you have a problem with a change, revert it and discuss it. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Right... i got angry because the reparation seemed eternal at the moment; especially since i already had updated the section before i realized those not so practical changes. I dont care bryan removed my message here, i actully like the fact he did so. Thanks, man. Time to act reasonably. Next time: Cartoons means the animated shorts that follow the tradition of the Merry Melodies or the Silly Synphonies; animated series meand half hour animated shorts--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 06:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

I GIVE YOU; THE MULTIPLE COLUMS TECHNOLOGY

just type

  • == title ==
  • {|
  • |width="33"| 

|valign="top"|

  • (1st. column of words)
  • |width="33"| 

|valign="top"|

  • (2nd. column of words)
  • |width="33"| 

|valign="top"|

  • (third column of words)
  • |}

you can have a blast, enjoy

[edit] hey, rowe!

i wwas thinking about it... you are the authority on this so i wouldn't dare touch Dr. Who, but... would it be logical to have the , radio, novel, and comicbook dr. who villains on the tv section in a format symilar to what i did to Baby-doll and Harley Queen on the batman section?? so that the fans can see more comftable all dr. villin in the same section acknoledging the source medium from those villains that are not from tv but from a world created on tv??? againd, this is your call, i wouldn dare to touch it if you dis agree--T for Trouble-maker 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response: I was on a longer-than-expected Christmas wikibreak. The idea for consolidation seems sound to me, so I'll take care of the Doctor Who novel and audio entries, as well as the Star Wars novel entries. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna cry, you are the first person to take me seriously in a while...Thanks man! I really appreciate it!!--T for Trouble-maker 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

Now that the formerly alphabetized characters have been sorted, my next priority is to go through the red-linked characters and see whether they're a) misspelled or improperly linked, b) unlikely to have an article of their own (or an entry in a "Characters of..." article), or c) characters who might have an article, or at least a stub, sometime soon. Since I don't know all the characters on the list (far from it!), I'm basing this judgment on the entry for the series, book, film or whatever which each character comes from. (For example, I'm leaving the two redlinked Captain Planet villains, since they're also redlinked on Captain Planet and the Planeteers, and most of the other villains from that series have articles. However, the Freakazoid! characters are listed at Freakazoid!#Enemies, and probably won't be getting articles of their own, or even sections of a spin-off list, any time soon.)

Hope that makes sense; if anyone else wants to help in this stage of clean-up, you are of course welcome! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

P. S. T-man mentioned on my page that he might like to remove the "incomplete" tag from the top of the list. I don't think we're ready for that — I'm sure there are lots of villains from literature, drama and other sources yet to be added, and we've still got a lot of blanks in the list with hidden text annotation. It's also a good invitation for readers who come upon the page to improve it — although it's certainly in a much better state than it was at the beginning of December, it can still be improved some more. But if other editors think we're ready to remove it, we'll go with the consensus, of course. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice about former AfD

T-man had removed the notices and replaced them with the following:

For previous debates over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains/2004-11-09 as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains. These deletion nominations we're don on a regular basis, before the article got the current "categorized" format. I propose we move these links somewhere else since is talking about a solved issue. I tried the be bold thing but a guy that undoes every page I edit everywhere wouldn't aloud me to--T for Trouble-maker 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to keep the standard AfD notice on the top of the page, without editorial comment. If nothing else, it's a historical note, even though the page has changed substantially since then. If anyone's interested, they can look at the page's history and see the former versions, anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I had created the first sentence, to appease T-Man who kept deleting the links altogether. He wrote the rest. I am happy to leave the AfD notices up top, as I am sure these two will not be the last (given that the task of maintaining this wiki is not only Herculean, but in fact Sisyphean). Dyslexic agnostic 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
My point was that the format of this list was alphabetic the two times it was nominated, now it's like a whole differentand article. We have removed signs like that in the past...several times. Maybe, if it troubls my bud here, we could ask permission to treat this article as so and then get rid of the notices. Or maybe just vote. That's all I'm gonna say on the topic. (if we vote I'll just write take it off)Any thoughts?--T for Trouble-maker 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you promise that is all you will say? I've heard that before... Dyslexic agnostic 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes! that's all I'm gonna say! I'll speak no more. No, sir. some people like to keep talking and talking but not me. Nope, that's not for me. Wouldn. Couldn. That's just the way I am. Yes sir. This bud is talking no more.--T for Trouble-maker 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahahahahah Dyslex, what are we going to do with you? did you change take it off into take it off? That was a good one!! hahaha--T for Trouble-maker 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that the article's formatting has changed radically, but not all the objections were based on the format. You say that former AfD notices have been removed several times: where? I haven't seen it. I actually think that having the notice that the article was nominated for deletion, and survived the nomination twice, may act as a deterrent to anyone who thinks that it should be nominated again. But I'll try to do a bit of research about this template, and whether it's Wikipedia custom to keep it indefinitely (as I thought) or remove it when the issues raised in the AfD have been addressed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good perspective. Wouldn't mind keeping it know. hahaha ...still laughing about take it off...hilarious. hahaha--T for Trouble-maker 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the List

This page is becoming very long and cumbersome, might it make sense to split off into sublists? JoshuaZ 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is big and ugly. Got any ideas as to sub-categories? Turnstep 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest just splitting off using the current ones listed on the page. As a first approx that should do well. JoshuaZ 03:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabotage?

I seem to notice that the list keeps getting mostly deleted at times. Is someone sabotaging this page or is it just a technical problem Maetch 17:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_villains_0b16.html"