Talk:Villain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Villain is yet more necessary

It is true that being an excuse for sadism is a big part of a villain's "mission", and indeed that is what he is meant to be many a time (especially in action flicks), but another use exists for "pure evil": oversimplification. I guess first of all it constitutes a most useful means to move along the plot. Quite often, if the plot had to deal with all the "shades of gray" that would be likely to exist in a more realistic scenario, it would simply prolong the story beyond what would be desirable commercially. In addition, a simple story, based on the classic good v. evil dynamics, makes a story attractive to a broader audience, particularly in the case of a movie. An "overly" intelectual plot does not attract masses, and that is a key element for an entire segment of the movie industry, especially the so-called "blockbusters", or superproductions. Maybe that should be included in the article? Redux 02:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quotes to Wikiquote

Could not the quotes be shifted to (and made into a much larger collection) an article in Wikiquote?--ZayZayEM 00:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with ZayZayEM. All the quotes should be removed from this article and moved to Wikiquote. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wow the conclusion is necessary, charged with this strong emotion; and it contradicts witht the previous statement that people identify more often with the villains than with the heros.

Villana?

Is there a source for this Croatian etymology to prove its accuracy? The etymology section could do with a fixup since it's seguing into something about supervillains. --Jonathan Drain 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as etymology, villain (alt spelling villein) was actually used in English to mean serf. The article gives the impression that the word meant that in other languages but always meant "bad guy" in English. The Vilana thing sounds like crap to me. I don't want to change it without a source on hand, though.

I moved the supervillain part into the intro. It seems to me to be a variant definition, certainly nothing about the etymology. NickelShoe 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The following comments moved OUT of the entry (they were commented out through html) and placed on the talk page. --CaveatLector 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Is this someone's original research? It seems just as likely that villain was an epithet simply meaning low on the social ladder, and later came to have these moral connotations. Source? Poverty was equated with moral turpitude; villains had to work their way up the social ladder. Thus usually the word villain suggests that the villain's schemes stem from their own moral indifference or perversity of character.

This just seems really unlikely to be the word origin, because the other etymology is pretty certain. Needs a source. Another possible origin of this word is the Croatian legend of the three brothers Čeh, Meh, and Leh, who wanted to get rid of the Roman rule and establish unity in ancient Croatia, but their sister "Villana" was in love with a Roman prefect and betrayed her brothers plot. Villana was killed by her brothers.

Many edits

Attempting to revamp this article. I'm removing seriously POV words such as "evil" (not all villains are totally evil, or can be classified as such) from the article, as well as correcting the grammer, wikilinks, and other punctuations. (Also cleaning up the language a little.) I am removing this paragraph:

• There is an opposing archetype of the beautiful villain who looks like a hero, but his/her personality and attitudes betray a diabolical nature. This especially came well known after World War II when the Holocaust was exposed which led to the popular villain who reflects the Nazi blond and blue eyed ideal, but that beauty hides an arrogant sense of his/her superiority and foul ambitions to make his/her "inferiors" suffer. The blond, blue-eyed villain has in recent time been extrapolated into a strange stereotype, the Evil Albino - a villain who displays several physical traits usually associated with albinism (eg. pale skin, platinum blonde hair, blue or red eyes) despite not necessarily being supposed to suffer from that particular condition.

Because, although it is somewhat well written, and has an excellent point, it reeks of original research. Perhaps this could go in the Nazism article or an Effects of World War II article?

I also deleted the section "the necessary villain" for the same reasons. Since the article was mostly interpretation, it doesn't have a place in this article. Perhaps a necessary villain article?

Also added a little content, and an expansion tag, as I'd like to see this article expanded. --CaveatLector 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait other people's reactions before you mercilessly mangle a text which once was a Wikipedia "featured article". The section on "necessary evil" in particular seems fairly "encyclopedic" even if not supported by any source. Do you disagree with its contents, or do you think that enough people disagree? All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's less that I disagree with its contents and moreso that I feel as though it's highly POV, as I stated, and is also very much original research. It doesn't read as encyclopedic to me, rather it reads like something I might find in a scholarly article, expressing an opinion rathat than relating facts. The point of wikipedia is to edit mercilessly and then move into discussion. The article was removed as a featured article for many of the reasons that I have listed, and the faults that I attempted to correct within the article. Please be a little less hesitant to kill the newbie. I'll discuss my agreements and disagreements with your edits when I get more time. --CaveatLector 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with CaveatLector. Even if it's cool, even if it's true, it needs to be verifiable. I would guess that sources are available, but we ought to actually have them. NickelShoe 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, almost every single Wikipedia article has statements that are not supported by any reference, but no one removes them because they are "obviously true" or at least "not suspicious". Take for example the claim that "in the silent movie era, villains had to be 'visually' evil to be easily recognized". How can anyone verify that?
I can't recall any specific source for the "necessary evil" part, but I would think that those "opinions" are shared by most relevant authorities, such as psychologists, literary scholars, etc.. Since no one has objected to the statements per se, perhaps that text can stay until we find a suitable reference?
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More clichés, flashback

I deleted the folowing recent addition to the "Necessary villain" section:

Some villains use overly-formal talk and appear old and wise. A scene called a flashback is used to dictate an important event in his life that is connected in some way to the villain's present. Often, the flashback will show an event that inspired the villain to become a villain, or, if they have super powers of some sort, it will show how they obtained those powers. Some villains change character suddenly upon losing. When faced with the reality that the hero has won, the villain may suddenly internally give up. They will do nothing to stop the hero, and will accept their fate with dignity, be it death or imprisonment. A this point, villains will seem much older then they really are, or, if they are already truly old, they will look and feel their age. This is meant to create a sense of sympathy in the audience that the villain has seen their inevitable doom and bitterly accepts defeat.

Reasons:

• "old and wise" is not part of the villain cliché; on the contrary, it is one of many "non-villain" clichés that the villain may use as a disguise, like the "honest detective", the "innocent woman", the "loyal minister", etc.
• the flashback device is not particularly specific to villains; in fact villains are often portrayed as inherently and unexcusably evil -- they just are that way.
• The final resignation and audience sympathy seem to be relatively rare, and would befit more the role of antagonist

It seems that many contributions to this article in the past were specific to hollywood movie villains, and often apparently written with one specific movie in mind. Now, if this article is ever going to become "encyclopedic", we must look more at the global picture. After all, the "incurably evil" villain who gets killed by the hero at the end is a figure that is as old as literature (see the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Goliath episode in the Bible) and has sprung up independently in many cultures (such as in the Popol Vuh).
External villain stereotypes, in particular, are totally dependent on epoch and culture. The clothing, hair, and moustache shown in the article's picture, for instance, were obviously patterned after common ethnic prejudices of the early 20th century; and that specific cliché has fallen out of fashion mostly because those specific prejudices are no longer current.
-Jorge Stolfi 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What ethnic prejudice are you refering to? White guys with moustaches? Midgets? Albinos? I didn't know Snidely Whiplash had an ethnicity. It turns out he's been a symbol of oppression for albino midgets with moustaches for over 30 years. 68.166.68.84 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadistic pleasure

Wow, this is quite a bold statement. I realize that Wikipedia encourages boldness, but this is very much a point of view in my opinion. To say that what "really" makes a villain necessary (i.e., what makes him necessary more than all other factors) is a source of sadistic pleasure in their demise involves a very defined point of view on not only plot conflict, but human nature in general; besides, it totally ignores instances of non-violent confrontations, such as attempts to "convert" the villain or disputes solved by contests (think of kiddy stuff especially; how often does the villain admit defeat after being bested in some competition, like a sporting event?) The section is also written in very informal language.

Anyway, I'll wait a week to see if anyone objects to my plan, which is to just completely BALEET! this section. If I see no objection, I'm getting rid of it. However, in case after that someone feels that section is necessary and informative, I'll copy and paste it into this discussion.

Update: Receiving no response, I'm going to delete the following paragraph.

Yet what makes the villain really indispensable in many works of fiction, from the giant Humbaba of the Gilgamesh Epic to the "bad guys" of virtually all modern action movies, is that he provides an impeccable excuse for sadistic pleasure. The standard action story invariably begins by demonizing the villain — i.e., showing that he is so evil that he ceases to be a human being and becomes a monster; so that making him suffer is a most commendable goal, nothing less than sheer justice. From then on, the reader or viewer can enjoy the sadistic pleasure of watching someone being beaten, burned, chopped, impaled, blown to bits, etc. etc.; and can identify himself with the hero who is doing it — all with a clean conscience.

70.171.59.231 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of famous villains

I took this list out, noting that it is likely to get long fast and that such a list already exists as a separate article. An anonymous user has now put the list back in without justification beyond a personal attack [1]. It seems to me that there is no reason to have such a list in this article. I don't see that it adds much to the article (if they're so famous, why do we need to tell people about them), and the see also link seems sufficient to me.

On a more utilitarian note, I am especially concerned with how difficult this article will be to maintain once people start adding random video game villains and whatnot to this list. I'm in favor of removing this list again, but have no desire to edit-war about it. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize PROFUSELY that you were so offended by the term "forker". I'll try to be more sensitive.

• • I was told that I could add things to Wikipedia and that even if others didn't find it important, that I could still put it up and maybe others find it important and you don't doesn't mean you all have to take the list down, I mean the overall opinion isn't represented because the people who think the list serves a purpose wouldn't come to the discussion page to say so but the people who don't like it do, so don't think that this is the only opinion out there, and now I'm being called a troll and a vandal and I received a harsh and condescending message on my own talk page from another editor telling me that my contributions were worthless and that I was harassing other editors... 70.171.59.231 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi again. Did you notice that several different users reverted your changes, but no one but you added the list? Maybe other people have a point, even if you don't agree. Wikipedia has a rule that you shouldn't keep reverting the same thing over and over, see WP:3RR (and a rule about not attacking other users WP:NPA). Now I'm sure you mean well and are just sometimes getting frustrated with what you see as an unfair situation. But please, try and explain why you find the list more useful here in this article than clicking on the link to the more comprehensive list. You're free to make changes to articles. The first time you did it, I recognized that you meant well. I simply disagreed and did as you did--edited the article to be what I considered best. But I did not want to force my opinion, so I didn't revert back afterward, I tried to talk it out. Let's talk it out. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the list should be removed simply because it appears to be a seemingly random and unnecessary list of villians having nothing to do with anything. Better to simply include examples of villians in the article without resorting to a list. 71.226.17.185 05:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i like the list i think you should let it be there al least leave 5 villains per type —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.221.97 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda off topic, but..

Doesn't the guy on there left in this webcomic (I Drew This) kinda familiar? :) --Conti|✉

Both the man in the left panel and the character in the Wikipedia article are based off of Snidely Whiplash, an archetypal villain character in the ranks of such dastardly rogues as Simon Bar Sinister and Dick Bastardly. Smith Jones 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Necessary villain?

What about stories that don't have villains, like Kiki's Delivery Service? The Legend of Miyamoto 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Neil Simon never put villains in his plays/ films, either, for that matter; he is famously quoted (although I can't find the reference right now) as saying life itself is villain enough. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Silent Movie Villain

I think there should be some distinction as to the archetypical "silent movie villain." In truth, the Snidely Whiplash model of villain was the type that was actually being lampooned during the silent era (circa 1910s) and actually has its roots in the gaslight stage era of the 1870s and 1880s. Clearly this is a common misconception, as the Dudley Do Right cartoons lampoon what was already being satyrized in the silent film era! - The Photoplayer 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'd like to know the origins of the "stalking" musical theme that often accompanied silent-movie or stage villains -- you know the one I'm talking about, it's one of the oldest cliches in the business. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I tracked down the "villain" theme, somewhat. It appears to be a takeoff on Sam Fox's 'burglar' theme. This is not exactly the one I'm thinking of -- again, I know everyone knows the one I mean -- but it comes closer than any I have found. Sam Fox silent movie themes online here.

Special types of villain

• Archenemy

Is an archenemy or a nemesis a villain? Penelope Pitstop is the archenemy of the Hooded Claw, but she is not a villain. Should this entry be updated to reflect this?--FruitMonkey 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of those illustrations

I think they're kind of goofy and add nothing, in fact take away, from the article. Thoughts? Pablosecca 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any rationale to the categories included here?

Some of them seem arbitrary or made up. For example, I see no reason for the "snoop" to be included in a list of villains; if the only two examples anyone could come up with are Nickelodeon-style cartoons whose focus is on antics rather than plot, it seems like there's no reason to keep it as a category. It seems like we should probably have citations for this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.87.180 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-hero

I'm pretty sure that an anti-hero is someone who is on the hero's team for heroic reasons, yet will sometimes resort to unheroic techniques (killing, torture) in order to achive his goalsEmma Hordika (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

French villains?

"It is very common in American films for the cunning villain to be British or French. See Ethnic stereotypes in American media — British and — French."

What? I might just be clueless, but I've never noticed a trend of French villains, and the British are portrayed as heroes as often as they are villains. If anything the stereotypical American villain is German or Russian, which might be worth mentioning.

And the article it links to says absolutely nothing about American media or British/French stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.223.57 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on.

I propose removing the "Other types of villain" section. While a nice lead-in to other articles, it has no references and is pretty superfluous. Johnnyfog 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove evil demon article. While I agree that other types of villain section is a bit superfluous, the evil genius section doesn't have its own article and it may be confused with the Descartes evil genious phylosophic concept. As far as the section listing various types of villains, perhaps a "SEE ALSO" section will be more appropriate instead. --RossF18 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mobsters

I just wonder in which categoty the mobsters should be. Some of the most iconic villains are mobsters like Michael Corleone and Vito Corleone. They have a code of honor. Even in Joseph Pistone's "The Way Of A Wiseguy" he says that once some guy raped some girl and he got whacked just because mafiosi don't like the rape. So maybe that makes them some kind of anti-villains. I just somebody who is more into this tell me and maybe add it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Luciano (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Taxi Driver poster.JPG

The image Image:Taxi Driver poster.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some discussion is in order

After noting a significant number of deletions from the article, I thought in order to prevent a bit of back and forth reverting - that we discuss some of the removals.
Initially, villains are also called "heavies" in the film industry (1, 2, 3, 4), as well as modern literature. The net is rife with examples of the term usage, and it should be noted as such in parentheses (which it was before removal).
The bit about Montalban's portrayal of Khan is a bit off-point, as it discusses his particular interpretation of the term as a role. While it has some interesting bits (esp. the part about how a villain never thinks [s]he is one), it has no citation, and cannot be in the article.
The usage of the Vader image should remain, as it draws on multiple elements a la Joseph Campbell, to create what many feel is the penultimate villain.
As well, a small list of villains should remain, to demonstrate the interpretation of the term in different media at different times. Also, they should be cited as "villain" stereotypes.
I agree that the Taxi Driver poster image of Travis Bickle is pretty much a preference interpretation, without accompanying citation. Without specific connection and citation to the villain stereotype, it should be removed.
I am of two minds in regards to the types of villains (arch-nemeses, femme fatales and the like). We need citation to connect these terms as subtypes of the main term; without it, they cannot remain.
To that end, I am tagging the article as largely unreferenced, which will hopefully attract some attention to the defects of the article, and get them repaired - not removed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters

For the second time, I've had to remove the list of evil folk from the lists. I understand the user doesn't believe in our synthesis policy, but it like gravity, must still be followed. If (s)he or anyone else is prepared to deliver a raft of citations noting their categorizations as "evil geniuses", "evil twins" or the like, please feel free to do so. Wikipedia isn't the place for speculative work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The lists of "examples" need to go. This is an article about the "villain" archetype, not List of fictional villains or Category:Fictional villains. They are example farms which do nothing but clutter the article with useless examples and fancruft. Also, the bit in the opening about Ricardo Montalbahn & Khan should go: A) It's unsourced, and B) it's not pertinent to a lead section about the "villain" in general. It's absolutely pertinent to Khan Noonien Singh and to Ricardo Montalbán, but has no place in this particular article's lead. Finally, the non-free images need to go. There are plenty of free images available to provide examples of villains (there are 3 in the article already), therefore there is no rationale for also having numerous non-free images as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, okay we'll leave out the lists unless anyone has any sources for them. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

With regard to my above statement about the images (Finally, the non-free images need to go. There are plenty of free images available to provide examples of villains (there are 3 in the article already), therefore there is no rationale for also having numerous non-free images as well), I've added a public domain image of the Wicked Witch of the West in place of the non-free images that I removed. I'm hunting for more free images that would serve well in this article, so I'm going to list them here as I find them:

• 
  Bluto from Popeye
• 
  Javert from Les Misérables
• 
  Mordred from the Arthurian legends
• Count Orlok from Nosferatu
  Count Orlok from Nosferatu
• 
  Professor Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes works
• 
  Captain Hook from Peter Pan
• 
  The Headless Horseman from "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"
• 
  The Wicked fairy godmother from Sleeping Beauty
• 
  The witch from Hansel and Gretel

Removed sections

The following sections were removed from the article. They are not cited, and full of speculative synthesis. Until they are fortified with lots of citations, they cannot return:

The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius is an archetype or even a caricature that is a recurring staple in certain genres of fiction, particularly comic books, spy fiction, video games, action films and cartoons. The evil genius serves as a common adversary and foil of the hero. Evil geniuses are, as their name suggests, individuals of supreme intelligence who use their intellect for selfish and/or antisocial purposes. There is a general overlap with mad scientists but whereas mad scientists are more amoral than evil and often genuinely concerned with scientific progress, evil geniuses are usually portrayed as power hungry egotists, more interested in self-aggrandizement than anything else. Also mad scientists, despite their intellect are often reckless and don't think much about the consequences of their actions while evil geniuses are clever planners. For instance a mad scientist would create an army of zombies just to see if he could whereas an evil genius would have a diabolical use for the army as well as a plan to escape the area and avoid being killed.

Evil geniuses often exhibit the following:

• A tendency to revel in their villainy and mental superiority.
• A preference for intellectual stimulation.
• A vain, stylish, cat-like demeanour.
• A traumatic or impoverished childhood (ironically this is often the origin of the hero they oppose).

Villain archetypes

Note that, as mentioned above, a villain's disposition towards evil distinguishes them from an antagonist. For example, Javert in Les Miserables is an antagonist: he opposes the hero, but does so by such means and under such pretexts as not to become entirely odious to the reader. Note also that a villain may repent, be redeemed, or become in league with the hero. Sometimes, a villain may even appear as the protagonist of a story, while the hero who opposes them may be the antagonist.

• Archenemy – The principal enemy of the hero. The reason why the particular villain stands out more than the rest varies; they may be the hero's strongest enemy, be the complete antithesis to the hero, have strong connections with their hero's past, pose the greatest threat, have caused the hero a great deal of suffering or loss, or may be the most recurring villain.
• Dark Lord – a villain of near-omnipotence in his realm, who seeks to utterly dominate the world; he is often depicted as a diabolical force, and may, indeed, be more a force than a personality, and often personifies evil itself. The effects of his rule often assert malign effects on the land as well as his subjects. Besides his usual magical abilities, he often controls great armies. Most Dark Lords are male, except in parody. Critics John Clute and John Grant have noted a number of characteristics, common in Dark Lord characters (John Grant and John Clute, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, "Dark Lord", p 250 ISBN 0-312-19869-8).

A Dark Lord has often been defeated but not destroyed aeons before.

S/he aspires to be "Prince of this world."

S/he is an abstract force, less flesh and blood than supernatural energy.

S/he represents "thinning", the idea that before the written story there was a diminishment such as Morgoth's marring of Arda.

S/he is also a symbol of debasement, a moral collapse, often the result of a questionable bargain such as that of Faust.

S/he inflicts damage out of envy.

• Evil twin – a character which is identical or almost identical to the hero, but is evil instead of good.
• Femme fatale – a beautiful, seductive but ultimately villainous woman who uses the malign power of her sexuality in order to ensnare the hapless hero into danger.
• Mad scientist – a scientist-villain or villain-scientist, a figure who represents the dangers of science in the wrong hands or abused for harmful purposes. Can easily be confused with Evil Genius.
• Supervillain' – a villain who displays special powers, skills or equipment powerful enough to be a typically serious challenge to a superhero. Like the superhero, the supervillain will often utilize colorful costumes and gimmicks that make them easily recognizable to readers.
• Tragic villain – a character who, although acting for primarily "evil" or selfish goals, is either not in full control of their actions or emotions, therefore the reader or viewer can sympathize for them. These villains can face a crisis of conscience in which they submit to doing evil. These villains often have confused morals believing that they are doing good when in fact they are doing evil.
• Trickster – often more of an annoying nuisance than a fearsome or dangerous enemy, a trickster may take many forms, from a con man to a mischievous imp. Adventures with trickster type villains tend to be light and comedic and the hero typically finds a way to defeat them non-violently. Sometimes there may be a lesson learned from the trickster, even if unintentional.
• Lackey, henchman, minion, or toady – a minor villain who takes orders.
• Secondary villain – Often not very evil or competent. They are usually not as smart as they think they are and often are not ruthless enough to harm or murder. They are typically motivated by greed or vanity and are often not taken very seriously as a threat. They are not always criminals and sometimes may be guilty of nothing more than trying to win by cheating. They may serve as placeholders until the true villain appears. They may also reform and join the hero as comic relief characters.

• Alternately, secondary villains may be the 'right hand man' for a powerful villain. Evil being what it is, loyalty is often in question and the character will likely attempt to take power for themself if the opportunity arises.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

agree with the removal - lots of sourcing needed before that should be allowed back in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, it seems more an essay on villains than encyclopedic content. Dayewalker (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad somebody had the guts to do it, finally :) --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, finally, somebody had the guts to completely dullify a good article. Joy! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And that little snarky bit helped the article (or your interactions w/other editors precisely...how? Please leave your ego at the door, JOM; you aren't and never shall be the smartest person editing in an article. The Law of Averages and of diminishing returns assures that. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It didn't. It just made me feel better and frankly I gave up caring what other editors thought of me a while ago. And I think you will find that I am and always will be the smartest person editing an article because I am the smartest person ever to walk the earth. Furthermore if I were to leave my ego at the metaphorical door then nobody would be able to get in through said door, as you have probably realised. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay. Do you prefer paper or plastic, to carry that oversized ego? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Preferably Uranium thanks. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't crowd the talk page with personal attacks, both of you. Remember to keep things WP:CIVIL. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not making personal attacks, we're just having a laugh. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we are. No one is calling anyone an anal retentive feltch monkey at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Nor is anyone calling anyone a pompous, sodomitic man whore with a brain so tiny it would make a peanut look huge and ungainly. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because calling someone a total coprophytic with bad teeth and worse breath would be beyond the pale. Or even worse, a Whig. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And the very notion of calling someone a nauseatingly self-righteous, perverted, crotch-grabbing imbecile who would still be the village idiot in the midst of a village whose sole population consisted of village idiots simply doesn't bear thinking about. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, calm down. No one is calling anybody anything (except maybe you two). On the original note, a list with the different types of villains would be good to have, but only if it was sourced Library Seraph (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about there beinng any more of this sarcasm contest, at least for a while. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another type of stock Character Villain?

How about the villain that is killed "off" yet keeps coming back:

• Ezekiel Rage at least 4 times
• Mumbles at least twice

Any more canidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Villians.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Villians.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Villians.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What do villains actually do?

Seems like they are often doing one of the 3, world domination, robbing people/banks, and fighting heros. Am I missing anything? Doesn't seem like most villains have much of a goal in mind they just want to defeat the hero — and then what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe15 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirection of tragic villain

Tragic villain redirects to this page, but there is no description of this particular archetype here. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 possible solutions - a) add a tragic villain page (would be extremely short I would imagine), b) add a list of villain archetypes, c) make a different page which has a list of villain archetypes and change the redirection to that page instead. I am sure there are also other solutions too. 80.176.229.143 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)