Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-366087-20160222085214/@comment-26205772-20160227221903

Even with that, I'm still not sure that's something we should implement. Whether or not a villain is heinous enough should logically speak for itself.

Even with all the remaining TV Tropes terms, there are only really a few which I consider worth keeping: Big Bads, Complete Monster, Evil Vs. Evil, and Omnicidal Maniacs. The first two I consider by far the most important villainous archetypes codified by TV Tropes and the latter two speak for themselves even without the use of trope terminology. All the rest are typically subject to extreme misuse or are too dependent on the usage of "what TV Tropes says," making it more a TV Tropes category rather than a VW category. I can defend CM as this wiki's at least tried to strike out on its own while measuring and defining the category, and most of the misuse comes from misunderstanding the category or subjectivity on a villain's heinousness. There's also the fact each Monster at TV Tropes is voted on as a candidate on a forum composed of people experienced with the trope, so Monsters on TV Tropes are generally "safe" in my opnion.

This is water that does not hold with categories like Knight of Cerebus and Magnificent Bastards, which have definitions defined by TV Tropes and not by the wiki. Since those are free-edit both here and on TV Tropes, this means the tropes are free to be misused on both wikis, which complicates things even further as with KoC in particular I've noticed some abuse back on its site of origin. Complete Monster is generally seen as the most prominent of the TV Tropes categories and it's also the one I feel is the safest when analyzing it from the TV Tropes spectrum. The remainder of the categories are too reliant on the site's definition or are too abused for their own good.