<p>I'll probably edit it. So, that makes two against renaming franchises. </p>

<p>By all means, elaborate. How could any [franchise] tag be viewed as anything other than <i>[franchise] villain</i>? </p><p>I mean, on a franchise- or show-based wikia such as Disney Wiki or Wookieepedia, there is a *need* to determine if a character is Good/Hero, Evil/Villain, or even Neutral/Unaligned. But on certain wikias some things are just known or implied. Such as any [show] wikia there is no need to say on any page "…is a character/thing from the show [show]". The entire wikia is [show], each page does not need to repeat that. And certainly zero need to have [show] as a category </p> <dl><dd>on *epic* Wiki I deleted category:epic for the reason *every page* would be so tagged and that just invalidates the need for the category; The <i>entire wiki</i> serves as the ultimate category… </dd></dl><p>Occasionally there might be a reason to <i>specify</i>. For example, "Supernatural" could mean both the <i>nature</i> of a character as well as the <i>TV Show</i> "Supernatural". In a case like this, you might want to differentiate "Supernatural" from "Supernatural Villains" (although I propose "Preternatural" for the nature tag or "Supernatural TV Series" for the franchise). </p>

<p>I feel that it adds more clarity. I mean, with "Pokemon" I agree that it could serve to confuse people not familiar with antagonists from the anime, various manga, etc. They would most likely assume that it's only exclusive to Pokemon. </p>

<p>That is part of it. But then there are others like if we were to change "Sonic Villains" to just "Sonic", I feel like it would come out wrong. I am all in favor of reducing repetition, but when we start removing the term villains from franchise pages I think it will start to blur the definitions a bit. Ultimately category tags should be as clear and non-ambiguous as possible. I think removing the Villains title from those sorts of franchise categories would both sound off and in some cases give a false impression of what articles go into them.</p>

<div class="quote">Magma Dragoon wrote:
"Comedy" refers to the genre. "Comedic" is the same as "Comic Relief", which is the better one to no create confusion.</div> <p>All respect, I think "Comedic" & "Comic Relief" are different because of the <i>Complete Monsters standards</i>. </p><p>As far as I know, "Comic Relief" is for characters that are comedic in an serious work (being the polar opposite of Game Changers) and can <i>never be CMs</i>. </p><p>As for "Comedic", there ARE comedic villains who <i>are CMs</i> (most notably Yuuki Terumi and the mainstream Joker) if their comedic tones are twisted, not played-for-laugh and did not downplayed their villainy. </p><p>Therefore, I think it is better to keep "Comic Relief", "Comedy Villains" & "Comedic" seperated, but we can make "Comic Relief" a specific category that are light-heartly comedic in almost 100% serious works, just like "Game Changers" aimed specifically for an almost 100% serious villain in a light-hearted story, thus "Comedy Villains" cannot be overlapped with "Comic Relief." That is all. </p>

<div class="quote">SUPERMEGAGENIUS wrote:
Seriously, how many categories with the word "villains" remain in this wiki? Anyway:

• Old Villains: Old

</div> <p>I think "Elderly" will be better than "Old" since it is more formal and less offensive to some people. </p>

<div class="quote">Officer Candy Apple wrote:
<div class="quote">SUPERMEGAGENIUS wrote:
Seriously, how many categories with the word "villains" remain in this wiki? Anyway:

• Old Villains: Old

</div>I think "Elderly" will be better than "Old" since it is more formal and less offensive to some people. </div> <p>I made some rectifications too. For example; With "Strategic Villains" the term "Strategic" as sustantive would be better than "Tactical". </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Officer Candy Apple wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Magma Dragoon wrote:
"Comedy" refers to the genre. "Comedic" is the same as "Comic Relief", which is the better one to no create confusion.</div> <p>All respect, I think "Comedic" & "Comic Relief" are different because of the <i>Complete Monsters standards</i>. </p><p>As far as I know, "Comic Relief" is for characters that are comedic in an serious work (being the polar opposite of Game Changers) and can <i>never be CMs</i>. </p><p>As for "Comedic", there ARE comedic villains who <i>are CMs</i> (most notably Yuuki Terumi and the mainstream Joker) if their comedic tones are twisted, not played-for-laugh and did not downplayed their villainy. </p><p>Therefore, I think it is better to keep "Comic Relief", "Comedy Villains" & "Comedic" seperated, but we can make "Comic Relief" a specific category that are light-heartly comedic in almost 100% serious works, just like "Game Changers" aimed specifically for an almost 100% serious villain in a light-hearted story, thus "Comedy Villains" cannot be overlapped with "Comic Relief." That is all. </p> </div> <p>For me, I'd terminate the "Comedic" outright. The category's description was basically "villains with a sense of humor". </p>

<p>Agree with Magma about Comedic. Face it, no matter what, The Joker is *not* comedic, no matter how funny he aims to be, what he does hurts, maims, and kills people. Even his Bang-flag gun also shoots real bullets (and at least once, the flag as a speargun) after his initial jump-scare-and-laugh routine. "Comedic" may be his Schtick <i>in his twisted mind</i>, but it is not really. </p>

<p>All right, I understand. </p>