All posts by Balthus Dire

<p>She is still a villain, whether wittingly or not, her actions are undoubtedly villainous. We have a category for villains who are not themselves, yet do villainous acts, it is called "Possessed/Brainwashed". There have already been a discussion thread about that. No, she does not fit in "Grey Zone", this is for much more morally ambiguous actions and motives. Yet another mishandled category. </p>

<p>Because, as stated in the "Personality" section, she can display compassion. A Complete Monster cannot. </p>

<p>I went to correct errors I saw on one of my pages and noticed it, so I add my two cents... </p><p>When the villain is based on a specific legend (Kaguya Otsutsuki), mythological figure (Mage of the Beginning having the name of the Gnostic Demiurge, or Legion and the biblical demon and quote), or historical character (Gilles de Rais), then it must be explained. If the villain is a clear, explicit or expressely stated Expy/Hommage (Count Reiner Heydrich of Dracula, the Shadow Warriors of the Nazguls) I think it deserves mention. But otherwise, those "similarities" are useless, take too much place and are 99,99999% of the case staggeringly false... And aggravating </p>

<p>To think that it has already been over a year that I've bid farewell to this wiki... Well everyone could see that for a retired user, I have been quite active. ^^ </p><p>There is a reason though. It just happen that for the last year, I have been busy copying and pasting all the articles I consider mine (having created them, or mostly if not entirely rewritten) into Word files for my personal archives. And having no less than 150 articles, it sure took a lot of time. Also, lost spark or not, I want my articles to be as complete as can be, and many of them (mostly the first ones I wrote) no longer met my standards. As such, not wanting to leave anything unachieved, I perfected them the best I could as I was copying them. More details, simplified wording, better English, all that jazz... </p><p>But once again I digress. What I mean is that this time, this is it for real. Well and truly over. I cannot say that I will never be correcting further a page or update articles about villains of unfinished stories (Darkhell, the Mage of the Beginning...) every now and then. Though I would much rather entrust them to you all. But I won't do anything else, and be much less present in the wiki, to read for my pleasure and little more. </p><p>Once again, I want to thank everyone for the bottom of my heart for the great times I had here. Perhaps I will find you on other collaborative websites, or who knows, find back my inspiration. I wish all of you the best. Keep making this wiki as good as it always was. </p>

<p>The wiki owes much to TV Tropes, but TV Tropes owes a teensy tidbit to us. I felt extremely flattered when I saw some of their character pages quoting my articles almost verbatim. </p>

<p>I always have had a problem with character alignment, for unless specifically stated by the author, it is far too open for interpretation... </p>

<p>"Absolute Evil" is fine. It was named "Most Evil" before we adopted the TV Tropes term. (As an avid reader of the site, who seriously considers starting editing there, I am greatly saddened to learn that they are so belligerant towards us...) </p><p>Just to remind that Complete Monsters unsettle even villain who casually cross the MEH with the sheer depth of their depravity. Frieza cackling madly when destroying Planet Vegeta while Zarbon and Dodoria, far beyond the MEH themselves look a bit awed/disturbed, for instance. It's the lowest of the low </p>

<p>About immortals. Is the character's old age plot relevant? (Vearn for instance) Then yes. If not, and especially if the immortal looks youthful, then no. Just no. </p>

<p><span style="font-weight:normal;">I blame none, be reassured. I just state a fact that bugs me. And you are right, too many pictures in a single paragraph is also a sort of flood and hard to read to boot.</span> </p><p>Well I for one enjoy large images in which details can be seen. I don"t think there is a specific way of doing it. I would say, the more there is to illustrate, the more pictures can be put, though I think over twenty is overkill. Pictures for the sake of pictures is the real problem, much like categories for the sake of categories or too much info in the "type of villain"  </p>

<p>Some users do nothing than clogging the gallery also. Truth to be told, I find it equally annoying and yet another flooding problem. </p><p>Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against Galleries. I simply find that pictures are meant to illustrate an article. Meant to put an image of a specific aspect, or moment, described in the text and which as such should be attached to the paragraph in which its subject is described. As such, it seriously rubs me the wrong way when users remove all pictures from the article proper to put them all into a gallery, which is meant for additional, general pictures. Especially when the gallery is filled to the brim with two or three pictures that only differ by the wallpaper or but a tiny details.  </p><p>But I digress. </p>

<p>Not to mention that most categories used DO. NOT. FIT. AT. ALL. </p><p>And we remove them and they re-add them, and we remove them and they re-add them, over and over and over and over and over... </p><p>Infobox, Categories, Gallery, nitpicking about "secondary" and "tertiary" BS, that's roughly 80% of the edits I came across around here for seven years. And it got worse and worse. </p>

<p>If you think that two tropes define the villain equally: i.e. Doctor Doom being both a ruler and a scientist, try finding a single, short wording that encompasses both. (Doom would be "Emperor Scientist" for instance). Using a Trope name/category title is a way of doing it, after all they are meant to be a concise wording encompassing much, but they are NOT mandatory. Try to be creative. Write your own, that's the POINT of contributing to a wiki. </p><p>And we always come back to that, if you want readers to know that your villain is equally a X, a Y, and a Z, then explain it in the article. Plain and simple. </p><p>Sometimes I could swear that MANY contributors to this wiki are category-centered, if not category-addicts. Categories are meant to be a classification tool, but I swear in the name of whoever created this crapsack world, it has almost become a religion down here... </p>

<p>I still repeat that putting two or three categories in the "Type of Villain" is putting one or two too many. Categories belong to the category list and nowhere else. There should be ONE simple, clear and concise wording: One that puts the villain main characteristic. If the villains are sorcerers, put "dark wizard"/"evil sorcerer"/"mage" or whatever. If the villains are Dark Lords/Dark Ladies put "Evil Overlord"/"Dark Lord"/"Tyrant" or however you want to phrase it. And so on and so forth. </p><p>If the wording uses the title of a trope or a category title "Eldritch Abomination"/"Lovecraftian Horror"/"Deity"/"Supreme Being"/"Mad Scientist"/"Evil Genius"/"Traitor" yadda yadda, I see no trouble, but if we put even two categories in the "Type of Villain" you can bet that someone will wonder "why not more" and whaaaam!! Return to square one. </p><p>To answer a few comments: If all villains in a setting are Super Villains, and one is X, the other is Y... Then put "X" or "Y" in the "Type of villain". "Type of villain" is different than "Occupation" for the former is what the villain IS and the latter what the villain DOES. Mozenrath and Sauron are both Evil Overlords, with the variation of it in "Type", but "ruler of their domain" or a more precise description in "Occupation". Simple as that. </p><p>I shall sum up the problem thusly and bluntly: If the villain is both a X and a Y and a Z, don't put it in the infobox/category list, and EXPAND THE ARTICLE. People come here to read good articles and learn about villains, not to scroll through tedious lists. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that nothing is worth a detailled and well-explained article. I shall be blunt, one of the reasons I am leaving is that I am fed up with people who edit ONLY to add categories in the list AND the infobox, while leaving the page with little to no content, and worse nothing that can explain the categories on the list. And even worse, they then bicker and nitpick when we remove categories </p>

<p>I explained my case badly. I meant ony ONE type of villain in the section, described shortly in one to three words. The type of villain that sums up the character best. For details, the category list is enough. Cthulhu for instance it would be "Eldritch Abomination" or "Cosmic Horror" or "Lovecraftian Horror" (two words each). For Lord Voldemort: "Evil Overlord" or "Dark Wizard", and for Anathos: "Satan" or "God of Evil". And so on and so forth. </p>

<p>That's the problem of serial escalation and some series continuing while they should have stopped. In a way, the audience who always wants to see more and the authors who want to break all established limits for shock value are miffing. </p><p>I've stopped liking DBZ because it was far too ludicrous to be believable or even funny. Supreme Beings described as the mightiest of the mightier in their universe like Anathos or Princess Kaguya (herself the result of an escalation),  can only destroy a planet with their mightier attack, while anyone in DBZ after the Frieza saga can casually do so by sneezing too loud. Inthe end, it breaks the willing suspension of disbelief. </p><p>For one, that's why I have no interest whatsoever for Dragon Ball Super.  </p>

<p>A short and concise, in one word if possible, two or three at best. Description is the best way to do it, it has been so for before I even registered here seven years ago and has always been. Using a category name or a trope name is possible, but clogging it with categories is not only redundant but flooding. Category list belongs in the category list.  </p>