Belloq has bigger plans than Dietrich? How? Dietrich hired Belloq and had Toht to assist him, which means Dietrich is behind the plot, Belloq wanted to get paid and take Marion away, so Dietrich had bigger plans than everyone else, not Belloq, Belloq is working under Dietrich
Look, if you're gonna keep on fussing about this, why don't you ask everyone what they think who is the main villain? For my view, Belloq is the main villain who had bigger plans than anyone else because even though Dietrich is in charge of the operation, Belloq acted more as the direct threat as he serves as a direct rival to Indiana in the film. That's why I reverted it back. End of story.
How many times do I have to tell you this? Toht served a secondary direct threat after Belloq as he was going after Indiana and Marion to get the Ark for Belloq and the Nazis. That's all to it, so no more questions.
Spice, I intentionally locked Toht and Dietrich's pages in advance to prevent antagonist fussing. And what do you do at almost the precise moment the page locks on those pages expire? You do exactly what you were told not to do: you dig up this debate once again and start antagonist fussing on their pages.
I have given you a ridiculous amount of slack and you have kept skirting warnings and/or advice given to you by Inferno, RRabbit and I and probably other users as well. Because of this, I have no reason to believe that you have learned anything from either your warnings or your previous bans, so you have been blocked again.
In addition, if you spend the rest of your ban time spamming users' message walls on community central or other Wikis about "who is X antagonist" or trying to coerce users into antagonist fussing on this Wiki for you, I will extend your ban. Do keep that in mind.
I noticed you thought Dr Facilier wasn't prue evil. I agree. He didn't actually attempt to give up the souls and stated only the wayward souls. He was not going to betray Lawrence for all the money and did seem to respect Tiana. He also has a tragic past as he lived his life poor but was left to suffer and a sympathiec death even Tiana felt sorry for him and he suffered far worse than anyone else in the end.
That was a long time ago. Unfortunately, there's no indication that he was going to fulfill his side of the bargain with Lawrence, plus he only tried to trick Tiana into giving him the amulet. Not to mention, his actions are beyond his tragic past.
I started a discussion on the talk page to aviod a edit-war. Also since he had a tramuatic expirence with men would you at least say he's an extremist or tragic as he doesn't kill animals or humans for fun only going after Mowgli.
Well, to be honest, there's nothing of a certain backstory that shaped him into the villain he is in the film, so he can't be tragic or extremist in nature. If the film was to portray some clear backstory of why he hated humans in general, he could count as both.
So you seem to be wanting to keep a lot of Marvel Villains (Thanos, Ultron, Whiplash,...) in the Evil vs Evil category, yet you have as for now failed to bring any kind of argument for that action that aligns to the actual description of the category. All reasons you give is naming instances were they were betrayed or engaged in a short battle with other characters that can potentially be considered villainous, but if you read the actualy category description, that is far from enough to qualify. Let me quote it for you:
"Not every villain who has ever fought another villain should go here.
Villains only belong if this applies to most or all of their activities and is a significant aspect of their character and if they are seen as "Heroes" in their setting due to the extreme levels of wickedness committed by their enemies."
About Ultron you said "He killed von Strucker, and Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch turned against him."
About Thanos you once said "He got angry when Ronan decided to betray him and killed Loki."
These brief anatgonisms against former henchmen are traits of a failure-intolerant villain, they do not in any way fit the decription of the category Evil vs Evil which clearly refers to "characters whose main enemies are themselves villains". Ultrons main and only purpose is to destroy humanity and the Avengers, Whiplashs main purpose is to get revenge on Iron Man, Baron von Struckers main purpose is to serve Hydra and Thanos' main purpose is to erase half of the population of the universe. Neither of these characters have a great significane about batteling villains to them, by the definition of this Wiki they simply do not fit.
You do realize that there were some things that were left out when you deleted the category from these pages:
Whiplash double-crossed Justin Hammer during his final fight against Iron Man.
Raza and Ahmed were betrayed by Stane, who poisoned Raza to death and had Ahmed executed.
Usually, it doesn't matter if the villain has to fight another villain to qualify for the category; it's the thought of their conflicting ideals that has to qualify. Similar to the film Captain America: Civil War, where the heroes were conflicted against each other because of their conflicting ideals (keeping themselves under government control, and maintaining their freedom to choose). Usually, those villains have differing ideals that got them against each other, which is the reason why I put the category back in their pages in the first place.
In "Captain America: Civil War", the character conflict of the movie actually is about conflicting ideals of the heroes. Iron Mans main purpose in that movie is indeed how his worldview conflicts with the one of Capatin America and vice versa. They are actually characters that can be called Good vs Good. However, your examples are incredibly minor conflicts or aspects of these villains that you will find pretty much everywhere where multiple villains meet each other. They are mainly just betrayls, there is an own category for that called "Betrayed". The Evil vs Evil category is very much overused already and by the standards you propose, far, far more villains would have to be added just because they were betrayed once or punished their henchmen once.
Again, the category is by its own definition mainly soppused for villains whose main (!) enemies are themselves villains. Its for villains that fight other bad guys as a main part of their character traits and it is even clearly stated that it should apply mainly for those who fight villains that are worse than them. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch turning against Ultron was their redemption, they are heroes from that point on, so Ultron fighting them doesn't count. The same goes for Thanos fighting Loki in "Infinity War". Loki is already fully redeemed at that point. Stanes actions against Raza and Ahmed were one-sided, he just betrayed them, that doesn't change the fact that their main purpose is commiting terror in the name of the Ten Rings. All your exmaples fit the categories "Betrayed" or "Traitor", not the category Evil vs Evil.
I personally feel it should be strictly for those who either regularly fight other villains or minimum fight while being the lesser of two evils. If just betrayed or do the betraying we have separate categories for those. Categories are meant for defining traits not simply a one time thing unless they only appear once or twice. Whiplash betrayed Hammer but that's more just being a traitor, Raza was simply betrayed not fighting another evil or anything.
If two corrupt people are fighting it can be blurry but generally add it to the lesser evil though I can see maybe some argument towards potentially both, that said it needs to be a defining trait and more that just being betrayed or betraying, being betrayed can eventually lead to Evil vs Evil but not automatically the case.
What’s wrong with considering Wilson the central antagonist and Bennett the secondary antagonist? Wilson was kind of the central antagonist as he was Brainard’s personal rival, while Bennett was kind of the secondary antagonist as he was Chester’s son.
Just because Bennett is Hoenicker's son doesn't make him the secondary antagonist. If that were to be true, he would've been bigger plans than Croft. Plus, Croft had more screentime than Bennett and acted out as Hoenicker's new right-hand.
Okay I understand, so I guess Croft was Hoenicker’s only right-hand while Hoenicker’s son Bennett was only supporting his plans and didn’t act as evil as Croft. I really don’t want to start an edit warr anyway. Thanks.
I haven't watched the movie to be honest, so I don't know what to say of it. But I would presume that T-3000 is more of the main antagonist because he served as a main threat with bigger plans than anyone else, including the T-5000.
TV Tropes says Skynet is the Big Bad of Terminator: Genisys while T-3000 is The Heavy and it says T-3000 is responsible for all the conflict so since T-3000 is responsible for all the conflict, is that the same as driving the plot?
No, that isn't true. There was no indication that Layton and Ken ever aligned (or even met) with each other; plus Ken was never working for Layton, who in turn, had bigger plans than anyone else. So technically, Layton is the main antagonist of the film. You must learn that not everything in TV Tropes is accurate, which is one of the main reasons why we don't follow it.
Well, not everything written here is completely accurate, considering the fact that some users (such as trolls and spammers) tend to do a lot of harm, and we get that a lot through edit-warring. That's why it's the job for the admins and moderators (such as myself) to write, proofread and protect articles and pages.
Ok that’s good to know by the way if I edit something and you disagree with it, can you write a summary on why you don’t agree with my edit because remember Professor Zündapp’s page I changed him to central antagonist and you kept on disagreeing and undoing it without writing a summary if you write summary’s for pages I change, I wouldn’t edit war? By the way I found out that Zündapp has less screen-time than Axlerod so that’s why I changed him back to secondary antagonist
Also you know Major Arnold Ernst Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, why is he considered the secondary antagonist even though Colonel Herman Dietrich had higher authority, is it because Toht drove the plot more, got more screen-time and was more of a threat to Indy than Dietrich? And with Pinocchio why are Honest John, Gideon, Stromboli and the Coachman all main antagonists?
But wasn’t Dietrich, Belloq’s second-in-command? And the one giving the orders and was closer to Belloq and was talking to Belloq while Toht doesn’t say or do anything and Dietrich got more screen time than Toht and Dietrich had higher authority than Toht, so Toht was working under him, this is why I think Dietrich is the secondary.
Well, to sum it out, even though Yon-Rogg had more screen-time, the Supreme Intelligence drove the plot because it was responsible for sending Yon-Rogg and Starforce to Earth, which led to the creation of Captain Marvel in the first place. Plus, Yon-Rogg is loyal to the Supreme Intelligence. You have to understand that even though some main villains don't get much more screen-time than others, they still act out because their plans anre motives stand out as the main threat, and clearly, the Supreme Intelligence was the main threat due to its plot of exterminating Skrulls and Yon-Rogg was just enforcing it, making him the secondary antagonist.
Well, he was answering to Miles Axelrod, who was the brains behind the plot to make alternative fuel look bad and had bigger plans than anyone else, including Professor Z. Even during the final fight, Professor Z admitted that he couldn't deactivate the bomb that Axlerod himself activated. Even though Professor Z had more screen time, Axlerod is the still the main threat driving the plot.
True, but Professor Z was still acting up on Axlerod's orders. And to be honest, I tried forwarding this issue about Randall Boggs, but my hands are tied, and I can't press it further into another edit-war with the admins. I'm sorry, but that's how it has to be.
Look, I'm not sure if we bring that issue into action, because I'm not the right person you should talk to about this. Why not get in contact with the admins about this? Maybe one of them could discuss this.