FANDOM


Categories for Deletion

Note that this list is not final: any and all admins can contribute to the discussion, though which we will eventually (and hopefully) reach a consensus. Note that I have made this list with the opinion that not every franchise needs to have its own category, I suggest confining it to the important and well-known franchises. Categories in between paranthesis ( (...) ) are the categories I'm doubtful about myself.

Okay, people, seeing as the list is already getting quite long, I decided to split it up and do five letters each time. So we start with discussing A-E. Look through the list, and if you find a category you think we should not delete, it will be discussed in the section below the list. Once we all agree, the deletion spree of categories will start.

  • Birds villains - it should be named "Avian Villains" or "Birds".
    • I agreed. - Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 19:10, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • Dream Villains - the category's name is more like a sentence then a name.
    • The name is not scary or omnious or cool at all. I think "Nightmarish Villains" or "Living Nightmares" would be seriously beneficial. - Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 00:30, July 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Turns out the category is a ripoff of "Thought Forms". False alarm, everyone. - Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 19:10, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • Heroes Lover - copycat and total rip-off.
  • Husband Stealers - no longer valid nor useful.
  • In love Villains - another worthless rip-off.
  • Koopas - unnessecary.
  • Masters of Evil members - still under the Masters of Evil.
  • Patricide - should have named it "Patricidal Villains" or "Patricidal Maniacs".
  • Pinocchio Villains - should we keep this category?
  • Plague - same thing as Parasites, Super-Organism and Hostile Species.. all crammed into one category.
  • Evil Pokemon - still under the "Pokemon Villains" category.
  • Sesame Street Villains - it is under "Muppets Villains" category.
  • Snow White Villains - should we keep this category?
  • Wife Stealers - no longer valid nor useful.
  • Yu-Gi-Oh! GX villains - still under the "Yu-Gi-Oh! Villains" category.


And before anyone asks: Yes, there are a lot of categories on my list:


Other things I would like to note:

  • Animal villains & Anthropomorphic villains seem to fullfill the same purpose now.
  • Artificial Intelligence and Robots seem rather alike now.
  • Do we really need to list villains by the weapon they use? (i.e. Archers, Axemen, Bludgeoners, Bombers, Boxers, Clawed Villains, etc. )
  • Do we want to keep the Gallery categories?
  • I'm doubtful about "Cartoon Villains" & "Cartoon Network Villains." Thoughts about this?

Community discussion

If you ask me about all the categories with less than 10 entries, including the categories about one book/movie and one or two sequels: well forgive me for my lack of composture but... OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!! AND NO PITY !!!!!!


I know that some categories you mentioned (Aladdin, Ace Attorney, Banjo&Kazooie) are well beloved but with too few category but I think that we must be pragmatic before everything else. This is matter of debate though. For me "[insert series name] villains" categories must be for long running franchises, with a bare minimum of 20. (I know that there is less than 20 entries in gamebooks villains but I plan on writting four more; but I digress.) In the same way, we must stick to ONE category per franchise. As you say, Batman Beyond is still Batman. Bagramon Army is Digimon. Death Eaters and Sith are Harry Potter and Star Wars...

Now there is some categories like "Dragon Quest" that does not meet the required minimum but might, since there is many more articles to add. (I am currently working on "Dragon Quest: Dai's Quest" as you might have noticed for instance, and there is a potential article for each villain in each game.) The questions being: "When will they be written?" or even "Will they be written one day?". Do we let the benefit of the doubt?

You raised the question of the "[insert studio name] villains" category with "Blue Sky". Well I for one think that "Disney" is almost an institution more than a studio. But the other ones are debatable. (And I find "non-disney" a useless stuff-all-in.) Yet which can we leave and which can we delete? I would say once again "lets stick to a pragmatic minimum". As for "Capcom Villains" and "Nintendo Villain" that are frequently deleted and recreated, I say let's stick to the franchises.

As for "AVGN", "Guy with glasses" and "Annoying Orange" I (unintentionally) you know that if it was for me alone, I would have trashed not only the categories but every entry within long ago. (Save from the Nerd and the Critic) Since to me they are all jerks/nuisances without villainous purpose, even by internet standards. But let's take a chill pill. I would say lets go through the vote "delete/keep" that was lauched for them and never finished.


You also raised the question of subcategories. To me most "Anthropomorphic Characters" is valid and distinct from "Animal villains". They are all animals but the reverse is not true and Scar and the like are NOT anthropomorphic. To me, a subcategory is valid for the most reccurent occurences. But I think that subcategories for subcategories is most needless. Let me explain my point of view:

  • "Animal" being divided between : "birds", "reptilians", "dinosaurs", "feline", "canine", "insectoid", "arachnid" is valid. But I doubt that dividing, say "feline" between "tigers", "lions", yadda yadda, is useful. Snake is a debatable exception since its strongly villain-themed but once again I say, lets be pragmatic above all.
  • "Villains related to the hero" : We have enough "brother of hero", "maternal villains" and "father of hero" to keep them but as for the others.... And while I am at it I thinks that "siblings" "parents" and "married" have far too little relevance to be kept.
  • And so on and so forth.


"Acid Users" I do think that "villains by weapon choice" is valid but we must be strict. I think we must keep them when 1) the use of the weapon if a DEFINNING characteristic. Radcliffe and Frollo use a sword once but they don't wield it all the time. 2) the weapon is frequently used in media 3) when its not redundant. "Boxer" "Wrestler" and the like fit in "martial artists".


Well this is what I think. To sum it up, no matter the category I strongly recommand we stick to three major points

  1. a strict minimum
  2. Relevance towards villainy. (ie: Is that a reccurent aspect of villains that help define the villainous character in itself?)
  3. Not too much sub-categories. (Too much precision kills precision.)

(Mode parrot on) Be pragmatic above all. Hope it helps. Balthus Dire 15:24, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

One question about this is, how many pages is too little? I always figured that 8 pages is the minimum, since it fills up the pictures at the top.--Snakewhip 15:52, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well I for one am in favour of a strict minimum of 15 to 20 pages, which would set a limit and avoid too many categories created. But this is a matter of debate. Balthus Dire 16:50, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


Wauw Balthus Dire, you sure are someone for writing long messages! XD

Anyway, when making my list, I made a minimum of 20 pages, with certain exceptions where I figured more pages were to be written, which I could do myself (i.e. Elder Scrolls Villains can easily contain 50 pages). 8 seems to few to me. Nesty Contact me! 17:07, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


Indeed I tend to be very prolific. Truth to be told I prefer making several points in one mail but for the sake of understanding I should perhaps divide them. Anyway, that makes two in favour of a minimum of 20. Let's see what others will say. Shall we make a vote? Balthus Dire 23:55, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

We should also vote on gettin' rid of the categories that is both the misspelled & copycat duplicates of the real categories. I know, me & a few others tried so much to get rid of this pesky problem. :-/ Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 20:20, April 4, 2012 (UTC)


We can't erase the Evil Hideouts. That would not be totally fair. Of course they're not villains for pete sake, but they're the type of Villainous Tools that primarily serves as homes and bases of operations to all villains & monsters & all that crap. Seriously. Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 20:20, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Evil Arenas should be deleted. There's no exact problem with it. Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 01:13, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

CarmEvil does not have 1 villain. Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 21:55, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Evil Arenas does not have the set minimum of pages, nor did CarnEvil, so that one was redeleted. I will open a vote on Evil Hideouts once I get there. And stop removing entries from my list please. Nesty Contact me! 08:35, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Category: Wolverine Villains

Me personaliy, I believe that some of the Sub-Categories from the Marvel Villains should be deleted. Some excamples are, Iron Fist Villains, Deadpool Villains, and so forth, because these heroes aren't that well known. While others such as Wolverine Villains should stay because of three reasons;

1). Wolverine is very well known by anyone who is a Marvel fan, sometimes even more than the X-men members themselves.

2). There's an entire Comic book series that's all about Wolverine and the friends and enemies he's encounters.

3). There are several villains that Wolverine has encountered that the other X-Men members haven't fought yet such as Citadel, an organization known as Strikeforce X and many more. If you want proof, take a look at this website; http://www.rapsheet.co.uk/RapSheetMain/Wolverine.asp. This website shows most of the villains that Wolverine has encountered. Venage237 20:36, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Venage237 14:13, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.