Talk:Supervillain
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Supervillain Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
- REDIRECT Template:Archives
About citations and vagueness in definition of "Supervillain"
Now yes, I'm pretty sure you guys have found the lack of citations a problem in itself, but the main beef I have is how this results in the precise parameters for supervillainry becoming awfully sketchy.
Part of the problem lies in the currently in-use citations themselves. Not all of them are really focused on the supervillain concept itself, and none of them give anything close to an actual working definition for "supervillain"; even those that do focus on the supervillain concept go about as if the reader is already perfectly familiar with what a supervillain is. That also makes their current use as citations dubious in regards to context within the article.
If readers were to go solely from what can be gleaned from both the article in its current form and the citations, they would infer that the supervillain concept is apparently most prevalent in comic books, where it was pretty much codified. I'm not disputing this or anything, but the reader must know why this is the case. More specifically, why is it that villains in other mediums who are practically identical to supervillains (i.e. Sauron, Palpatine, Ganon) are never considered such either in their respective articles or elsewhere (Palpatine is mentioned as such on this article, but the citations don't back that up in any way)? I mean, we have a "List of comic book supervillains", but no "List of (insert other medium here) supervillains". For what reason?
Abodos (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see this is a article that can be expanded. Feel free to do so. − Jhenderson 777 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Dubious alt title
Can any source confirm that "supervillainess" is more common for females than simply "supervillain"? As far as I know "villain" is not male-exclusive. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC) I think that a villain is a bad guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.25.46 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Supervillain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218045716/http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=006131;p=0 to http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=006131;p=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
First global super villian
I do not want to attempt an alteration of Wikipedia fearing I will not do it correctly, but will leave it up to others. It seems there should be an entry for global super villains, that is, villains intending to take over the whole world. The earliest I know of is the appropriately named “Master of the World” in one of the last books written by Jules Verne, “Master of the World” written in 1905. DocGoss (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)