Talk:List of horror film villains

message: I think that the mask should not be counted as the killer. There were five different killers that wore that mask. They should all be listed individually instead of 'Ghostface'. Yeldarb68 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghostface?

message: I just wanted to bring over a point I made in the deletion discussion--if this list survives AfD, then it will need significant trimming; I'm not sure if any names can survive.  First, any character without it's own Wikipage or reference must go--otherwise, we have no verification that the character is a serial killer.  Note that a quotation or other reference to the movie itself could be considered acceptable, but we need something say "Character X is a serial killer," either in-universe or in outside press. Second, even some of the characters with wikipages need to go.  For example, Norman Bates is a highly notable character, certainly a valid inclusion on many lists.  He does not, however, meet the definition of Serial Killer--note from that page that it a "serial killer" is not just any person who murders more than one victim.  
So, per WP:OR and WP:V, we need verification that each entry meets the criteria of the list. I'm not going to look now, as I'm hoping the list just will be deleted at the AfD, but if it survives, I'll get around to pruning eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've started the long and stressful (on my wrists at least) process of fixing the links as the page makes it appear that all the characters have their own page when in fact all of them are redirected to their respective film pages. At this time, it looks like about 98% will ultimately be non-notable characters just listed here for the sake of it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd say, don't worry about it yet.  I think that keeping this article would be a mistake, so I'm certainly hoping (not expecting, as I know that my position on deletions, especially for lists, doesn't always match the community's) that the AfD will be decided Delete, in which case no need to do the work now.  I'm all for working on articles under AfD if it increases the chance of the article being kept, but that's not he case here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there you have it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then.  I won't have time to remove the info for a couple of days at least, but let me start a discussion below that should simplify the issue.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of OR inclusions 

message: While the policy on stand-alone lists is currently fluctuating (see WP:NNC and WP:NLIST), the issue of what items should or should not be included is ultimately a matter of consensus.  It used to be explicitly stated that stated (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that "editors may agree by consensus to limit a stand-alone list to only items that have independent notability", meaning, their own wikipage.  Do the editors here agree to such a limitation?  That is, do others agree that this list should only contain people who are notable in their own right?  If that is the case, we would start the trimming process by eliminating anyone on the list who does not have their own page.  That requires consensus.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it should be limited to notable characters (notable by the definition detailed at WP:NOTE and not "he's notable because I like him"). Otherwise, what would keep this list from just becoming some never ending list of random characters who were classified as a "serial killer".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability criteria for this list

message: Okay, I'm going to, whenever I feel like I'm in the mood, start removing people.  Because this page has no references, I have only one thing to work off of --the character's wikipages (if they have one) or the movie's page, if they don't.  If neither page uses the word "serial killer," and the description doesn't seem to fit the definition found at serial killer, I'm removing them from the list.  If at any point anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me, but please justify inclusion here on this talk page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify--some of the movies are included in the category "Serial Killer"--that is not sufficient to be kept here, as that doesn't provide any evidence the category fits (I'm actually removing the category from those pages while I'm at it).  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As IPs are often coming by and adding that category to pages when it doesn't actually fit. I'll try and assist with the delinking procedure and going through with the removal process by looking at the films.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that one nice thing is that I almost never watch films like this, so at least I don't feel like I'm losing something by having their plots spoiled for me.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm on the fence when it comes to any character from The Devil's Rejects or House of a 1000 Corpses, as they do find pleasure in killing, but they are not seeking prey. They kill whomever manages to find their backwoods house. It's not really the same, because they don't have motive to seek out new victims, and the films only show them killing masses of people at a time and not one or two across with breaks in between.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the kill groups just because they show up, that doesn't really sound like a serial killer.  If you take them, out, I'll believe you.  But, you know, after thinking more clearly about our discussion here, it occurs to me that we're right on the borderline of engaging in original research--we're deciding whether or not a certain Character meets a certain criteria.   Technically, all we should be deciding is whether or not the person is named as a serial killer, either in the movie, in promotional materials, or in reviews.  That would mean that even if someone met the definition, but was not labeled as such, then we should take it out. Similarly if they are labeled as serial killers by a reliable source (which would count in-universe labeling in the movie), then we would have to leave it in.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the movies or to materials about them, so I can't do anything other than rely on the movies' wikipages and my own judgment.  This is a bad sign...at some point (maybe today if I can formulate it properly), I'll change the lead to explain more clearly the inclusion criteria for the list.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was kind of OR for them to be added in the first place. We're just weeding out other people's OR. I don't think you can consider it OR to remove stuff that fails to meet the definition that is reliably sourced itself. I'm all for accepting people who have reliable sources stating they are "serial killers" (and I don't consider some random person's blog professional enough to make that assessment), yet they don't meet the Wiki definition. As long as they either meet the criteria, or are specifically identified as such in the film or through reliable, professional sources (e.g., Jason and Freddy are characterized as "mass murderers" in a scholarly journal that did a study on various horror icons). One example would be Simon Cartwright, from The Ugly, who is specifically identified in the film as a "serial killer" but isn't even on this page. That just shows you how bias and OR-riddled this page already is. That said, I am familiar with most of these films (I have quite a few of them), so I'll look them over more and start removing who really isn't a serial killer.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It is true that what we are doing is removing other OR.   So I'll keep up removing whenever I feel like working on this (it's not very exciting editing, but necessary), relying mainly on the target pages, and bringing questionable cases here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: As far as Dr. Giggles, he's more of a spree killer or just a simple multiple murderer. There's no cool off period during the film. He kills multiple times in a single day, and it all takes place over the course of a couple of nights. To lumped together to be considered a "serial" killer. Don't know about the other, as I've never seen that film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I recently watched the very sleazy Don't Open Till Christmas. Giles is a spree killer, one whose motive essentially boiled down to "A childhood trauma has caused me to hate Christmas, so I'm going to kill what is essentially the personification of it over and over again." -- Lord Crayak (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning Removals

message: Some specifics on special/borderline cases:
A number of movies are about demons, vampires, or other supernatural creatures.  I'm pretty sure that by definition none of these can count--the motives will never match serial killer motives, they don't follow the same timing, etc.  So, I'm going to go ahead and say that any horror film about non-humans automatically doesn't qualify.
*Baby Firefly (The Devil's Rejects) may or may not fit the category; plot summary says they killed lots of people, over a period of time; since I'm not sure, Keep.  Someone with more familiarity with the movie could remove if appropriate.  
*Ben {Dexter} (Captivity) may fit; plot summary seems to include many previous murders, so I'll err on the side of Keep. 
*Bernie (Moonstalker), Bobo the clown (Out of the Dark), Neal Booker (Blink), Karl the Butcher (Violent Shit): none of their pages have enough to make a clear determination, so they've been removed.
*Debbie Brody (Bloody Birthday): seems sociopathic, but not a serial killer.
*Buster the Clown ("We All Scream for Ice Cream"): not a movie
I took out others, but those were more straightforward. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the fence when it comes to any character from The Devil's Rejects or House of a 1000 Corpses, as they do find pleasure in killing, but they are not seeking prey. They kill whomever manages to find their backwoods house. It's not really the same, because they don't have motive to seek out new victims, and the films only show them killing masses of people at a time and not one or two across with breaks in between.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the kill groups just because they show up, that doesn't really sound like a serial killer.  If you take them, out, I'll believe you.  But, you know, after thinking more clearly about our discussion here, it occurs to me that we're right on the borderline of engaging in original research--we're deciding whether or not a certain Character meets a certain criteria.   Technically, all we should be deciding is whether or not the person is named as a serial killer, either in the movie, in promotional materials, or in reviews.  That would mean that even if someone met the definition, but was not labeled as such, then we should take it out. Similarly if they are labeled as serial killers by a reliable source (which would count in-universe labeling in the movie), then we would have to leave it in.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the movies or to materials about them, so I can't do anything other than rely on the movies' wikipages and my own judgment.  This is a bad sign...at some point (maybe today if I can formulate it properly), I'll change the lead to explain more clearly the inclusion criteria for the list.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was kind of OR for them to be added in the first place. We're just weeding out other people's OR. I don't think you can consider it OR to remove stuff that fails to meet the definition that is reliably sourced itself. I'm all for accepting people who have reliable sources stating they are "serial killers" (and I don't consider some random person's blog professional enough to make that assessment), yet they don't meet the Wiki definition. As long as they either meet the criteria, or are specifically identified as such in the film or through reliable, professional sources (e.g., Jason and Freddy are characterized as "mass murderers" in a scholarly journal that did a study on various horror icons). One example would be Simon Cartwright, from The Ugly, who is specifically identified in the film as a "serial killer" but isn't even on this page. That just shows you how bias and OR-riddled this page already is. That said, I am familiar with most of these films (I have quite a few of them), so I'll look them over more and start removing who really isn't a serial killer.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It is true that what we are doing is removing other OR.   So I'll keep up removing whenever I feel like working on this (it's not very exciting editing, but necessary), relying mainly on the target pages, and bringing questionable cases here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: B Section

message: D section trimmed.  The only one I'm not really confident about is "*Dollface (The Strangers)", which I took out.  Other than in the category at the bottom, I don't see the phrase "serial killer" on the article.  But I can see how the plot might lead to that definition.  Open to other opinions.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: D section

message: I just did G, and have 2 I'm not sure about: Dr. Giggles aka Rendell Jr. (Dr. Giggles); *Giles (Don't Open Till Christmas).  The first seems more like a rampage, not like someone who regularly and steadily kills; the second doesn't really have much info, but also seems like a spree killer.  I left them in, but would be happy for others to remove.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Dr. Giggles, he's more of a spree killer or just a simple multiple murderer. There's no cool off period during the film. He kills multiple times in a single day, and it all takes place over the course of a couple of nights. To lumped together to be considered a "serial" killer. Don't know about the other, as I've never seen that film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I recently watched the very sleazy Don't Open Till Christmas. Giles is a spree killer, one whose motive essentially boiled down to "A childhood trauma has caused me to hate Christmas, so I'm going to kill what is essentially the personification of it over and over again." -- Lord Crayak (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: G Section

message: Would anyone object to me removing all of the characters for which the movies are redlinked?  Two rationale: 1) If the movie isn't notable enough for its own wikipage (or that notability hasn't been established yet), then the character isn't notable enough to be on the list 2) Without a wikipage or reference, we can't actually confirm that the character meets the definition of serial killer.  Personally, I'd like to strip them all out, but looking for others' input. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with that. We're still trying to remove (and keep removed) characters that are not actually serial killers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redlinks? 

message: Either the IP or Lord Crayak needs to explain why the entire focus and scope of this list was radically changed without discussion.  Without some justification, I'm strongly inclined to revert all of the changes.  Perhaps there is a need for this list, but 1) I don't think the old list should effectively be deleted and 2) we need to be sure such a list doesn't already exist. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need justification for massive change and move 

message: Can we move this page to a title that doesn't violate WP:ANTAGONIST a hundred times over? It's bad enough that the article doesn't list any sources. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ANTAGONIST 

message: This article has no citations for any of the characters it lists. I suggest that every entry should include at least one source, and three sources maximum. Some suggestions of sources to add would be Rotten Tomatoes, an/or reviews that specifically name the character as the antagonist of the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Michael Myers (Halloween) is only mentioned in a film title and not listed as a villain in his own right. Any reason or is this just an oversight?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.240.238 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Myers 

message: I don't think that the notability of most of the character is in question, I'm just trying to figure out why we need List of horror film villains when we have :Category:Horror film characters and if a more specific one doesn't exist, why we couldn't just make it more specific. Usually, "list of" pages work better when there isn't a category that does the job already. That's basically what this page is...a category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that you will find notability in the "list" of horror villains. They are all notable in their own right, I'm sure (maybe not all), but this just seems like a catch all for any horror villain. I'm not seeing a point to this page. I'll give the creator (or current editors) a chance to rebut. After that, I say we propose a move to an appropriate category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

text: These kinds of articles are often cruft farms, but WP:CLN makes it fairly clear that we can't delete lists simply because a relevant category exists.  However, I think this article could use some serious cleanup.  Restricting it to characters who already have their own page (per WP:LSC) would make it a lot more readable.  If we did delete this page, it would basically have to be because the list itself fails our notability criteria, as defined by WP:LISTN.  It seems likely there are reliable sources that describe horror villains as a group; this is a major source of listicles on entertainment websites.  And some of these articles are bound to be of higher quality. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  --- Think we've give this enough time?    BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Enough time for what? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we need to officially do something. The last thing I said was lets give the creator a chance to address the discussion or make changes, and that was back in April. Honestly, other than us and the random IPs, there doesn't appear to be much traffic from editors here.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally would probably reduce the list to just those characters who have their own article, such as Norman Bates, Pinhead (Hellraiser), and the Tall Man (Phantasm). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: My real question is, does the list need to exist when there is a category that covers it already? If it's just a list of people with their own article, a category requires an article to exist to list people generally (not always, but mostly).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Because it's just a list, and not an article about horror villains, I'm inclined to think we should just "delete" the page. The current category already suffices as a list, it's alphabetized and you don't have to figure out where someone goes when you add them to the category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could make sense to have this kinda list if we kept it to characters who have their own articles.★Trekker (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference between this list and the category that does the same thing? This is just a category turned into an article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Having a category doesn't mean a list can't also exist. For example List of horror films of 2018 and :Category:2018 horror films. 2) The category :Category:Horror film characters does a very poor job of showing horror film villains since there are tons of horror film characters who aren't villains.★Trekker (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You can easily create a :Category:Horror film villains though, and then it will only be populated by ones that have an article (which was your suggestion about who to include in this list). Yes, they don't necessarily preclude one another, but you still have to show notability with a list page (notability doesn't extend to categories). There's no notability shown for a list that just has names of horror villains. Notability is not inherited from the articles in the list.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Wikipedia allow categories like "villains" and such? I know the comic book project doesn't allow those words in general. If Wikipedia does then I do think that a category would be good. But I still question why a list would need to to be held up to GNG since this type of list (not an overview) is mostly a navigation tool.★Trekker (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, they are still subject to the GNG. If it wasn't a stand-alone list, but just a separated piece of information, there is a bit more leeway, but that isn't the case. It's a page independent of anything else. As you pointed out, it's used only for navigation, so to me that makes it just a category....which is what they are used for: navigating across like themed topics that would always never be linked together. As for allowance, I'm not sure why the comic book project doesn't. That may be because of comic book characters' ability to swap sides and be good or evil. I don't think that happens here that often. It's probably rare. To my knowledge. Wikipedia itself doesn't have a policy or guideline that would say no to that specific a category. According to WP:CATEGORY#Diffusing large categories, I would say that the large "Horror film characters" could be diffused down to "Villains" and "Protagonists", simply because a page that has "ALL" character is going to be quite large considering how many horror movies there are.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should have an article on the subject of "horror film villains", many of them (especially slasher killer) have become pop culture iconcs and far more well known that the series heroes. And if it is indeed ok to create a "Horror film villains" category then I think we should do that.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Should we move this page to Horror film villains then? Or should we wait for more input?★Trekker (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do Draft:Horror film villains first (no reason to have 2 pages fighting for GNG establishment at the same time). Develop that page to the point that it's ready to come into the mainspace. Then, after looking at it and this page, I (community) would then make a decision as to whether it would best to simply merge this page into that one, trimming some of the unnecessary names. The category can be created now and populated through the articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the category and have been populating it.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability