Talk:Archenemy

Literary references
Is it me, or is the majority of names on this list a collection of comic book, cartoon and video game references? Aside from Moriarty, there are reletively no literary references. .... - Nick15 00:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Does this term come from the idea of archery? Arch enemies against eachother?



seems most plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.154.24 (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2006


 * I don't think so; "arch-" seems to be a general prefix meaning "most important", as in archdeacon, archduke and, for Discworld fans, Archchancellor. It might be Greek. Daibhid C 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many archenemies
A number of characters are listed as having four or five archenemies. I think two is just about acceptable (especially if they're different kinds of enemy), but beyond that they're simply not archenemies any more. You can't have half a dozen "most significant foes"; it just stops meaning anything. Daibhid C 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through and rearranged some, where the archenemies were either misplaced or wrongly attributed. I also took out enemies who were simply "rogues" and not overtly more important than other villains. Spider-Man, Superman and Batman are the ones where it's hardest to define their "greatest" enemy, since they have often faced several that dig under their skin or hold a great deal of power. Cybertooth85 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's pretty clear that, at least from the perception of the general public, that Batman's archenemy is the Joker, and Superman's archenemy is Lex Luthor. Spider-man is a bit tougher to categorize, because Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom are all about equally famous.
 * Also, I'm concerned that other types of villains, such as secondary villains (i.e. Jabba the Hutt or Boba Fett), or Big Bads (i.e. the season major villains from Buffy), are being listed as arch-enemies when they really don't qualify as such. This is especially true for TV shows. If a character is the main villain in one season, but is killed off and replaced by another character in the next season, then he's not really an "arch-enemy" unless he was the major villain for the majority of the franchise's run, or he's made a major impact on the franchise that continues to echo long after his initial "death". I.E. the Master from Buffy, Murdoc from McGuyver, Slade/Deathstroke from Teen Titans. Just my 2 cents. Joylock 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of characters listed under the archenemies section seem to be there due solely to their importance in a respective series. However, this does not appear to be consistent with the definition given in the opening paragraph, in that they are not primarily associated with a particular character. Sauron, for instance, is listed as being the archenemy in Lord of the Rings, yet if 'archenemy' is taken to mean the primary antagonist toward a particular character or fictional organization, he really doesn't seem to qualify as an archenemy, despite being the primary antagonist toward the series as a whole. Of course, my understanding of the term archenemy may be somewhat inaccurate. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to imply a lack of overlap between 'archenemies' and 'main antagonists' if taken as separate categories, only that an 'archenemy' tends to relate to a particular character, where a 'main antagonist' tends to relate to relate to a series as a whole. Again, I may be misunderstanding these terms.66.24.238.22 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This list seems to have too many characters without references to prove what they are saying is true I suggest if a character does not have reference from a reliable source it should be removed.

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim McKeon
Tim McKeon doesn't exist. Who keeps putting that name there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.18.41 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Archenemies of Superman
I believe that DC Comics' Ultraman is another archenemy of Superman, as in a dark mirror. Kanjilearner 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Naruto section...
Naruto isnt a cartoon ..its orgin came from the manga which is a comic book (in western terms) just like Dragon Ball Z ...76.28.224.23 08:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of archenemies
When does the list of archenemies get put back on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedOrange&Blue (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

??
Why can't I edit this article? Is it because I'm new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by fiercedeitylinkX 4:19PM, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

archenemy list
Maybe we should do all the archenemies in seperate ways but one in the same Comic book and Literature archenemies, tv show archenemies, movie archenemies, cartoon archenemies, and video game archenemies. Do that so that so it doesn't get too crowed abit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.101.238 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

personal significance
Where it is currently mentioned that qualifiers for a character being an archenemy include the scale on which they operate, how often they act as a threat compared to others, or their posing the greatest physical threat. However, it would seem that many characters are regarded as being archenemies due to having a more personal effect upon the hero, such as being responsible for a tragedy in the heroes life. I am not proposing that this article be greatly expanded on, only that this reason be added to the current list. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No Citations equals Removals
If there are no reliable references to prove that two characters are archenemies then I think they should be removed what does everyone else think? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, who a character's "archenemy" is seems to be mostly based on fan consensus, so it'll probably be hard to find a "reliable reference" on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a criteria, as you are suggesting is highly original research which I doubt wikipedia allows Dwanyewest (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what criteria do you think makes a character another characters "arch"-enemy then? How do you "prove" that a character is another character's arch-enemy and not just another enemy? And what makes a reliable source on this topic?Web wonder (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Master
Shouldn't the Daleks be listed as the Doctor's archenemy instead of The Master? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Web wonder (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's absurd. ONE MAN CAN NOT BE THE ARCHENEMY OF AN ENTIRE SPECIES. 67.169.219.226 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Spiderman
I believe that Venom (comics) is the archenemy of Spiderman, and should be added.--Doctor Foci Whom 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But alot of people (including myself) don't think he is Spiderman's Archenemy

Venom and Spider-Man have teamed up, without betrayal, on several occasions. Venom isn't even always a villain, for that matter! He lacks the consistent enmity and threat level necessary for a good archenemy; he's nowhere near the same league as GG or Doc Ock. Gustave the Steel (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the stupidest thing ever. There not arch enemies! Venom is just a bitter ex girlfriend who can't move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.247.216 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, he's a what? What are you smoking? 96.253.162.215 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...And the Venom bashers' arguments get even more retarded. Congrats on outdoing yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.53.133 (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Organizations as Archenemies?
I know that an organization can be a strong foe, but should the title of archenemy go to an individual rather than a group. I'm referring to the Combine from HL and the Covenant from Halo. Anyone else see that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.82.194 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think it's fair for two Organizations or Species to be eachother's arches, but not the arches of individuals. I think I'll mention this in it's own section...67.169.219.226 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tartarus and the Arbiter
Who keeps deleting my example in the Halo universe of The Arbiter and Tartarus? That's a perfectely good example. 96.253.162.215 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NO!!!
Who Deleted The Example List? That Was A Terrible Idea! It Must Be Restored At Once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.162.215 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2008

WHY?
I think the example list should be restored, why was it deleted anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.85.194 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of you editors are idiots many of the listed examples were arbitrarily added with so source material to back up the statements see WP:PROVEIT

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They were deleted because this isn't a "list of..." article - we provide examples via prose, we don't provide a never ending list of examples. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew this would happen one day, which is why I added the / Etymology / section. At least I can add this page back to my watch-list and still be able to notice other watch-listed pages now. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fewer super-hero references
Archenemies exist outside of Spiderman, Batman, Superman, whateverman sagas. Shouldn't remove some of them and add a couple of classic references? E.g. Holmes vs. Professor Moriarty. Nicholas A. Chambers 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.a.chambers (talk • contribs)

Go for it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comic references should stay, it already tagged as expand, I properly categorized comical references, you may add any classic references you like unless you delete info. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR on contested entry additions
A list of fictional archenemies was recently closed as delete. In order to preserve the more useful items, I re-added them to this parent article. I placed a comment/notice of this in the article for future editors. User 70.111.13.52 added further unsourced entries. I reverted the edit, expanded the comment and provided summary. The user the reverted me two more times, re-adding the entries and removing the expanded comment and bot corrections. Finally, User:Supuh reverted me once more. I am now on 3RR and am taking this to the Talk page. I am assuming good faith against the unexplained reverts over new entries and other changes.

The consensus has been established and these items have been deleted. I restored the entries in good faith so that the list may be expanded with sourced verifiable additions. This seemed like the best course of action instead of letting the list disappear. However, even current entries barely pass verifiability. So I am strongly opposing more unsourced entries, which for all purposes here is WP:OR. So I contest this material (as true as it may be) for its validity and ask for burden of evidence on the additions. This list has already been deleted and items should not be restored without further discussion. If the user wished to contest the deletion, this should be done in Deletion review. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I placed a RfC as more editors keep adding unsourced entries and this will soon become unmanagable. Unfortunately, I suspect the original editor may not respond to me here. The decision was clear — delete. But I am in breach of 3 reverts to keep restoring the page. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to your version of the article, and restored some sourced entries from the previous version before the article was split. Also, if there are entries in the list which were not there in the pre-split versions (253619285 and ones found here) then we are required to provide attribution per the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Therefore, if there are such entries and we have consensus to merge them into this article, we should request the undeletion of the list (as a protected redirect to prevent editing, if necessary) so that the page history is visible. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the discussion was closed as delete and not merge. I forgot about the attribution, so I may double-check if there are any entries needing attribution. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping this list to only sourced entries. If someone decides to edit war over this they can visit this discussion page to work it out. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New Format Proposal
In addition, I have a proposal for a cleaner, less muddled, more organized format for the list, if indeed it is now staying on this article. Alright, here is my proposal: Name of originating media: SIDE A ARCHENEMIES (Typically good guys) - SIDE B ARCHENEMIES (Typically bad guys).

EXAMPLE: BASIC

Superman Comics: Superman - Lex Luthor

EXAMPLE: MULTIPLE ON ONE SIDE

Doctor Who: The Doctor - The Master/Davros

EXAMPLE: MULTIPLE ON BOTH SIDES

Halo Series: Master Chief/Cortana - 343 Guilty Spark/Gravemind

EXAMPLE: SUB-ARCH

Spiderman Comics: Spiderman - The Green Goblin/Doctor Octopus
 * Venom Comics: Venom - Carnage

EXAMPLE: MORE THAN TWO SIDES

Lost: Person A - Person B - Person C (see below) (Here)I do not watch Lost, but I remember seeing that it's listing here had some kind of "three-way" archenemies.

Does this satisfy all? 67.169.219.226 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to have it in sentences. PersonA is archenemy of PersonB in WorkA. MonsterA, MonsterB, and MonsterC are archenemies of HeroA in FilmA. Prose reads better than tables or syntaxed bullet-points. Special cases, such as Lost, should definitely be explained in prose. Indentation should be avoided unless there are many sub-items. Also, note that boldface is reserved for special cases only and italics should be used instead for emphasis. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Individuals - Organizations/Species
Okay, we need to get this straight: One or Two individuals CANNOT be the archenemies of an entire Organization or Species. Of this I feel very strongly. You can have individuals be the arches of eachother (i.e. Master Chief & Cortana - Guilty Spark & Gravemind), and you can have whole species and organizations be the arches of eachother (i.e. Covenant - UNSC), but you cannot cross these wires (i.e. Master Chief - Covenant). Agreed? 67.169.219.226 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability and not truth. This means a reliable source will have to say who is arch-enemy of who. If the source(s) says Covenant are arch-enemies of Master Chief, then so must the article. Unfortunately, neither your nor my personal preference determines inclusion criteria. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability and not truth LOLWUT 71.125.151.139 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability – "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Limit to the number of examples
I propose that we establish consensus on how many examples is enough per medium/category. This is an indiscriminate list and fails many of stand-alone list features. This is why it was deleted in the first place. This article should serve some well-referenced examples of notable rivalries, not list every pair that can be referenced. Wikipedia is about well-written prose, not indiscriminate lists. Therefore, is 5 enough? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And how are we going to determine what's notable. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As for my opinion, the comic, video game and toys section I think has the most important and notable ones of the certain topic down. I think there is a few on the tv,literature and anime and manga, and literature section that's not notable enough on there and as for the film there still could be more notable rivalries like Mr. Smith, archenemy of Neo, Doctor Evil, archenemy of Austin Powers etc. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Entries with one or more third-party sources can be presumed to be notable. All other entries should be deleted unless there is some other evidence of notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is already being done to an extent. I haven't verified each and every one, but I delete unsourced entries when I see such added. Regarding third-party, this list is borderline on being plot-like, so good primary sources may be suited as well in some cases. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK


 * Sometimes I question some sources, for example like Boba Fett and Jabba the Hutt being considered as archenemies of Han Solo. I feel like they were just enemies for financial reasons. So we really need to limit some sources being considered as reliable. The more sources there is to prove that X is archenemy of Y, the more we can prove their notability to be included on here. And please read the source, definitely when it's said that two or more X's are archenemy of Y. Sometimes the source didn't actually quote that X is archenemy of Y or it was an editing site that won't do on something like this. I try to watch on stuff like this but I do get weary of it sometimes. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Diesel - the archenemy of Duck
 * Dr. Robotnik - the archenemy of Sonic the Hedgehog
 * Bowser/King Koopa, archenemy Of Mario
 * and…
 * Father, archenemy of the Kids Next Door 35.142.89.182 (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Vegeta?
Should Vegeta be added to the Archenemy page or not? 173.79.43.139 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Watching a little bit of Dragon Ball shows myself. I am just wondering who he would be a archenemy of or who would be a archenemy of him. He was a rival of Goku for a while but Freiza would be revealed more a archenemy of him a later on. His inclusion would only do though if he is reliably sourced. And if so he belongs in the anime and manga section. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just fiction?
Why limit the definition of archenemy to fictional enemies? It is frequently used to refer to real-world rivals e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/19/3097132.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.145.113 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be more a peacock term as often used by media rather than an actual implication that they are arch-enemies. This would not pass as an actual source, but if you can find reliable, secondary uses that describe real-life arch-enemies, then go ahead and add/propose to add such material. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post has Spencer Pratt as Lauren Conrad's arch-enemy,. Israel is reported by many 'newspapers' to be Iran's arch-enemy. The word is also used outside fiction in scientific papers. Older versions of this article also had a section for arch-enemies in religion, and the Dictionary.com reference also shows that the word is used in religion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree that this term goes outside of fiction. Popular Wrestlers have had archenemy's on TV. Even though it is possible that it is staged to look like that. And I do think it's a good idea to explore an outside of fiction perspective of it. It looks like Joshua Isaac did his research pretty well and if he stays bold with his examples with he placed on here, he may put them in the article. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is really strange to limit use to fiction. On top of that as it means the most important enemy, how can an individual have more than one - even have a list of archenemies? Eddaido (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fiction and media don't follow the definition exactly, so we get multiple archenemies even though that kind of makes no sense at times. Regarding limit to fiction, as mentioned above, media uses it as a buzzword more than anything else. That said, if someone comes up with references, then we can include real life examples too. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Chruchill and Hitler? Leonidas and Xerxes? Brutus and Caesar? 71.59.165.129 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and changed the opening paragraph to accommodate for non-fictional arch-enemies as well. Now the problem is that there is no reference for the fictional part. I was not able to find any references saying that arch-enemies are commonly used in fiction.
 * H3llkn0wz makes a good point on the use of the word by the media. We should restrict claims of arch-enemy-type relationships between non-fictional entities to those that are backed up by multiple reliable sources which show that the relationship has enduring notability. I think that this would be covered by part 2 of What Wikipedia is not. Based on this, whether Churchill & Hitler, Leonidas & Xerxes and Brutus & Caesar are arch-enemies would simply come down to whether we can find several good sources that say that they are arch-enemies. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait, backpedal a second.
Just came onto this article to have a look around and looked at the comic book archenemies. There seemed to be one glaring omission; Batman and Joker? I can understand not mentioning some characters like Flash and Reverse Flash/Captain Cold/Gorilla Grodd (since he seems to get a new archenemy every decade), but Batman and Joker is perhaps the most well known example of an archenemy in the public consciousness, perhaps only rivaled by Lex and Superman. It's not like it's going to be hard to source it, so I'm just curious as to why it's not in the list? Comics (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is in the main examples: "Caused, or at least connected to, traumatic events and tragedies in the hero's life (e.g. the Joker and Batman,[11][12]..". This is probably the more common addition. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But then there's a doubling up of Lex Luthor, Dr Claw, Lord Voldemort and a few others who are also listed in the main examples. Comics (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They got to be removed then (unless we decide to duplicate items). I never checked it thoroughly after merge. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Child's Play
Andy to Chucky?--Austin Robinson 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

Toys vs Television
Why were Hordak and Skeletor in a different list then Megatron all 3 were toy-figures that wanted to sell so they came up with the cartoon shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.251.74 (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.109.128 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TV section

 * Dr. Drakken is the archenemy of Kim Possible in the Kim Possible series
 * Monkey Fist is the archenemy of Ron Stoppable in the Kim Possible series

Feel these should be added but cannot find appropriate references. However, if you follow the links to the biographies, wikipedia already has the characters listed as arch-enemies there. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Only One Archenemy
I think there should only be one archenemy for each hero or character as you can't have many no.1 enemies but many enemies. Like Mephisto is definitely the archenemy of Ghost Rider, Green Goblin for Spider-man, Magneto for the X-men, and Elmer Fudd for Bugs Bunny. The other archenemies for those characters are their top enemies, not their no.1 enemies. Karankyle (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We rely on reliable sources to establish who is whose enemy; sometimes the sources name several archenemies and we are not really allowed to select those we want -- that would be original research. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

minor clean up
I felt that havign the empty "In theater" category immediately before the vaguely named "In Play" category was messy. So I removed the "In Theater" part all together, and renamed "In Play" to "In Theater Perfromance." But I'm not entirely sure that was the best way to phrase it. It sounds awkward, just not as awkward as it was. 74.132.252.16 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Gollum nemesis of Samwise
Being a fan I do agree with you're assessment. As you can see here the key word is actually nemesis in most books. So there is that. Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute
@Jhenderson: I will repeat what Hellknowz posted previously.

"We rely on reliable sources to establish who is whose enemy; sometimes the sources name several archenemies and we are not really allowed to select those we want -- that would be original research. — HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)"

If you have an issue with whichever characters are named and included, or the validity of certain sources, please take it here. I'm more then happy to discuss and go through the fact check process. Our opinions are still opinions in the end, so please don't discredit someone else's just because you don't like it on a personal level, in spite of it being a reliable source. There are no hard and fast rules which state that every character is only ever allowed one archenemy, and that becomes apparent when you have characters which have been around for a very long time. Just look at Wonder Woman's entry!


 * The most dangerous enemy of the X-Men is not Apocalypse. It's the Sentinels, or whoever is leading/programming them. Apocalypse was consistently the main antagonist (alongside Magneto) of the X-Men and their spin-off groups as well as individual members from the 1980's to the 1990's, while the Brotherhood or its various incarnations faded in importance a long time ago. Apocalyse's role is much like Ultron with the Avengers in the sense that while he doesn't appear often, when he does it's always a major event. Magneto is the most complicated case amongst all of the other comic book characters on this page, as he's been on a revolving door of face and heel turns and hasn't functioned as an antagonist in well over a decade since the Xorn retcon. Like Emma Frost, Magneto has been on the protagonist's side for much longer then normal of comic book villains at the time of writing, but his personal rivalry with Xavier is consistent across all media, so for historical purposes it's included as it stands the test of time.


 * It's not up to debate as to whether Namor is a prominent Marvel character or not, and Attuma figures prominently as a rivalry in his backstory. Also, Fred Hemback is a cartoonist who is considered prominent enough to have his own wikipedia article. You're disputing it because you don't like his opinion, or you think his opinion is irrelevant?


 * Mystique was actually named in the story arc of Ms Marvel issues Vol. 2 #48-50 (published a few years ago) as Carol Danvers' arch enemy, not to mention that she first started off as a Ms Marvel villain. They have quite a bit of history together (setting her down the road of inner demons, depowering/repowering and codename changes, it's also an essential part of Rogue's origin story and indirectly led into Mystique's longtime conflict with the X-Men) and Danvers is currently being pushed by Marvel as one of its major female superheroes. Why wouldn't it be considered notable?


 * Superman: If it were up to me, I'd include Brainiac instead of Darkseid, but I've not come across any respectable sources expressing that opinion. Both About.com and IGN have rated Darkseid very highly on their villains list, and even mainstream media has taken notice of him when speculating about future Superman projects. Luthor is his most prominent enemy, doesn't mean he's the only archenemy Superman has ever had.


 * As for Batman, well I'll bring you IGN's entry on him from the Top 100 list:

"...Joker wasn't necessarily Batman's greatest enemy, a fact which would clearly make his high rank here a bit of a mystery."

Which they proceed to clarify that because of his prominent appearances on animated and live action media, as well as recent comic book works, most mainstream trains of thought now tend to associate him as the undisputed Batman archenemy. But there's definitely room for inclusion. Ra's and his legacy has played an increasingly bigger antagonist role within the Batman comics as time goes by, and if anything Nolan's recent trilogy has reasserted both of them as Batman's most important enemies. Listing him or other characters as an entry does not diminish Joker's or Luthor's importance in any way, or overcomplicate anything.


 * Deadpool's source is actually from the wiki page hosted by Marvel's website. The wiki is maintained by moderators, it's not free for all editing format like wikipedia or tvtropes. I can see where you're coming from, but keep in mind that the database is technically endorsed by Marvel itself, so I think it's canon.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I think it's necessary. My tone is not meant to be aggressive, so please pardon me if I come across as such. Comic book media is complicated by nature, and opinions are diverse and varied. I think this page's purpose is to name and organize such opinions, as long as they are from a reliable source.

As I have mentioned briefly while editing, the About.com ranking for top 10 villains list also name them as arch enemies of specific comic book superheroes. It's from the same author and source used to cite the top 10 arch enemies list which features prominently as a source on this page, and yes he did use the term "arch enemy" if you read the entries again. I'm curious to know why you're rejecting this source, but accepting the other one from the same author instead. To cherry pick what goes and what doesn't go in based on your personal opinion, it's original research.

Haleth (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is getting beyond stupid. If I had my way I would have the list entirely removed because of editors like you. Yes Superman, Batman and Fantastic Four have their own Rogues gallery beyond their archenemy. But that does not make their other enemies a archenemy. I can promise you if I asked Stan Lee or any other Marvel Comics writers (beside another random website) who is the archenemy of the Fantastic four. The answer would be Doctor Doom and only Doctor Doom. Why? Because he been written off as that. Ever since Man of Steel came out. General Zod has been described as a archenemy. Does that mean they know what they are talking about and should be put off as that on Wikipedia. NO. I can just see it now. We are going to put Brainiac, General Zod and Doomsday on the list as well. Also I am pretty sure we can find a article saying Bane is the archenemy ever since Dark Knight Rises happened even though I am pretty sure everybody knows that Joker is the archenemy of Batman. There should definitely be a limit with this. Also still Marvel.com is written by fanboys such as yourself and it being on a Wiki doesn't help prove notability for Wikipedia as well. Never mind that some you're new sources that you added are still not reliable. Do I have to link the reliable sources guideline for you. The only reason why I am not going to revert you is because I know you are going to edit war with me. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I am well aware that Namor is a big deal character. He is Marvel's first superhero for crying out loud. You don't think I don't know anything about these characters. I was mainly stating that not every Marvel Universe character needs to be on here. The source wasn't reliable. If you had a reliable source I would have allowed a Namor inclusion. Even though you are focusing on C-List characters such as Moon Knight, Namor and Cable (which are characters that I like btw but I still admit that they are not well known to a more common audience making their villain even less well known). Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've said this before ever since the original list was deleted that we should really limit the scope of entries if we are to include the list in the main article (which is kind of against the AfD result). Because I knew we'd be at this point one day when there are so many entries we are starting to argue about secondary archenemies, nemesis, recurring bad-guys etc. just because some source said it in passing. The list is about notable archenemies and we should only include notable examples. Since we cannot decide this ourselves (WP:OR), I don't see a much better way than to require each entry to be supported by at least 2 quality references that are not just in passing, but actually focus on the character and provide reception. Now that would be a notable example. After all, this article is about the concept of archenemy, not the list of archenemies (that was deleted). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I myself agree. We should do something else beside a list for a change. But I am honestly not sure of what else to do. Some kind of reception maybe but it doesn't sound like a easy change. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're just coming across as petulant with your ad hominem attacks. First off, of course sources should always be decided on their merits. I concede that not everyone might agree on a "source" being legit or reliable, but that's what the talk page is for, right? There are plenty of comic book websites maintained by readers who follow the comics or have at least done their research, but you dismiss them as mere "blogs". For example, quite a few of them have gone into massive detail likening Ra's al Ghul as some sort of anti-Batman, citing issues from over decades of comic publishing and how he is arguably tied with Joker as Batman's worthiest opponents. Meanwhile, there are plenty of entertainment websites who don't normally cover superheroes, but are included on this page as cited sources because they decided to cover a scoop about some upcoming superhero movie or TV show. I haven't seen you going through the entries and removing said websites because of their perceived out-of-touchness.


 * I'm not suggesting we open the floodgates to wanton additions for the sake of it. I'm really just making a case as to *why* you shouldn't arbitrarily remove information which derives from a source which isn't an open-edit site like tvtropes or the wikias. But that's besides the point. I haven't read comics in years and I occasionally keep myself updated through fan sites that provide convenient summaries for current ongoing issues and character franchises. Also, please remember that most of the comic book characters on this page have been around for a very, very long time. The X-Men franchise for example recently celebrated its 50 years, other comics have older histories. Things change, characters come and go, increase or decrease in importance and not everything stays the same, because writers and even editors themselves come and go, and each of them have their own visions for the franchises assigned to them. Batman wasn't always the gritty, moody character in the style of the Nolan trilogy and Alan Moore; Norman Osborn, as I discovered to my astonishment recently, have completely outgrown the Spider Man franchise and the Green Goblic persona; and Claremont and Morrison's take on the X-Men can't be any more different then Stan Lee's original vision for them. Xavier (who in his last years was ostracised by many of his own former students) was killed off last year courtesy of a Dark Phoenix possessed Cyclops, which would've been considered blasphemy had it been published 20 or 30 years ago. Even Magneto has been ally/member of the X-Men for the better part of the last 10 years - how could such a character be considered *the* definitive archenemy then, when he pulled the proverbial "if you can't beat them, join them" trope? But his love-hate relationship with Xavier is still being touched upon and explored by all other visual media outside of comics.


 * I was hoping you actually have something constructive to discuss. Alright, if you desire to have it entirely removed, go ahead and do it, or leave it alone as you do now. I won't stop you. But...maybe other editors might just come in and re-add most or even everything you have removed. In fact, a bot might even detect it as vandalism because of the abrupt blanking out and undo what you did automatically. The reason why you think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the Joker and Luthor are the only archenemies of their respective foes, is precisely what you're insinuating about the mainstream appeal certain characters have. They are simply better known to the general public because of exposure from beyond the comic book medium. You ought to know by now that people who follow the comic books or even their animation/live action media versions have strong opinions about what goes or doesn't go, the difference is this is wikipedia, not your personal fanpage or authoritative guide on the subject. You think there is definitely a limit about how many archenemies a protagonist in a work of fiction should have? Find a good source which supports your PoV and add it to the main article, but also read back at previous discussions on the talk page and you'll see that it is not favoured by the other editors. If you have nothing constructive to add or improve upon wikipedia entries and all you have to say is no to additions of cited sources because you think you know better then everyone else, you might want to vent your frustration elsewhere. Haleth (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hellknowz. I'll go back and try trimming the list down a little bit. I'm also of the view that the page shouldn't be unwieldy and cluttered, but at the same time, I think it can still be improved and expanded upon. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Jhenderson - C list characters would be people like Gateway, Dani Moonstar, and The Question. Namor, Cable and Moon Knight are definitely B-list since they are popular enough to have sustained a solo series or staunch regulars in A-list teamup titles on an on-and-off basis. Haleth (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

B-list. C-list. Whatever. That really is a subjective term that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. You know what I meant though. Not as well known. Let's just use that phrase and I am not trying to attack you. Also dude calm down. I don't mean to sound so harsh. I was just frustrated just like you were when you wrote your first comment on this section. Also please assume good faith and don't accuse me of WP:Own. I am just protective over Wikipedia on it being a factual statement. Yes reliable sources are necessary (also I didn't say every source you put down was unreliable. Some are and some aren't) but sometimes they can be wrong. An editor who helped make Blackheart a featured article contested a source because it sayed something different than what a historian did. So basically a conversation was done on the talk page like what we are doing now and the consensus was basically wasn't as reliable as the other source before it. That's basically what we are doing now. I respectfully disagree so let's just talk about this in a civil matter. Also please don't be offended by the word "fanboy". I wouldn't be. I even consider myself one. This is just in case you were. Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am kind of done with this conversation though. I am not going to revert you even though I disagree with you. I don't like edit warring. Anyone else is welcome to the conversation. If I was wanting the article my way I would have reverted you. Also I would have put Him as the archenemy of The Powerfuff Girls along with Mojo Jojo (because let's face it) he is a worse and more dangerous enemy than Mojo. Although I still accept that Mojo Jojo is still the archenemy even though I think Him is more dangerous. That's the way it goes some time. I really do like each and every villain you added. I am a fan. I feel Galactus is more of a threat than Doctor Doom but still I feel he isn't a archenemy. My two cents. I want to take a break from Wikipedia. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think that was frustrating, imagine how I felt when you indiscriminately removed information and the brief comments you left in your edit summaries which indicate that you felt they don't belong because of your opinion, not because they are unsourced/badly cited? Yes it didn't take long to find some of the sources at all, but it takes time and effort to make properly worded citations. Well, assume good faith as well, especially when something is provided with a source?


 * If I were to consider myself a fanboy of anything from the list of comic IP's...probably the X-Men? I don't really think of myself as such because I don't follow enough of it. You did start using the C-list terminology first. If I see a particular character or IP as "C-list", I wouldn't even bother making a case for notability, especially when the ultimate goal is to ensure the list is manageable and not bloated. Although I'm guilty for the Emplate/Gen X addition.


 * If you want to add "Him" to the Powerpuff Girls entry, then go ahead and add it if you have a good source! You're expressing concern about how this article lacks activity on my talk page, yet here you are talking about the list containing too many archenemies. That could discourage others from making positive contributions to what is already a slow page. It's all good as long as it has a citation which is not from wikia websites or tvtropes or anything similar, in my opinion.


 * Galactus isn't evil, but then again "evil" isn't the pre-requisite for being an archenemy. The fact that the movie rights to Galactus is tied up with the Fantastic Four movie rights bundle and Marvel can't use him for their MCU projects, says a lot about how important Galactus is to the FF mythos. Haleth (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be new to Wikipedia. People do that all the time here. I have to live with it too. Also everything I removed is because either it was a unreliable source (Not according to me but according to wikipedia's guideline) or because I didn't notice the article saying anything about them being a archenemy. which I still don't notice on About.com. The only one I contested was the Galactus and did I revert you a second time. No. I just made a bold edit removing it once. Also once again you are assuming bad faith which is a no-no in Wikipedia. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite new but I get involved in editing very infrequently. Only superficially familiar with some of the policies, but I know enough about referencing and citations. I can deal with trolls or anonymous users adding unsourced information or removing sourced info...just a bit unsettled when a regular editor does it.

The articles did...I even provided the direct link to each to the individual About.com entries instead of the summary page for the Top 10 Villains list. There's a brief write up about archenemies at the bottom of each of the entry, most importantly naming said archenemies, not much but it's there. The later sources I've provided contain more detailed info, particularly for Apocalypse and Ra's.

We'll put the discussion to rest then. I probably went overboard with the text walls, so I'll try and keep it short and discreet. Haleth (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I really think we should focus on who is the heroes archenemy. Superman being darkseids archenemy doesn't mean Darkseid is Superman's archenemy imo. But that is just me. Also Yahoo movies seems to like to call villains arch enemies. I don't think Zod is a archenemy of Superman but according to your rules the citation is always right. So here is another source. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Orion is also considered an archenemy of Darkseid back in the day in the New Gods series, although I don't know much about their history together. Either way, unlike Zod a strong case can be made for him being an archenemy for both Superman and for the Justice League collectively; I'm leaning towards JLA since it's often a team effort to take Darkseid down. Brainiac on the other hand has done almost as much as Luthor to hurt Batman on a physical as well as personal level. I understand that Wikipedia isn't meant to be definitive, but being inclusive isn't a bad thing I think.

I don't think I've said the "citation is always right", what I was trying to convey is that citations ought to fact checked and reviewed before it's cast aside as irrelevant and removed. But, I've provided several other sources for some of the other characters as well. Darkseid...well, only one and that's because I noticed him on that list along with other characters. To be honest, I'm not quite convinced with Darkseid, as I am with Ra's. The comic book blog I cited previously about Ra's makes a compelling case for Ra's being as important an antagonist to Batman as the Joker, because they really did their work digging through decades of Batman publication history, complete with citations and scanned panel images. Haleth (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I did fact check all your sources. Some sources are still not good sources but there is probably others on this page and it is not like it's going to be a good article any time soon. I am still not sure of about.com because it seems to focus on the antagonist side. Also I am not sure it's a good source. I allowed it though. Keep on editing though. don't let me keep you. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I'm glad Haleth realizes that his large blocks of text make it exasperating for other editors to come and comment; regardless of content, these kinds of text walls appear to disinterested editors as harangues. So, as a disinterested editor, I appreciate your cognizance of that.


 * Having been asked to comment, I would say we all know that not all citations are equal. A reliable source in some cases may not be reliable in certain areas. For instance, Rolling Stone is a reliable source on music and film. But comics historical facts in an opinion column by a music or film columnist who happens to be writing about comics might not be considerable a reliable source.


 * The difficulty is that determining an "archenemy" has both quantifiable elements &mdash; how many times has the character appeared? Has the character appeared in story arcs considered notable by a consensus of comics historians (a la The Night Gwen Stacy Died &mdash; which happened during the day, but whatever....) &mdash; and subjective elements ... that is, opinion. Unless an opinion that's being cited is from a widely recognized and generally accepted comics historian &mdash; and I'm thinking authors such as Peter Sanderson, Mark Evanier, Blake Bell, Ron Goulart and Maurice Horn, to name a few &mdash; then perhaps we should discuss his or  qualifications before adding their opinions as footnotes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why the hell doesn't Maurice Horn have a Wikipedia article? He wrote two encyclopedias of comics and he and his books have been mentioned at least five times in The New York Times. Guess that's on my to-do list! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I just predict that Bane would be included. This is what I was concerned about. Jhenderson 7 7 7  16:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And y'know, I'm thinking we need more than a single blogger's claim before an encyclopedia can consider someone an archenemy. A single blogger is undue weight and possibly fringe. Is there really a consensus in the comics press that Bane is Batman's archenemy? He's no Joker. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Without going through each of references, the list should reflect consensus within the comic book community not a single claim.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. This whole thing has really become fancruft, and having to go in after one editor and fact-check all his citations is a time-consuming chore. And leaving everything up unchallenged is bad for the overall mission of Wikipedia: More and more, unfortunately, I'm finding that time-pressed reporters at even major publications are going to Wikipedia and taking what's written here &mdash; even non-footnoted claims! &mdash; as fact. The danger then is that future editors use those publications to cite that uncited material ... a feedback loop of mirrored misinformation.


 * Maybe the thing to do with this page is to put it up for deletion, because the criteria for the list is problematically vague. Then two things would happen: It'd get deleted, which solves any problems, or we'd get a constructive discussion on establishing criteria and safeguarding against WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why I was inviting a few colleagues of WikiProject Comics over. Also I very much doubt it would be deleted if there is a AFD. If the AFD is mostly a invitation to mostly bring more editors to fix the problem than I would encourage it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Past deletion discussion
I'm not sure why this isn't in a preformatted box on this talk page, but I've just run across this commented-out note in the article. I don't know who added it or why, if the result was "delete," that the article is still around. From the sound of it, it was deleted but someone kept it in a sandbox or their own page for posterity / safekeeping, and somehow it wound up back live.

"THIS LIST WAS PREVIOUSLY NOMINATED FOR DELETION WITH THE RESULT OF "DELETE". THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN KEPT IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE THEY HAVE REFERENCES. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL ENTRIES WITHOUT SOURCING; UNSOURCED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED. THANK YOU.

See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_archenemies for the previous deletion discussion."

--Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what Im seeing:


 * The deletion discussed was closed with a decision to delete by User:HJ Mitchell at 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC). This was to delete an article called List of fictional archenemies.

At 12:29, 2 June 2010, User:Hellknowz unilaterally added that deleted list] to the article Archenemy, which seems to me violates the intent of the deletion discussion. And now he has turned that article, which at one point was a short piece describing the term in general and giving a few examples, into the same article that was deleted. I find that sneaky and underhanded, and I think we need to get an admin involved. For starters, I'm contacting the closing admin. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep I was responsible for the AFD. In Hellknowz's defense though. He only re-added the cited information and he mostly made sure more additions were cited. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Except for the fact that a lot of unreliable sources were added constantly though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I find your accusation of me acting "sneaky and underhanded" insulting to say the least. It was never my intent to have a sprawling unending list of minor entries. I opened an RfC on this talk page, the discussion is still up there. I made a good faith effort to provide only the most notable examples and have a short list, nothing what the original was. I commented here several times in subsequent threads and many times since, so do not accuse me of being "sneaky". I've added almost no entries myself since, and I have lost count how many times I've removed all the unsourced entries. I mean look at the edit history--it's me reverting unsourced additions every 3rd edit. I've even proposed to limit the number of entries, which got nowhere. "And now he has turned that article ... into the same article that was deleted" That is completely untrue. Deleted article had mostly unsourced entries, current list has all the entries sourced. I've kept reverting additions for over 3 years so it doesn't become the old list. Yes, I take the responsibility of having re-made a list here. But adding dozens of minor entries despite their insignificance and unclear value is not my doing. Unfortunately, I see this was a mistake, because all my good faith was lost in between everyone adding more entries with dubious sources despite better judgment to list these. And now I'm being accused of having somehow personally forced others to make the list what it is? If you want to propose a better way to deal with this than I have, then go ahead and I'll happily add my input or recuse myself. But don't make me a scapegoat for what the list has become. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see any RfC box or closed RfC discussion on this page, nor is there a a second, archived talk page that might have it. I do see discussion by you earlier on this page, and I apologize for having found your actions "sneaky" when they were not. However, "underhanded" describes any action that constitutes an end-run around a consensus decision: We shouldn't have to specify that "Delete the article" means "Delete all the contents in the article". It certainly doesn't mean, "People who disagree with this deletion can take the information and place it in another article."


 * Whether items are footnoted is not a free pass: Some of these footnotes, perhaps most, are not those of comics historians citing established consensus &mdash; they're of bloggers and columnists giving their opinion, not their scholarly research. That means some, perhaps most, of these footnotes may be of undue weight or even be fringe theory. Because the overall point the admin made in closing the discussion with decision to delete is that there's little objective criteria to support such a list / article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, the tag was added in the next edit.) As I said, I restored only sourced entries at the time with full intent to have a discussion and then limit the entries and possibly rewrite to proper prose, which didn't gather any support or in fact much participation at all. After that I only stopped editors from adding any unsourced entries, I cannot stop them from adding sourced ones. Let me be very clear, I do not support this list at its present. But you are making me sound like I am the one making it. If I was to remove this list now, I would get instantly reverted. There is only so much I can do and my only issue is that you are making this about me. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If I have, it's only because you were the editor who brought the deleted article's contents here.


 * That said, it sounds from what you're saying like you and the rest of us have common ground. We see that this article has issues, and we all want to fix them. The question is how. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to through in a bit more than 2¢ worth here based on what is here currently... - J Greb (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article title is misleading - the is not an article on the term "Archenemy" and how it is used as a literary trope. It is a "List of Archenemies" by media and owner, and a fairly arbitrary one at that.
 * At best, an article on the term "Archenemy" would need a few well chosen, clear, widely recognized examples. Not scores of them shooting for hundreds. A lot of them from relatively obscure character sets - and yes, within the context here, Deadpool, Green Arrow, The Incredibles, and most of TV, comics, and toy are obscure.
 * Most of the cites are questionable at best. Have we got any scholarly secondary sources that can be used rather than sales hype, interviews to drive sales, "Top N" lists aimed at fans, and so on?


 * I am not sure when it was removed but I do seem to remember there seemed to more of a section (probablyin  the etymology section)   and before the list was in the same place in this article used only a little bit of arch enemies to prove the point. When the list was merged here the section basically something in the line "other notable arch enemies."  Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm proposing the same limitations by consensus as before -- to include only several, notable examples, no more than a few for each media (film, comics, literature, etc.) Additionally, all examples have to have at least several sources, and they have to be high quality. If possible, a short commentary can be given (and it should be possible if the sources are indeed quality). Furthermore, to address constant additions, only entries that have been discussed here on the talk page are to be added. If not, I don't see a solution other than to delete it altogether. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to quantify - sorry "several" is what we've got right now - by "few" above I was referring to 12 to 20 max across all media with an eye at keeping it to a dozen at best. Not 3 or 4 from TV, film, books, plays, classics, comics, radio, toys, video games, anime, manga, folklore, etc.
 * I like the idea of the examples needing multiple, scholarly references for each example as well as the "Discuss and get consensus before adding" restriction. These are examples, not an exhaustive list.
 * As for bath water and babies... frankly, the list was to be deleted, not merged or preserved. That section of this article can go until the small group of examples meeting the above criteria are found, presented, and accepted for addition by consensus.
 * - J Greb (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, J. As an admin, would you say that, given a previous admin's deletion decision for this content under another name, and in accordance with his discussion thread, it would be alright to remove this list except for a half-dozen representative and hopefully unambiguous examples? If so, I'd be glad to volunteer to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally thought "representative and hopefully unambiguous" was a thing, but as you can see, 3 years later, everyone believes their examples are the more notable ones. If we strip it down, what's to stop others from adding more or replacing them with their own examples? What we need is consensus on which entries serve as good examples and then consensus to not add more entries. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tenebrae:
 * More or less, yes. Though we may want to give this a little more time on the chance that some of the examples get upgraded referrences.
 * @Hellknowz:
 * Mutant (Marvel Comics) is a good example of how it can be handled. Semi-protecting the page off the hop and if the dumping persists, fully protecting the page. That may cause problems with the need to actually upgrade the section on defining/explaining the term, but it would shut down the noise drowning that content out.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, do you want to try and trim the list? We can then may be arrive at some consensus as which ones to keep and how to source them. I don't think current sourcing will get any better (I mean it hardly has in 3 years). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Tenebrae does not, I am willing to start, but I would be fairly ruthless on the trimming. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, no, by all means. I guess I was waiting to be absolutely sure, but after all this time it looks like we have consensus. Ruthless is good. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

While I support the idea of splitting. I still will never take this list seriously when it cites Ra's Al Ghul, Brainiac and Apocalypse as archenemies of said protagonist. The article was more correct until Haleth began changing things around Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, J. Not sure there was discussion on splitting, but rather on trying to make this an article about the nature of archenemies in literature with something like a half-dozen examples only. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually trimming is what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor sourcing
Most entries in the list are passing mentions and clearly written by someone who does not understand the difference between an enemy and an archenemy. Even the folklore section, which probably has the most potential has for its only sources a passing mention in a collection of essays about an island, a passing mention in the adcopy for a theatrical production, and a passing mention in the adcopy for a TV series. Edward321 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes we have poor sources and that is one of the reasons why we are doing the discussions. I even admit to just citing random stuff on this article but I learned the error of that and am hoping we can change all that due to discussion. I don't really think folklore characters actually have archenemies. Definitely when sources were hard to find about it. But please let's mostly bring the discussion to the above sections where we are trying to fix these problems. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the list
As per discussion above, I am going to start trimming the list. I'll do it in smaller sections so if consensus disagrees they can be reverted without undoing parts that should be trimmed. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just recommend deleting the whole list and start over. I still don't like it. Good examples removed and bad examples still around. TV trope list seems more reliable than this list and that is just sad. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to belittle what you've done so far, but that is my thinking as well. Start anew. We already had a trimmed down list once and that didn't work. I think we ought to work from the other end – have nothing, then add certain notable examples. In fact, I would highly recommend them being in prose format, so it is clear this isn't a list. Perhaps some additional commentary. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with the bulk delete, though I can see the reasonging of going one ref/item at a time if someone has the drive just to catch anything salvageable.
 * And Jhenderson, while finding it sad that this is going away or going to become more sparse than TV Tropes, remember - that particular site is a fan driven wiki, a lbe it a bit more moderated than some. It may not be the best benchmark.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not done trimming the list. I'm not even done with my first pass through the list. I would fully support deleting the whole list and starting over. If that isn't consensus, I'll continue with removing examples with poor sources, then make a second pass removing examples with poor coverage in the sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, including from admin J Greb, the consensus is to delete the list, since it had been a deleted article that an editor had then simply placed here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I'm done arguing about something that I did 3 years ago that I wouldn't do again, the list that was and the list that I recreated are not the same and please stop insinuating that I "simply placed [it] here" then or now. The old list was over 300 entries long, I restored a little less than 40 sourced entries. I have added exactly 0 entries since. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * J Greb, I am well aware that TV trope is not a reliable source. That is entirely my point on why what I mentioned is sad. Jhenderson 7 7 7  04:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be to delete the entire list of examples and start over from scratch. If I have misread consensus, feel free to revert me. Edward321 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An IP editor added the list back with no explanation. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Complete removal?
I know the list of examples has been a pain in the ass to maintain, with proper sources. Some other editors have been fanatical, I think to the point of derangement-applying the highest standards of sourcing to this article. But we did have a stable list of examples, along with the fancruft that keeps being injected. I see no justification for complete removal of the list of examples. I see no recent discussion here, much less a fully formed consensus that such a list should be deleted wholesale. You invited discussion. . . discuss. Where do you get off deleting properly sourced entries? Trackinfo (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It was more of a bold edit because many of the contributors (outside of IP editor's) agreed it was better to start with scratch again. I don't have a problem with additions...but the big problem is some additions (even when reliable) are still not good sources. If you want a source that Lex Luthor is archenemy of Superman. It might be better to cite a comic book scholar or creator for that. Not a recent news site ...that actually has labeled General Zod as archenemy just to spice up the article a little bit with words like these. That's what I was feeling was going on when some editor feels like saying Ra's Al Ghul is a archenemy of Batman and Brainiac is archenemy of Superman too. He basically ruined the most notable examples outside of the window because a superhero has more than one dangerous villain. Not to mention that Magneto was replaced with Apocalypse. (If I remember correctly basically the source says that the X-Men is his archenemy. We are not really supposed to use the villains point of view) I may be biased but I do believe I know my comic books to know that that is bogus. Apocalypse maybe a archenemy of X-Force but not X-Men. Most dangerous and most powerful maybe but not archenemy. Also the same with Galactus being alongside Doctor Doom with the Fantastic Four. I know I used comic books as examples.Because that's really the only ones I have disgreed on so far. But it can work outside of that media too. This kind of stuff is what made me think. The only way to make this article more reliable is to start over our own way. Don't copy what is already been done in the past edits...unless it maybe had a really reliable source.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We did not have a stable list, we had an ever expanding list. Sourcing varied from mediocre to poor, with most list items being the latter. I strongly support starting over from scratch, using good sources, or not bothering with a list at all. Edward321 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with everything User:Jhenderson777 and Edward321 say. As well, if I recall correctly, there was an RfC that determined that a spinoff list-article be deleted and an editor — who has since said it was well-intentioned and not meant to be an end run around the RfC — put a shorter version of that material back into this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to delete. A good faith restoration of a sourced portion of the list did not lead to an encyclopedic list. Despite 3 years time, it contained hundreds of items of dubious sourcing and little help to the article. After all, this is "archenemy" article, not a list of such (that article was deleted). I argue a small, contained, well-sourced list can help the reader understand the context. But that is not the list we had, everyone just added their favorites, and the rough consensus above agreed that starting from scratch is better than keeping and maintaining it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As I look back at that AfD, I see the same names pushing for wholesale deletion of content then, that I see actually deleting content now. And me fighting to save it. Now personally, I haven't put in any content in the comics section of the article, most of what is there is junk. It is poorly sourced. So if they don't source it well, junk it. That process is called editing and if you have that much interest in this article, go ahead, spend your hours getting rid of the crap that offends you. I also know that I have made sure there is a source to every entry I have made and I know there were other editors who did the same, some forcibly by getting their edits constantly reverted. Some people learned. Its not nice to hit the dog on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Sometimes it works. But you seem to want to send the dog to the pound for pissing on the rug. Its a gross overreaction. Some of the content in that list is valid. Bulldozing the entire block because there is a gang living there might move the gang somewhere else, but it also leaves a lot of people homeless. Trackinfo (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * lol at your examples, dude. I am assuming some of your entries have been removed and you are upset at that. I too had to live with that on this page. If you feel strongly about that. Perhaps maybe you can boldly put back on what entry is "not junk" and then we can decide is not there. I am not sure nobody is stopping some examples of what was there. Just all the examples at once. I do feel we had too much too much examples. Definitely when this is not a list article.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW focusing on what contributors said about a AFD on a different article is pretty much WP:otherstuffexists. What you and Tenebrae (a respectful colleague) seem to not understand. Is that Hellknownz was against the list too...but a lot of editors feel strongly about the sourced material who wanted it be kept. Even I. So Hellknownz just saved up all the sourced material here as a compromise. I allowed it (the AFD nominator) even thinking it was a good idea at the time. I was even one of the top contributors of this example list because I am fan of this sort of thing. So please everyone stop pointing fingers at everybody with what we decided to do.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo, comparing removal of the list to making people homeless is certainly dramatic, but Doomsday and the Big Bad Wolf are not real people and suffer no harm whatsoever from the removal of the list. J Greb, Tenebrae, and myself had nothing to do with the previous AfD, though the AfD shows that consensus has been to delete since long before our involvement. In my first, incomplete pass through the list, a third of the sources were clearly not reliable sources, did not mention the item they were supposed to support, did not identify the character as an archenemy, or did not exist.  That was with looking at slightly more than half the entries, a full pass probably would have trimmed the list by half to two thirds.  I was planning a second pass to eliminate any entries that  made mere passing mentions of the subject. Based on the quality of coverage I saw, at most a handful would have survived a second pass. When I realized that, I realized that clearing the entire list and starting from scratch was the better way to do it; a view that everyone commenting, save yourself, has agreed with. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I thank my good and longtime colleague User:Jhenderson777 for the kind words. He provides a wonderful example of the fact editors can disagree civilly and with mutual respect &mdash; and I applaud Edward321 for taking the same approach and tone. I think it's important to give credit to editors who can debate in such civil ways. J777 and I actually agree on WP:otherstuffexists &mdash; had the AfD'd article not been created as a split-off from this article, I would never have used that article as an example. So there's common ground.


 * Personally &mdash; and it's been months, but I seem to recall this being discussed earlier &mdash; I don't think any of us are against having four or five examples from different media (Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty, Captain America and the Red Skull, Jerry Seinfeld and Newman ... whatever) in a general article about the literary / fictional / cinematic topic of archenemies.


 * That topic is, I'd hasten to add, a big, big one on which someone could spend an entire semester studying in an English lit course. That's a bit daunting, to say the least! --Tenebrae (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Archenemesis" spelled wrong?
In the initial paragraph, the word "archenemesis" is referred to as being the same as archenemy. I am not sure, but maybe the E I bolded in this word is a typo. I think archnemesis (as spelled in later paragraphs) was misspelled as this word. 2603:6081:4100:A5:CDE8:CCC4:E539:CF99 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was a typo, good catch. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)