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)

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? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎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)

Vegeta?

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