Jump to content

Talk:List of soap opera villains/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sarah Lewis, Home and Away

I found a quote from a book which calls Sarah Lewis a "villainess" [1]. I'm not sure how to add the source, though. Can someone please help?82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added this using {{cite book}} AnemoneProjectors 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have done it myself if I'd known how to. Much appreciated.82.47.191.23 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of soap opera villains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Emmerdale characters Metro article

I found this article from Metro that seems to imply that Paddy Kirk and Zak Dingle are "villains" due to their recent affair storylines. [2] What should I do with it?82.47.191.23 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I add the characters? Is it a valid source?82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this before because of the bot below! I'm in two minds about this one, it both does and doesn't seem to call them villains, from my point of view. That's not much help, sorry. AnemoneProjectors 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That's OK. If it is not clear enough or 100% certain then I won't add it. Better safe than sorry.82.47.191.23 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Too many citations

This might sound strange since we require reliable sources for verification but I think some names on this list have too many citations next to them. Phil Mitchell, Trevor Morgan and Janine Butcher each have 7 citations, causing them to not fit in one line of the column (on my screen at least). They're all good sources but I think once someone has, say, three sources, we probably don't need to add more, but it might be a good idea to replace some if they are a bit weak and stronger ones come up. AnemoneProjectors 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think three good ones is enough, otherwise it's WP:CITEOVERKILL. It's nice to see sources being added though! - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't actually aware of that page so thank you! AnemoneProjectors 13:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Abi Branning source

This source claims that Abi Branning "could be the next Walford villain" not that she is one already as an evil side, but I'm not sure if that should count either. Maybe it's best to remove it. AnemoneProjectors 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTCn the present tense. [3] Can the source be used because of this?82.47.191.23 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked this reference before and left it in because it seems to call Abi "evil". However, it's just a word used as an image caption, not saying that Abi is evil, so that shouldn't really count. It doesn't call her a villain, just wonders if she could become one (therefore it's actually saying she's not a villain). It says Abi has an evil side, but I'm not sure if that should count either. Maybe it's best to remove it. AnemoneProjectors 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
OK.82.47.191.23 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I must admit that I've added that particular source because it seemed like it was a possibility of calling her a villain. However, does this source count? It does describe her and Babe as "evil twins": http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/29/eastenders-spoilers-will-aunt-babe-join-forces-with-devious-louise-mitchell-to-manipulate-abi-branning-5781403/BladerPharmist (talk) • contribs) 22:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it could but as was mentioned elsewhere on this page in another section, both characters are already on the list so it doesn't really matter either way. There may not be any need to add this particular source.82.47.191.23 (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I saw that source earlier and wondered about it, but both are already listed and also, I personally prefer a "villain" reference over an "evil" reference. AnemoneProjectors 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EastEnders' Amelle

This character hasn't appeared yet, and might not be in more than one episode for all we know, but the Daily Star has already called her "evil", while not actually going into what she will do in the episode. Do we really add her to this list? AnemoneProjectors 22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually she did appear tonight, I just haven't seen it yet and forgot it had already been on. Anyone confirm she's evil? AnemoneProjectors 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not evil. The paper clearly reporting "evil" based on Jordan's lie to Denise and not on the actual character. AnemoneProjectors 08:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Louise Mitchell - Debatable Villain?

With many sources calling Louise a 'bad girl' or 'treacherous', I would've assumed she wasn't actually evil but rather just a troublemaker. However, I ran into this source (which is still debatable) which annotates one of the photo spoilers as 'EVIL: Louise blackmails Abi' which (whilst it isn't a reliable source) does show Louise is capable of evil. Again, it's debatable but I need everyone to decide first.

Here is the source: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/506155/Louise-Mitchell-seduces-Jay-Brown-EastEnders — Preceding unsigned comment added by BladerPharmist (talk • contribs)

They love to use the caption "evil" for their photos. I found this source from the Daily Star and came here to discuss it. It's better than the one you've given - the actress says "A villain's always more fun to play" (though doesn't say "Louise is one") and she says Louise has an "evil streak". Does an evil streak mean a character can be included? If evilness is part of her character, then I think so. AnemoneProjectors 18:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Also this Metro source talks about her "devious" side and the Keeper compares Louise to Janine Butcher when asked "Which past EastEnders’ villainous female would you compare Louise to?". I don't think that source can be used. AnemoneProjectors 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
True I suppose. It's just that the source didn't really catch my attention at the time (so it didn't appear) but I do agree it's better than the one we've found. Should be she be added yet or should we wait for more reliable sources?

NOTE: I also have a question in hand too. What happens if any soap characters has been "reformed" (according to any articles)? Would they get removed from the list?BladerPharmist (talk) • contribs) 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Star source I gave does say she has an evil streak, meaning she's partly evil, meaning it should be fine to include her using that source (but it could be replaced if a better one comes along). If a character reforms, they still stay on the list because they are still a villain in the episodes in which they are a villain. I think it's been discussed here before. Billy Mitchell certainly isn't a villain these days but is on the list because of what looks like a best villain award nomination in 2000. AnemoneProjectors 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Perry Fenwick was nominated in the "Villain of the year" category award at the British Soap Awards in 2000. Billy was a villain back then. He beat up his nephew Jamie on a regular basis. Fenwick actually threatened to quit the show unless they made Billy less bad. It obviously paid off.82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Irene Roberts and Kyle Canning

Do both of these characters deserve to be in the list as the source for both says villains that became heroes.Superfan95 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. As previously discussed on this talk page (most recently here, they are still villains in the episodes in which they are villains - those episodes haven't changed, so we still list them as villains, as long as they have been described as villainous in reliable sources. I think this should go in an FAQ at the top, considering the number of times it's been asked over the years! AnemoneProjectors 11:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Terms

What terms have to be used to define a soap character a villain? Can the word "bad" count? I have this link [4] but I am not sure if it is for this page or not.--94.196.211.217 (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A character (and not the actions of a character) has to be described (unambiguously) as evil or a villain (or villainous). We decided that a "bad boy" isn't the same thing (see Talk:List of soap opera villains/Archive 1#Being bad). However, "bad guy" and "baddie" are acceptable, though "evil" is preferred to those, and "villain" is preferred overall. AnemoneProjectors 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hunter King

I had this link [5] it had the actor describing his character as a bad guy by saying "It's fun to play a bad guy" does this count for Hunter to be on the list as he has been removed by an IP.Superfan95 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Did it? I apologize. I thought it only said "bad boy". Put it back then if the MODs allow it.82.47.191.23 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah this one's ok, I think. anemoneprojectors 12:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Nightingale?

I have added this source [6] for Hollyoaks' Holly Cunningham. The other characters are on this list already. Should Nathan Nightingale be added due to this? It states he "it looks like he could be heading for the villain list", describing a plot twist and some of his actions this week, and the title says "Heroes to villains. 7 soap characters that went from good to bad like Hollyoaks' Nathan Nightingale" but it does not directly say that he is a villain in the past or present tense. Is it good enough for him or just for Holly.82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I already added that character having seen the source added to the page. I didn't see the "looks like" part, but "7 soap characters who went from good to bad, like Hollyoaks' Nathan Nightingale" implies he is a character who went from good to bad. anemoneprojectors 12:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
So it is OK to add him then? I just wanted to make sure as I wasn't sure if the source had to directly say he was or is a villain and whether not just implying it was enough.82.47.191.23 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

EastEnders Zainab

I found this source [7] about Zainab Masood, asking "Why have they made Zainab a villain?" and added her to the list because of this. I noticed that her name and the source have now been removed. Is there a reason for this?82.47.191.23 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

UnrealityTV is essentially a blog, so isn't generally considered a reliable source. AnemoneProjectors 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. Well there are other sources on here from that website, some I posted myself. Should they be removed too?82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically they should be removed, though it means taking about 12 characters off the list. I just checked their site and they do actually call themselves a blog here. It looks like anyone can actually contribute as well, making it user-generated content. AnemoneProjectors 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed all the ones I could see, including the ones I added myself. Did I miss any?82.47.191.23 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you check for replacement sources first? - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed whatever was remaining. For the record, these characters were removed:

Coronation Street
EastEnders
Hollyoaks

AnemoneProjectors 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They were the ones I did. I had added Ryan, Lydia and Maddie. They were all the ones I could see used Unreality TV as sources.82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We can see if there are sources to replace them. The article for Lydia already has one [8]. Plus I found this [9]. I can't add them right now though as it's time for me to sign off for the night. AnemoneProjectors 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added Joe Donnelli back with a new source. - JuneGloom07Talk 01:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And Jon Lindsay too, I see. Good Work.82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I found a new link for Maddie Morrison, I hope it helps and I added her back to the main list. Link is [10]Kwilliams100 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In the Digital Spy source for Lydia, the "evil" reference is taken from a quote by Natalie Cassidy written in her magazine column. Can that be used?82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes then.82.47.191.23 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disappearing sources

I noticed that this source [11] was previously being used for several characters in the EastEnders section of the list, but now it is only being used for three of them and the others that is was being used for have had new sources added, but this one deleted. Why is this? Was there something wrong with the source? There must have been a reason.82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you check the edit history you will see I used the edit summary "removing [ref] from those with lots of refs, because they have enough refs without it and it's a primary source". It ties in with the discussion at Talk:List of soap opera villains/Archive 3#Too many citations and the policy at WP:PRIMARY. anemoneprojectors 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
So you removed existing sources and kept the new ones?82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the BBC villains gallery and nothing else. anemoneprojectors 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Was it deemed unnecessary or an unfit source? I'm curious to wonder why that particular source and not others? I thought that sources were generally only removed if there was something wrong with them.82.47.191.23 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a series of other sources that used to be on the page that were removed longer ago, before the decision was made to remove the extra ones. Some of them are still on the page titled "The 50 most evil soap villains of all time" from Whats on TV. There were quite a few of more them then the links were lost and the sources for some were deleted. Some were deleted from characters that didn't have that many sources to begin with. I discovered that the pages are still online here [12] so the dead links can be reactivated. As this was long before the "too many references" summary you made previously and some of them were removed from characters that didn't have too many sources to begin with, why was this done?82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed them on 1 November 2013 because they were dead and could not be found in archives. I left in the ones that were not dead or that I found in archives. For example this was the link for Dan Sullivan in EastEnders, but it's dead. All of its archived links at archive.org are archives of the redirect to www.whatsontv.co.uk/eastenders, even its oldest archive copy in 2013. So they cannot be restored. All 39 characters that were referenced from that site are still listed. anemoneprojectors 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. Due to seeing the link I added above, I thought they were still accessible as they were clearly visible on the page in slide-show format. So they can't be used then, even if they were visible on the link? Were they not in the Whats on TV archives?82.47.191.23 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I think if a dead link cannot be found in an archive (archive.org or webcitation.org - not archive.is which is blacklisted on Wikipedia), then it's better to find an alternative source and the dead link removed. It's a shame What's on TV didn't keep the all pages on their website. anemoneprojectors 16:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Totally Agree. More fool them. Mind you maybe there wasn't enough room on their site for all the pages, particularly if they keep updating it weekly. I guess we'll never know.82.47.191.23 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

EastEnders Aleks Shirovs

This source [13] from All About Soap states that Aleks is "not such a bad guy after all" implying that he might not be a bad guy. It does not say that he is one in the present tense although it goes on to say "we can't help thinking that he is going to disappoint us yet again", suggesting that he will go back to being one. Is the source relevant due to this? It's not very clear.82.47.191.23 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that's not really very clear. anemoneprojectors 18:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed it.82.47.191.23 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. anemoneprojectors 07:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Query: Andy Barrett

This link [14] calls Andy a "bad-guy who turned out not so bad". Would he qualify for the list?Dhayes103 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the charaacter but this could either mean that he was bad and then it changed, which would be fine, or that he was thought to be bad but it turned out he wasn't, which would need to be removed. The next line in the source says "he still isn't all that good", which gives the impression of the former. If it's ambiguous, it should be removed anyway, and I can't decide if it's ambiguous or not, which is ambiguous in itself! But that's my opinion. anemoneprojectors 09:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is the former. He was definitely a bad guy following his introduction, but mellowed out a bit over the years. - JuneGloom07 Talk 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
In that case, the impression I got is probably right and it's ok to stay. anemoneprojectors 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Loveday

Would this source define Lisa as a villain? [15]82.132.234.86 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to say no because they asked the actor, "Could Lisa be a new villain, then?" and she said, "Deep down Lisa is softer than a villain" and then, "Lisa is not necessarily an evil villain". If she had answered "yes" then we would be adding her. anemoneprojectors 14:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Home and Away, Courtney Freeman

Is the source used for Courtney Freeman acceptable to use? [16] It is the source write up for just one episode of Home and Away and not a general one about the show or about the character of Courtney. Can these one-episode sources be used?82.47.191.23 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say the character is a villain, so no. anemoneprojectors 22:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It does call him a "bad guy". Is that enough?212.56.114.199 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I thought I looked for the word "bad" on the page as well! Yeah I think that should be ok. anemoneprojectors 21:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neighbours, Ben Kirk

This source from Lowculture [17] is quoted as describing Neighbours' Ben Kirk as "It's hard to believe that something so evil is the child of Drew". The link to the page and website has gone and I can't find it, but is it a valid source and can it be used?82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it in an archive, sadly if it's already dead I don't think we can add it as there's no way to verify it. anemoneprojectors 17:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see it's on the character's page, and was archived in 2011. Sadly I can't get the archive link to work. Is it just me? If it works, it's fine to add. anemoneprojectors 17:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Lowculture was deemed to be an unreliable source at the RS Noticeboard. I just haven't got round to removing all the links. Plus, I don't think the kid, who was about seven at the time, was ever evil. I think the writer just didn't like him. - JuneGloom07 Talk 12:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Lowculture has been used as sources for several other characters. Should they be removed due to this?82.47.191.23 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Update: My mistake. It was site called "ausculture" I was thinking of. I got them mixed up. Are there any Lowculture sources on this page then and should they be removed if there are?82.47.191.23 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I checked and there are no Lowculture sources in the list. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I remember talking to User:Frickative about Lowculture and we decided it was probably fine since the site has an Wikipedia article, but that was a few years ago. I've used it at least one article before. But if it's been discussed at RS then fair enough. anemoneprojectors 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Link to the discussion – [18]. Although I thought it was bigger than that. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I found it after you said, only one person responded? It's a shame as it's actually used in a lot of articles, but it most likely is a blog, albeit one disguised as a news-y site, much like Unreality TV, which I'm always telling people not to use in articles. Perhaps the site shouldn't have a Wiki page either. I'm going to refrain from using it in future and say that it can't be used here (unless it's decided otherwise at some point). anemoneprojectors 22:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The website shut down at one point, but appears to have re-launched or someone has taken the name. It's quite different to how it was. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I remember Lowculture and an author named Ruth. I just think she had a set of characters she did not like. The current version is run by the original creator.Rain the 1 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Emmerdale, Lawrence White

This source [19] from Metro, featuring a list of characters that are featuring in major storylines at the moment, describes Lawrence as "not outwardly villainous but has a dark edge" but in the same paragraph it describes Lawrence's character and personality traits, and "villainy" is one of them. Can this source be used?82.47.191.23 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. anemoneprojectors 17:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. I'll add it and him.82.47.191.23 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Coronation Street: Ryan Sykes

There is an article in this week's Inside Soap magazine featuring an interview with former Coronation Street actress Angela Lonsdale who played Emma Watts. She is talking about her major storylines from when she was in the show and she mentions when Emma was held hostage in her home by Ryan Sykes in 2001. Lonsdale is quoted as saying "her evil captor Ryan Sykes". Is this good enough for the article to be used as a source on here?82.47.191.23 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Can the article be used?82.47.191.23 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Make sure when you cite this that the "quote" parameter is used. anemoneprojectors 09:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I did. I do it for all the magazine or book sources.77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hollyoaks Juanita

This source [20] from the Daily Star quotes actress Jacey Salles as saying that her character in Hollyoaks, Juanita Salvador Martinez Hernandez De La Cruz, is "like a pantomime villain". Is it acceptable to use?82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And can this one [21] be used for new character, Eva Falco?82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So can they both be used then?82.47.191.23 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember if we've used "pantomime villain" in this article before. But I think it's probably ok. I think the one for Eva is fine, because although it says she's "not simply a one dimensional villain", that still makes her a villain in my opinion, and it then says she's "a villainous character" and "a bit evil maybe". anemoneprojectors 09:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I added them.77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The term "pantomime villain" was used in the source for Nikki Spraggan on EastEnders.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Zainab Masood

This source from the Daily Star features EastEnders' Zainab Masood being referred to in a quote as "We're hoping she'll be just as entertainingly evil when she comes back for Masood's exit storyline." Can this be used as a source due to that quote?77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a toughy. To be honest, Molly Rose Pike, who wrote the article, makes loads of mistakes when she writes about EastEnders. She called Masood "Mason" there. Earlier this year she wrote that Joey Branning had died. We know Zainab was never evil... so why this reporter would use that word I don't know. anemoneprojectors 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I won't add it then. Just wanted to double check. Thanks.77.97.55.147 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Home and Away Simmo

I added a source from All About Soap magazine for the Home and Away character Simmo which covers the fortnight starting 31 December 2016 and ending 13 January 2017. It wouldn't let me add the entire date range so I only added the last date. Can someone show me how to add all of it so it is more accurate?77.97.55.147 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the date for you (and updated Simmo's link). When you have two different years, you need to put spaces between the dash and the dates, so 31 December 2016 – 13 January 2017. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hollyoaks Cindy

This article [22] makes a reference in the last paragraph about Hollyoaks' Cindy Cunningham's "villainous gold digging days". Can this be used as a source for her?77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking not because it is her gold digging days that are being called villainous but not the character. anemoneprojectors 16:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll remove it then.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the source but someone else put it back for unknown reasons. I've taken it down again.77.97.55.147 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ken Barlow

This article [23] on Digital Spy refers to Ken Barlow as a "villain". Should it be added to the list?77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course. "Ken Barlow has become Soapland's most unlikely villain" is unambiguous. anemoneprojectors 19:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Cotton

This article in The Sun [24] refers to EastEnders' Charlie Cotton as having an "evil streak", inherited from his father. Can this source be used?77.97.55.147 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes because they're saying it's a personality trait. anemoneprojectors 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Too many sources, again

Per a previous discussion, we should limit, where possible, each name to three references each, otherwise it is WP:REFOVERKILL. References using the word "villain" are preferable to all others, so anyone wanting to cut down the refs would have to check each one for the best. anemoneprojectors 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Could you potentially use a reference bundle to limit the references on show? Soaper1234 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Soaper1234: If there's a good reason to keep all the references then yes, but I don't think we need 6 references saying a character is a villain, bundled or otherwise. Also it wouldn't work where the references are used for multiple characters, but not all for the same characters. anemoneprojectors 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed several instances of a reference from characters already with three references. It's fine to add a reference if a character only has one or two references already, but if they have three, a reference should only be replaced if the new reference is better than the old one, e.g. is an online reference instead of an offline reference, or uses the word "villain" instead of the word "evil" or "bad". anemoneprojectors 13:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly it's mostly UK soaps that are over-referenced. We should look at removing references for: (from Coronation Street) Tracey Barlow, Richard Hillman, David Platt, John Stape, Charlie Stubbs, (from EastEnders) Bobby Beale, Derek Branning, Janine Butcher, Nick Cotton, Stella Crawford, Claudette Hubbard, Archie Mitchell, Phil Mitchell, Trevor Morgan, Steve Owen, Den Watts, (from Emmerdale) Graham Clark, Cain Dingle, Nicola King, (from Hollyoaks) Nico Blake, Silas Blissett, Brendan Brady, Clare Devine, Rob Hawthorne, (from Home and Away) Johnny Cooper, and (from The Young and The Restless) Sheila Carter. And any I might have missed. anemoneprojectors 13:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Valentine, Hollyoaks

This source [25] that has been added for Calvin Valentine in Hollyoaks, describes "his villainous ways". Is it definitely referring to Calvin or to Warren Fox who is also mentioned in the article? If it is referring to Calvin, is it OK to use?77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I would take it to mean that Calvin has villainous ways, but I suppose it's open to interpretation. Maybe it's too ambiguous to include, I don't know. anemoneprojectors 13:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If it was referring to Calvin's "villainous ways" would that be enough to include him then? Or does the source have to describe the character themselves as a "villain" not their actions?77.97.55.147 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it depends if his "villainous ways" means his general personality (yes) or his actions (no). Are there no other sources to back it up? —:anemone:projectors:— 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Not that I've been able to find.77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess he can stay in the list then, unless anyone else has any objections. —anemoneprojectors— 21:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Finn Kelly

Express article [26] is it suitable to add?82.132.238.113 (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"NEIGHBOURS villain Finn Kelly" this one is clear, yes it is suitable! —anemoneprojectors— 08:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Lee Carter

Can this [27] be used as it claims Lee is a villain in his own story?82.132.235.206 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no way Lee could be considered a villain, but *sigh* someone said it so it has to be added right? To be honest, I'm getting annoyed at journalists throwing the word "villain" around so much these days. Woody was called a villain by someone, after being announced as a "bad boy", but they are not the same, and the reporter had no idea what Woody would be like in the series at that time. Then there was that article listing several "bad boys" but they decided to, incorrectly, include the word "villain", so two more characters got added to this list. Well, did do that robbery and stuff, so he has done bad things, but they were out of desperation, not villainy. But the rule was that if someone calls a character a villain, they go on the list, regardless of reality what we think. —:anemone:projectors:— 09:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of which, this article from Metro [28] calls Hollyoaks' Joel Dexter a "villainous vicar, so for the same reasons you mention, can this be added? I agree with a lot of your points which is why I double check on here before adding any new sources.77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the rant :-) Yeah that Joel source is fine. —anemoneprojectors— 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I see Lee has been added to the list. I take it that it was decided that he could be added then on the strength of that article?77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I know I was ranting at the time but that is what I said: "the rule was that if someone calls a character a villain, they go on the list", so yeah it's fine, and Lee did do some pretty awful things to his family. —anemoneprojectors— 08:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair Enough. I agree 100%.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

John Palmer (Home and Away)

In this article [29] Palmer's actor uses the term villain about his character but is it okay to use?82.132.244.228 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. could I use this link [30] also for another character Tug.82.132.244.228 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Both sources call the characters villains, so yes. These are not ambiguous in any way. —anemoneprojectors— 07:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I found this gallery [31] that features multiple soap characters being called villains, can it be used?94.197.166.43 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes every character in that list is being called a villain, just be sure not to add to character that have a lot of sources already, unless this is a better source than an existing source (e.g. existing source says "evil" but not "villain" or is an offline source) in which case the source can be replaced with this one. —anemoneprojectors— 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Redwater

With Dermott in Redwater being classed on Digital Spy here as a villain, should he be added?188.30.121.147 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Redwater isn't a soap opera, so no. —anemoneprojectors— 11:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Are Casualty and Holby City now being classed as soaps? I thought they were just medical dramas. And Red Rock too. Are they all now soaps then?77.97.55.147 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nick savage (Hollyoaks)

Does this [32] qualify as a source for adding Nick to the list?82.132.246.137 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because the wording is "My character is not your stereotypical soap villain". Although that could mean that he's a villain, just not a stereotypical one, it can also be that it means he's not a villain. Personally I think the latter is more likely. —anemoneprojectors— 21:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, duly noted. Although if my opinion is okay, I personally find Nick to be a vile character given the things he's done during the storyline.82.132.246.137 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'm a few weeks behind on Hollyoaks so I don't know the latest developments. To be honest I don't think one crime makes a character a villain, well, depending on the crime of course. And yes I know this is a serious one. —anemoneprojectors— 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many crimes a character has or hasn't committed. If a valid source refers to them as a "villain" then they can be added to this list regardless of any crimes or misdemeanours they have committed. The word "villain" itself is enough to make them eligible.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I know, but the source is saying that Nick isn't a villain, so I was explaining why that might be. Villains are supposed to be "evil", which I'm not sure applies to a lot of characters on the list, but that's why we go by sources - to avoid personal opinion and original research. —anemoneprojectors— 08:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I was explaining to the person above what the general consensus on here was.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The person above was me, I just didn't sign my comment correctly! —anemoneprojectors— 07:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies. Didn't realise.77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 55 external links on List of soap opera villains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Holby City & Casualty

Can villains from both shows with reliable sources be added? As both shows are covered in Inside Soap as a soap and Digital Spy has the shows in it's soaps section?82.132.237.235 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I was considering removing them but Wikipedia categorises them as soap operas, so I left them in. They are "continuing dramas" and the infobox genre for both is "medical drama". However, Holby City is called a "soap opera" in its reception section, which is an opinion, rather than its actual genre, and Casualty is not called a soap opera in the article at all, other than the template and category at the bottom of the page. Also, adding them would mean also looking for villains in shows like The Bill and Waterloo Road, and possibly even Desperate Housewives and many more besides, so where do we draw the line? So I'm sort of in favour of them being removed from here and sticking with the shows that are strictly 100% soap operas. I wouldn't mind hearing from other people though. —anemoneprojectors— 10:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Red Rock be removed as well? Or is that classed as a soap? I agree it is hard to know where to draw the line.77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Red Rock is a soap in Ireland. But if Holby and Casualty are included in Soap books and sections on websites why shouldn't we include them here.82.132.222.59 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The BBC categorises Red Rock as a soap opera, but not Casualty or Holby City, they are categorised as medical dramas (note that Doctors is on both lists). —anemoneprojectors— 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If Holby and Casualty aren't soap operas then why does the soap magazines cover them? also why are they categorized as soaps on Wikipedia? Also here, a reliable source has just called Holby City a soap here92.41.55.191 (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If they were soap operas, wouldn't the BBC categorise them as such? They are just categorised as medical dramas, while Doctors is categorised as both. The Wikipedia categories are wrong considering the lack of information in the articles calling them soap operas, as I already noted above. Soap magazines also cover Redwater which isn't a soap opera. But they cover shows that are similar and of interest to soap fans. That source from the Mirror might change things, but isn't it down to the show's creators to decide its genre? — anemoneprojectors 09:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Julie Quill

This link says "once the true villain responsible for the Lassister's explosion" [33] so does that mean it can be added for Julie Quill as she was one of the people responsible?82.132.228.41 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If source 1 says the responsible person is a villain and source 2 says Julie Quill is the responsible person, but neither source says Julie Quill is a villain, we still need a source that says she is. At least I think so - if anyone disagrees feel free to pitch in! — anemoneprojectors 09:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Query

Is this article where a character is called an antagonist enough to add him to the list [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.123.88 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a new one! According to the antagonist article, antagonists are sometimes villains but characters may be antagonists without being evil. The reference you gave says, "My character is an antagonist, he's not a nice guy" - it's close but perhaps it might be a good idea to wait until closer to the episode date to see if any clearer sources emerge. — anemoneprojectors 15:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_soap_opera_villains/Archive_3&oldid=1142441688"