From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Monster inclusion guidelines 1.1 About sources and definitions 1.2 Looks like a good move to me 1.3 On Gods and Goddesses 1.4 On Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh 1.5 Multicol format, demons 1.6 On Super-Villains and some Super-Heroes

[edit] Monster inclusion guidelines

These guidelines were created by user:OtakuMan and moved here by Eldar 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the purpose of this list, the word "monster" needs to be defined. There are specific guidelines for determining what is or is not a monster.

1) Monsters can be both good or evil. This list does not segregate the two. This means that monsters from childrens shows such as Sesame Street, or movies such as Monsters Inc. deserve just as much recognition as more sinister monsters such as trolls or goblins.

2) Monsters are NOT evil humans. While characters such as Ghostface or Jigsaw are most definitly evil murderers, they are not actual monsters. They use costumes or props to appear more horrific, but underneath the facade, they are still mortal humans that can be killed by ordinary means or imprisoned. For the purpose of this list, anything that is still human does not count.

3) Monsters are NOT 100% robots or machines. Some of science fiction and horror's most sinister creations are robots and androids with sinister and evil intentions. One of the best examples is the Terminator T-800 androids from the Terminator film series. However, robots and androids are completely artificial creations created by mankind and can be both good, evil, or have no artificial intelligence at all. To consider the Terminator as a monster would also require considering every single automobile or machine ever created as they are essentially the same thing. It would also include any machine that is controlled or piloted by another. Therefore, robots, races of robots, androids, and races of androids are NOT monsters. They belong in List of fictional robots and androids.

4) Exception to Number 2! Monsters CAN be creatures that were at one point human, but are no longer human. Characters such as Jason Voorhees and Freddy Kreuger were both once regular mortal humans before bizarre circumstances turned them into the monsters that they are now. Jason Voorhees is nearly impossible to kill, and Freddy Kreuger became a living nightmare. Michael Myers is also a monster since his humanity has been locked away or taken away from him via magic so he can continue his killing spree. His supernatural durability and strength therefore qualify him as a monster (Although whether the supernatural qualities that make him a monster or not in the Rob Zombie remake of the original have yet to be seen. The best example, however, are most likely the Vampires who can turn humans into one of their kind by biting them.

5) Exception to Number 3! Monsters CAN be robots or androids that were ONCE human or organic, or contain organic elements in their bodies. Two good examples are the Borg and the Cybermen. The Borg were all free-thinking organic beings before being attacked by the Borg Collective and became assimilated into their species. What was once biological now becomes more like a machine. The same thing happens with Cybermen and humans (uncertain whether alien species can be made into Cybermen), only the Cybermen have a higher artificial to organic ratio than the Borg, making them more robot-like in appearance.

In essence: 'the exception to the "No Robots" rule are cyborgs, but ONLY if the cyberization process prevents the biological organism from retaining it's original shape and/or nature. (For example, a giant robot controlled by a brain in a jar that retains it's original personality would count as a monster, as would a creature that looks exactly the same but loses their humanity or personality by artificial means.)

6) Monsters CAN be aliens from another planet. Probably the best example of this rule are the Xenomorphs from the Alien film series. These creatures are definitive other-worldly monsters, but this then asks the question about alien species such as the Klingons. Would this mean that good, civil people such as Worf are monsters? In this case, it can not be assumed that all other worldly alien species are monsters. This then calls for a small test to determine whether or not an alien species qualifies as a monster or not. Here are some possible ways to determine whether or not an alien is a "monster".

• a) The alien species in question is more animal or more primitive than others, using primal instincts for survival. They also can not speak and communicate to each other through grunts, growls, screeches, or other beastial noises. Example: Xenomorphs

• b) If the alien species is more animal, it MUST be a predator that is likely to attack a human or humanoid sized creature. Small, harmless creatures do NOT count, nor do predators that would commonly prey on small, harmless creatures. Example: Nuna (NOT a monster)

• c) If the alien species DOES have a kind of civil structure, whether it be a primitive tribe such as the Tusken Raiders of the Star Wars universe, or more technically advanced such as the Vulcans, then they COULD still be monsters IF their society is determined to kill other species for either sport or supremacy or conquer the universe so that their species can reign supreme. Example: Predator and the Dalek.

These guidelines should help make deciding what is or is not a monster easier.

[edit] About sources and definitions

IMHO most of this new section should not be part of the article itself but part of the article guidelines instead. So it should be moved for example to this talk page or made into an html comment. I decided to not do this kind of edit myself until I get a feedback or two about it, so anyone care to comment? Eldar 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of tacky... it belongs on the talk page, as opposed to the actual article.J'onn J'onzz 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am moving the definition part here. Eldar 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like a good move to me

Moving the guidelines to the Talk/Discussion page looks fine to me.

I was thinking it was a bit bulky for a list page myself, but I figured something had to be said to help clarify the "monster" definition part. Especially considering that this was one of the cases against the "List of Famous Monsters" article.

SO far, it all looks good. Thanks for the edits.  :)

~Otaku-Man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtakuMan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On Gods and Goddesses

While monsters have so far included transformed humans, alien animals, and partially cybernetic creatures, one thing that has been on my mind was whether to include Deities in the list of monsters or not.

While some cultures make no distinction between what a "Monster" or "Deity" is, others do and some may be offended by having a deity listed in the List of Monsters.

Some deities could easily fit into this category, such as Loki, the trickster God and often enemy of Thor. And there's also Hades and Ares of Greek mythology who have often been presented as monsters or beings with monster like tendencies.

Would they belong here, or should a separate List of Deities be created?

What would be the consensus on that?

~Otaku-Man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtakuMan (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

First, I wish to thank you for your good work on this article :-) As for the subject matter, IMHO the same criteria should be employed for deities as are for aliens, which actually means that Loki is out too. And yes, a List of Deities page could actually be a very good idea.

This question lead me to think of one of my own: There seem to be roughly three categories of monsters. Named monsters (Cerberus, Medusa, Dracula), Unique unnamed ones (the Minotaur, the Hydra) and "monster species" (Zombie, Vampire - of which Dracula is one). It seems to me that these should be distinguished somehow. Perhaps by the example "Cerberus (named)", "Count Dracula (named vampire)", "The Lernaean Hydra" (instead of just "Hydra" or "Lernaean Hydra"), while monster species remain as they are now. What do you think? Eldar 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution would be to make a list with a table inside of it. It would have details such as monster type, monster species, and other information. It would probably make things neater, but then again, not all monsters can be so easily defined by type or species. Such as the monsters on Sesame Street for example. But you do have a good idea with trying to classify the monsters better. I wonder what other solutions there may be? Oh, and thank you for all the compliments. I really appreciate them.  :) OtakuMan 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have both a list and a table, this would make for redundancies, and I'm not sure whether a purely tabular format will work here. Fictional monsters are already neatly separated with their creators given, so I worry less about them. Perhaps even we could go for a subtle grammatic distinction here, such as pluralization for species (e.g. "Vampires") and using "The" for unique unnamed monsters. For a monster "genus" (e.g. "undead") we could make some concentrated representation (perhaps table with a row for each genus), only before doing this it is better to check whether it is worthwhile (for now I can think of no other genus apart from undead, and maybe giants). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh

After seeing some of the more recent updates contributed to the List, I decided to take a good look at Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh!

While listing them under "Media Franchises" is something I'm a bit hesitant to accept, I have to admit that for the time being, it is quite fitting. Not to mention, the lists of those monsters are a perfect fit in the "See Also" catagory.

But what about within the List itself for certain monsters. Some monsters are more well known and can be a kind of "Spokes-monster" for their respective franchise.

This is what I decided:

For Yu-Gi-Oh!, only monsters that are found in the manga, anime, card game, and play important roles in the stories of both are listed in the list. This includes the Blue Eyes White Dragon, Dark Magician, Dark Magician Girl, the three Egyptian God cards, Exodia, and others.

IF a card is popular because of it's strength and power (such as Cyber-Stein) but is not featured prominently in the anime or manga, then it is not considered for the main list.

For Pokemon, there are a number of monsters that are considered very special within the games and franchise, and my decision was as such:

1) Any Pokemon that is considered "Legendary" in the video games can be included in the list as they are the "Cream of the crop" of the Pokemon Monsters and are often key players in the Pokemon TV series or movies.

2) Certain Pokemon that are ALWAYS present in the anime and movies are also considered. This includes Pokemon symbol "Pikachu" and Team Rocket's main Pokemon "Meowth".

Other Pokemon can be considered including the starter Pokemon from each games (Such as Charmander, Bulbasaur, and Squirtle from the first games), and others that are often found in other Pokemon media (such as Jigglypuff who's featured prominently in the Super Smash Bros. franchise).

These additions can wait until further discussion is added.

NOTE: ALL Pokemon fall under "Video Games" as that is where the franchise started. In addition, all Yu-Gi-Oh! monsters fall under "Comics" as Yu-Gi-Oh! was originally a manga before it branched off into the franchise it is today.

OtakuMan 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multicol format, demons

Two issues actually. The first, is now that the list becomes longer (thank you Otakuman) perhaps we should think of forcing a multi-column format in some sections (is there a Wikipedia policy on that?). What do you think?

The second issue is specifically about The 72 Demons of the Ars Goetia: One could argue that they are not strictly speaking monsters. Also there are so many of them, a bit like Pokémon :-) At any rate, I would like to replace that list with a reference to its incarnation in the article on Goetia. Any objections? Eldar (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

First issue I agree on. If there's a way to make a kind of template for "column-izing" the monster entries to give more information on them as well as links to the monster in question, that would be good.

However, on your second issue, I am curious how you can consider the 72 demons as NOT being monsters. For one, they are residents of Hell that have specific duties and jobs and while some are more malicious than others it is hard to believe that they would not attempt to harm anyone. Second, they have appeared in numerous games and other media as enemy monsters including the Final Fantasy and Castlevania franchises.

If necessary, I concede that having all 72 demons is a bit excessive, but I feel long categories are allowable as long as they are properly organized and sorted. Yet, if trimming the 72 demons down is necessary, I would do so by leaving the demons that have appeared in games alone. (Example, Forneus and Decarabia are good candidates for being left in as they have both appeared in the Megami Tensei and Castlevania games)

What do you say to that?

OtakuMan 14:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About the demons, my main concern is that they are borderline between monsters and deities (of sorts…). Also, I am not sure that all references to particular demons indeed trace down to Ars Goetia. And there is some element of duplication as the list fully appears (and with additional information) in the Goetia article. I do not have the knowledge to trim down the list, so I leave it to you to either trim or keep it as it is if you feel strongly enough about it.

About multicol format, I changed my mind a bit. If kept, the Goetia demons could indeed benefit from getting multicol (as in the Goetia article), but most other places are probably better left as they are. Perhaps some "monster series" like the featured Pokémon could still benefit from grouping together instead of one line per monster.

Eldar 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Super-Villains and some Super-Heroes

After thinking about the subject of monsters a bit, I realized that there are some characters in Marvel, DC, Image, and Dark Horse comics that definitly fit the bill as monsters. For my first example, I added Spider-Man's foe The Lizard. He definitly matches the previously stated monster requirement of being a human turned into something else. In this case, a diabolical lizard man with plans of world conquest and the elimination or enslavement of humanity.

However, while the Lizard is a good example of a monster, what about other Super-Villains or Super Heroes for that matter?

Take Doctor Octopus, for example. He COULD count as a monster since he has become something other than human, but NOT entirely. He's basically been made "more than human" by the inclusion of his mechanical arms. The question there is whether or not that makes him enough of a monster?

As for Super-Heroes, a good example of a heroic monster is The Incredible Hulk. The big green muscle machine is a good example of a person who has been turned into something else that's not quite human. Likewise, this also begs the same question for Super-Villains: "How much of a super-increase does a hero or villain need to be certified as a monster?"

Like Captain America is a super-hero who is NOT a monster. Thanks to the super syrum, he gained extra strength, intelligence, agility, and then some to become a "Super-Human", but likewise the key there is "Super-Human", which means they are still human, but enhanced in ways that are within or beyond huamn limits.

My theory, therefore, goes: Super-Heroes and Super-Villains that rely on gadgets, armor, or magic items are most definitly NOT monsters. Humans that have endured a transformation, but still retain the primary physical appearance AND mental capacity of a human are NOT monsters. However, if the transformation causes a change to the physical body, or warps their mind in a way that they are no longer the person they used to be, then they ARE a monster.

Any questions?

OtakuMan 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing in regards to Super-Heroes and Super-Villains that are aliens. An alien species that has super-powers as part of their race is NOT a monster. In a super-hero sense, examples include SuperMan and Silver Surfer. The argument here goes that SuperMan is NOT a monster, whereas Silver Surfer IS a monster.

As a Kryptonian, Superman has powers on Earth due to the light from a yellow sun. Therefore, if any other Kryptonians survived the explosion and came to Earth, then they too would have the same powers as Superman. Therefore, Superman's alien origins do not make him a monster as he has the same abilities as any other Kryptonian would have if they were on Earth (and if any others were alive).

On the other hand, Silver Surfer is a monster because, while an alien, he BECAME the Silver Surfer after being transformed by Galactus. Hailing from the planet Zenn-La, and therefore being a Zenn-Lavian, he was transformed from his normal Zenn-Lavian self into the Silver Surfer when he agreed to be Galactus' herald. This gave him a full body transformation and cosmic powers which he was not born with. Therefore, because he TRANSFORMED from his original ALIEN body into a metallic cosmic entity which gave him super-powers in the process, he constitutes as a monster. (He also had his mind warped by Galactus' power, but regained it after encountering the Fantastic Four, so while that "monsterized" mind part of him has been reversed, he still retains the transformed Silver body, thus keeping him a monster.

OtakuMan 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be very very careful about including super villains as monsters. I would say that only someone that has lost the last shred of humanity qualifies. IMHO having a rational objective (such as world domination) is already disqualifying (but world destruction may be considered irrational). This certainly means that Doctor Octopus is not a monster. Eldar 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget my first Monster classification rule: That they can be both good AND evil! That's why The Hulk, Thing, and Silver Surfer count as they have been "monsterized" into something else other than their original form. It follows the Japanese monster definition of "Bakemono" - <Thing that Changes> or <Thing that HAS Changed>. Since Hulk, Thing, and Silver Surfer have all been changed, then they are proper monsters.

And I appreciate your concern, but I realized that some good monsters have been written into comics and it would be a shame to leave them out of the list. Especially since some of them retain their human (or in the case of Silver Surfer, alien) selves and have to adapt to living in a monstrous body, whether it be sleek and shiny (Silver Surfer) or big and rocky (The Thing), the physical changes are enough to ostracize them from the rest of their people. How they deal with this makes for great story as they question "Am I Man or Monster?" and in the case of the Hulk, it's a classic "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" case which is a STAPLE of fictional monsters as a whole.

Also, it's this very battle that makes for great Super-Heroes and great Super-Villains as some monsters take their change of being or their existence for good, whereas others may go down the path of evil. I agree that Doc Ock isn't a monster, he's a cyborg if anything else, but not enough to be an official monster. Megalomaniac? Sure! Evil? Definitely! A monster? Not really, just an evil human with some artificial implants, but not enough to totally change him as a whole; something that is crucial for being a human made into a monster.

And there you have it!

OtakuMan 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - In regards to mutants, such as the X-Men, I do not consider them monsters as opposed to genetic super-humans by birth. The conditions they have are ones they were born with, and they are still the children of men, only with enhanced abilities. Of course, one of the X-Men's major draws is how the Mutants react to being treated as monsters by the rest of humanity. And for some mutants, the question of "Am I really a monster?" is also a major plot point. The truth of course is that they are not, no matter what appearance they take as a result of their mutation. (Just look at Beast from X-Men!)