Talk:Evil Overlord List

Parallel Development

What, if anything, should be said about this list?

http://www.globalguardians.com/stuff/overlord/eviloverlord.php

Anspach admits that this list developed separately and concurrently with his own, and while both authors have conceded that there has been cross-pollination, both lists are entities that stand on their own and were created separately. (In fact, according to the histories given by the creators, the one I linked to above predates Anspach's list.) So... what to do?

Merge it in. It's fairly clear to me that both Overlord Lists have been passed around and been influential, if only because of the cross-pollination. --maru (talk) contribs 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done

Notability

This article has several in links. One of which Helen Darville involved a journalist being fired for plagarism of the list. Seems notable enough to keep. --RJFJR 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to its pervasiveness in Internet culture/humor, of course. --maru (talk) contribs 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with its popularity here, on the internet or anywhere. Who wrote it? I'm assuming it has ownership if someone can plagiarize it. Is it a document? Following the link to the "original" posting page brings me to some kid's role-playing site. Apparently, the list was cooked up by some *other* kids on a sci-fi message board, and they seem to have cribbed it from a SNL skit.

Given the time line of development for this document, these "kids" as you so dismissively call them are likely in their 40s. Perhaps a little less sneering is called for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

This is NOT significant. It may be funny but it's self-promotion, pure and simple.ka1iban 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isnt self-promotion. The Evil Overlord list has been a fairly significant in SFF humour for a long time now. There are even extensions and imitations. Consider for example http://nielsenhayden.com/overlord/. Removing the warning. Hornplease 08:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The link I have added to the end - which provides links to the Evil Empress, Innocent Bystander and other lists, is one of several similar, all equally useful. Jackiespeel 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's definitely notable. I don't know if it fits the strictest definition of the term "internet meme", but it's a very well-known list. It's probably impossible to have any significant online involvement with the geek subculture (disclaimer: I don't mean "geek" in a pejorative way; I've seen Star Wars waaaay too many times to consider it anything other than an honorific!) without seeing this list at least once. It's so well-loved that parts of it have been reproduced in tons of places, which is why the link Ka1iban found was just to some kid's (Angelfire or Geocities or whatever it was) site. I think I even saw a (greatly abridged) version in Knights of the Dinner Table some years back. It's a veritable staple of geek humor. --Icarus 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I get all that. My point is, can/should it be quantified in an encyclopedic article or is it just an grand-scale example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT? I've seen Austin Powers, too, but I don't think this concept (however much it's poured over at Slashdot or alt.geeks.scifi or whereever) necessarily warrants an encyclopedic article. Also, the continued absence of information concerning the list's initial inception, authorship, publication, etc. is distressing. Apparently SOMEONE wrote it because someone else was charged with plagiarism for reprinting it. Having that expanded info about the list would go a long way toward this article's legitimization, I think. Without it...well, the article looks pretty unimportant. Don't tell me that you would hesitate to criticize an article about a book that was written by "some guys on the internet, a while ago" that's "super well known", etc etc. Let's get some hard facts; if they're not available, then it's just fancruft. ka1iban 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

excellent additions re: authorship and origin. This fits the bill nicely, IMO ka1iban 18:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability, part two

The notability arguments above boil down to (1) somebody got busted for plagiarizing it once, so it must be notable, and (2) lots of geeks know about it. I don't accept either of these; people get busted for plagiarizing trivial documents all the time. This does not elevate the documents to notable status. Should a Wikipedia article be created for every document plagiarized by Blair Hornstine? And the "geeks know about it test" come up pretty thin -- a google search for text in the list itself, omitting trivials, finds only 144 hits, which seems light for an "internet meme". Nexis finds no print hits, and only one blog hit (which seems to be a quotation of a single line from the list).

I accept that some people have heard the joke, and that it is notable to them, but it doesn't seem to me that many people have heard it, or that it's sufficiently notable to merit an article here. I'm calling for AFD. Uucp

You must be using some other form of Google, because when I did a search for the phrase "Evil Overlord List", I found 1,040,000 hits, which seems about right for an "internet meme". It seems to me that you're intentionally skewing the evidence to support your own personal dislike of this article.

The list is a standard reference for science fiction cliches, used by notable writing instructors including Teresa Nielsen Hayden to illustrate points about how cliches should be approached in writing. This suggests to me that it is notable. See reference number 4 on the current version of the article, for excerpts from her lecture on the subject. JulesH 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually google only gets 143,000 results for Evil Overlord List and 22,100 for the phrase in quotation. So it really hurts the notability of it. However, due to the guidelines it does cite sources and therefore good without the tag. Even if only 10 people have ever heard of it, apparently it still meets notability guidelines. 72.221.114.113 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This line is in plaintext on the page: "This is much bullshit george w bush"

but isn't in there when I go to edit. Someone fix, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.83.78 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Clean Up

I think this needs to be fixed up a little. It looks really sloppy. The list needs proper punctuation and to be numbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sworded lion26 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Butler list copyvio

Anon: stop posting the Butler list here. I realize you're basing your posting on "The following list isn't copyrighted to anyone, as we didn't think to copyright it while we were creating it. If you enjoy it, feel free to pass it along or post it anywhere with no strings attached."[1], but Butler is wrong.

Copyright doesn't work that way. Everything is copyrighted by default (all rights not explicitly granted are reserved). And further, this proprietary non-licensing is viral: even if every contributor but the last had explicitly licensed their contribution into the public domain as required (which they didn't so this is a moot point), the last's non-public domain contribution turns it from a PD list into a derivative but completely copyrighted list. That list cannot be posted on Wikipedia, short of getting each and every contributor to license their contribution appropriately. Don't add it back. --Gwern (contribs) 23:31 10 February 2008 (GMT)

I contacted Butler via email about this, specifically wondering what he meant by "use it how you like" and so on. He responded thusly: "Technically, this person you're talking about is correct. However, they are speaking from a position of ignorance. Legally, I am the sole copyright holder through work-for-hire transferrance. It says on my site explicitly that anything submitted to me becomes my property and that by submitting to me, you agree that its mine. That makes it mine. And I released the Evil Overlord List from copyright, and did so quite legally. So you tell that "arrogant so-and-so" as you call him that he needs to climb down off his copyright soapbox and smell the public domain." So... any further questions?

I don't buy that. There's nothing 'for hire' here, and I am unsure that copyright can be transfered just through a blurb on a webpage - that seems to be beyond what mere EULAs and shrinkwrap licenses can do...

I've asked for comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Work for hire copyright. --Gwern (contribs) 00:25 4 March 2008 (GMT)

That would rather assume that the person submitting anything actually has such right to grant anyway. Much the same as someone pasting a blatant copyvio here despite the "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" at the bottom of the edit box, if they don't own the right in the first place, they can't "sell" it on. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright seems unclear. That aside, is it even appropriate to include the list, editorially speaking? The article's purpose here is encyclopedic description of the list, not hosting of the list itself. One or two examples might be preferred (and possibly admissible under WP's fair use rules, if the copyright discussion trends that way) -- take the Chuck Norris facts article as an example. The full list might be more appropriate for Wikisource if the licensing is appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The website in question indicates that "This list has its origins on the now-nonexistent FidoNet Science Fiction and Fandom (SFFAN) email echo, in a discussion regarding a sketch seen on an episode of Saturday Night Live sometime in 1990. In the sketch, several Bond villains were appearing on a talkshow touting their new book, "What Not To Do If You Capture James Bond". The discussion on SFFAN was specifically regarding what advice might be found in that book. The instigator of the discussion was Alesia Chamness; other contributors included Jason Welles, Brian R. Williams, Merideth Knepper, and Alexi Vandenburg. I was also one of its contributors." This website confirms that origin. Jack Butler does not demonstrate the authority to legally release into the public domain material submitted by the other individuals named or by any unnamed individuals. If he were the sole creator of the list, the statement on the website that it is public domain would satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as I understand them (posting a statement releasing material per GFDL is one of the steps by which articles labeled copyright problems are cleared as problems); as he is not, it doesn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for commenting. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Copyright: it is a tangled and often confusing mess. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inspired Works?

I'm trying to remember if there's enough things that were inspired by the list to mention; or possibly where it's been referenced. I can remember at least three webcomics that were based on it, but that was years ago and can't remember their names. Also, a few years back I copied onto my computer what was the start of the 'Minion's Motivational Manual' (sample below); something created by the Evil Overlord and handed out to his minions. There was only 21 rules when I took it down, but it had to have continued somewhere. (e.g. Rule #16: If you hear a strange sound outside of your field of vision, call for reinforcements and sound the alarm. Addendum 16.A: Never, under any circumstances, should you check out a situation alone. Addendum 16.B: Unless ordered by your Master. - Rule #13: You shall not be lenient in your shooting lessons. It is expected of you to be able to *hit* whatever you shoot at.) --Gero (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evil Overlord List. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012013532/http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1997/222/tzad222.html to http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1997/222/tzad222.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evil Overlord List. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165417/http://www.sff.net/paradise/overlord.html to http://www.sff.net/paradise/overlord.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165557/http://www.sff.net/paradise/plottricks.htm to http://www.sff.net/paradise/plottricks.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)