Talk:Bad boy archetype
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on May 14, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Untitled
I object to the deletion. The article consists of more than a dicdef already, and I plan on adding more information and sources in the near future as well. It an important pop cultural phenomenon. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to include this particular reference but it has some interesting stuff (see commentary on the Rake) http://www.seductionscience.com/archetypes/ Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad boy vs. jerk
I think that the recent change makes this article more about the "jerk" archetype than the "bad boy" archetype. There can be a lot of crossover between the two but they're not necessarily identical. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A jerk is something else altogether - an unpleasant person who would not normally succeed romantically. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on how you define success. If it means getting laid, there are a lot of jerks who succeed; in fact, the question of why the nice guy tends to not score while the jerk does has been pondered by many, although the answer was perhaps best expressed by Tony Clink. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested move 2 March 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Bad boy (archetype) → Bad boy – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS there does not need to be a disambiguation for this. Bad boy can be where the archetype is and Bad Boy can be the disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support - There are no other competitors for this article title (lowercase is WP:SMALLDETAILS. it should be considered primary due to being a topic of general knowledge, and for being the namesake for all of the topics listed on the Bad Boy dab page. -- Netoholic @ 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose there are a massive number of other options at Bad Boy, and this is little more than a WP:DICTDEF, I think the existing redirect is a better option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Almost none of the articles or names at Bad Boy are lowercase, besides the obvious non-primarytopic Bad boy clause. WP:DIFFCAPS distinctly says that there is no need for disambiguation in this case. While the article is almost a dicdef now it has significant potential for expansion as a notable topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sceptical this article seems a bit WP:ORish. Can't imagine anyone wanting it. Bad boy archetype might be preferable if we are busting to remove brackets per WP:NATURAL. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – It seems highly unlikely that Bad boy (archetype) would be the most-often intended target for people entering Bad boy. Dicklyon (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not the primary topic of "bad boy", and a term that is used with variable capitalisation, which means the SMALLDETAIL is too small. Support Bad boy archetype. Support merging of example tropes and archetypes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
People who fancy bad boys are bad
I mean if someone fancies bad boys then they are bad. I find the phrase why.do good.girls fancy bad boya to be almost an oxynoron. Because if you fancy and support bad people then you are a bad person If you fancy bullies because they bully people then you are supporting bullies. If you support evil then you are evil. I am not talking about people who are being bullied to support abusers. I mean people who passionately boast of their support for bulles and abusive men and still claim they are the voice of common sense. Conclusion If you fancy evil men the you are evil. JOEYTHEVIMSANTEPOET (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)