![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Having browsed through the history of edits on this page it appears that the list of myths/gods/characters-from-previous-works etc is particularly contentious and subject to mini-revert wars. This is particularly problematic as the discussion page shows that a number of people come here looking for exactly this list and the justification for one name being kept while another is removed seems hazy at times. About the only thing people agree on is that a comprehensive and accurate list is very hard to agree on. :) Gaiman's own interviews and blog (referenced at the bottom of the main entry page) suggest that he himself is not completely certain who everybody is (Delerium in the park is a particularly good example of where general consensus, rather than authorial intent, seems to hold sway. If the author themself states that they're uncertain about something can it really be included as a definite?...or would Gaiman's own opinion count as the ultimate in original research? :) My point is that I thought the list could perhaps benefit from a caveat statement at the beginning of the section such as "Although a number of characters in the novel are explicit and occasionally named examples of specific gods and mythical figures, many more are implied in vague or passing references that are open to interpretation. Even Gaiman himself has admitted in interview (can't find the citation as yet...will keep looking) that he is unsure whether an ancillary character in San Francisco is in fact Delirium of the Endless as is widely accepted by his fans. As such it is extremely difficult to form a comprehensive and wholly accurate list of all mythical figures in the novel". I'm certainly happy for the wording to be changed if it's not ideal, but I think something ought to be there just to show that it's not 100% accurate with no debate and total agreement. Normally I'd be bold but this is obviously a tender issue and I don't want to just wade into it without discussion. If there're no major criticisms within a week or so I'll add it anyway and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozlucien ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a list of gods who appear as characters and a separate list of gods who are only mentioned? A lot of the gods on the current list don't make personal appearances, which makes the list sort of misleading. If anybody objects, please tell me so. If not, I'll make the changes as soon as I've finished the last hundred pages and have the time. Mythgeek Ellipsis ( talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiki is also not a bureacrocy. It says that next to its not a democracy. We are not taking a vote, we are merely making it user friendly. Im not sure why the list of gods bothers you so. It is well within the rules of wiki. reread them. It is merely saying things can't be decided by an ctual poll. Not that we can't do what makes research easiest for those looking up the article. I am re deleting the edit. that lit helped me. im sure it will help others. All information starts out as original researxh. there is plenty of worse offenses in wikipedea if you need something to keep you busy, look at the Dragonlance article. that is all original research seemingly. Maybe if you have theb chance go clean that up. It sure needs it, Azemandeus. isn't that the name of the smartest man on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 ( talk) 10:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the whole list should be removed, as it is mostly OR. It's not really necessary, even. Link the appropriate names to the article on that god or myth and leave it at that. If, in a few days, no one has a valid argument, I'm just going to remove it. ~ Auzemandius { talk/ contrib} 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted this edit - that list you're so quick to disparage is one of the main reasons people access this article, it's essential. I would favour seperating the list altogether and giving it a page of its own rather than deleting it outright. 193.1.100.7 ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I read an online summary of a presentation by Neil Gaiman, and edited the entry based on that summary. But upon reading this discussion I feel compelled to ask: Should the author's direct assertions be considered authoritative on the matter of identity or representation of mythological beings in the author's own work? I believe so, and thus feel justified by my edit. Is anyone in disagreement with the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.36.46 ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, or a Democracy, then what is it? Andy_Howard ( talk) 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If one cannot get a list of all the Gods in Wikipedia, then where else can one. If it's so offensive, perhaps a separate entry. One can list the characters with descriptions from the book, without any speculation, with verifiable material only. Robauz ( talk) 12:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I m sorry, but spoilers are a part of wikipedia. It says that in the rules that this is not an advertisement for books or movies, and it is very reasonable to have complete plots included here. So there will be no "spoiler " warnings. I guess if you don't want the plot spoiled best not to look in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 ( talk) 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Somebody please put some of these spolier marks in the book plot because I just read a bit through it and I think I know way too much already. Sorry for not editing it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.54.3 ( talk) 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to add spoiler tags, I figured since they didn't have them, it would be safe.
68.229.55.89 ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It says that the book was only done in hardcover and softcover print format, yet I have the audio book on CD, can someone find a reference online and update the article? Thanks. 71.225.125.176 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --Stexe
Rewrote this after a review of the edit history here. I believe that if "Shadow is alluded to be Balder" is included in the article, then it should also be included that Gaiman himself said that Shadow's real name is Baldur Moon, although he has not (and doubtless, given his love of keeping the mysteries of this story intact, never will) said that Shadow is Baldur. Is there a reason I'm not able to find in the various edit histories for why this little fact was removed from the article? I want to open it for discussion before I add it back in, especially since I'm having some trouble finding a cite for Gaiman's statement about Shadow's real name. RaCha'ar 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed Paul Bunyan from the "for instance" of folk heroes line, because this character is specifically mentioned as NOT being a folk hero; rather he is an artificial construct for marketing. Myrrander 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Question. Where did Delirium appear? I don't remember her in the book. JethroElfman 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Loki, speaking to Laura, says that if he had a sprig of mistletoe he would use it to run Shadow through. This is how Loki is supposed to kill Baldr during Ragnarok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.246.162 ( talk) 09:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never before heard the assertion that Stardust and Sandman are intended to be part of the same world as American Gods and Anansi Boys. I'm going to leave this tagged with citeneeded but if the user who added it or someone else doesn't point to some proof for this I'm going to remove it as original research. - RaCha'ar 00:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have issues with the character being referred to as Balder "Shadow" Moon in this article. I understand that the character article is at Balder Moon (which I also have some problems with); however, Shadow is never referred to as Balder in this book. It's only from comments made in interviews by Gaiman, and later Monarch of the Glen, that we know that this is Shadow's real name. I'm having trouble figuring out how to point this out while still linking to the character's real name; any help? - RaCha'ar 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The guy who no one remembers, who tells a waiter about her futere, anyone who know who this is? Is it ever explained?
Do we really need this long list of every god who appears or is even briefly mentioned in the book? It's taking up the bulk of the article now and it looks sloppy. I vote to cut it down to major characters only. - RaCha'ar 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The List is essential, it should stay. However I think many of the characters listed are not, in actuality, mentioned in the book. I move the List be trimmed to include only characters mentioned. -G.Hargreaves
They are all explicitly named; I think the list may be nearly complete now though (I'm getting sick of it at least !) Can it not be separated off ? The title of the list is "Gods and legends appearing in the novel", If the list is to be trimmed then the Title needs to be changed. I beleive the list is now more or less complete so the 'Incomplete' note could be removed... GrahamHardy 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that; I just went with the current title of the list "Gods and Legends appearing in the Novel" saw that it was incomplete and was asking for help so completed it ! I Change the title and slash the list; I've taken the book back to the library though so I cannot do it ! Thanks, GrahamHardy 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The list is too long an cumbersome to be useful in its current form. If it's going to be left up in its current form, the more obscure references should probably include a footnote that lists the page number the figure appears on and a line or two that refers to it. I do question the list's compiler regarding what exactly qualifies as "appearing in the novel". Specifically, Jaquel makes passing reference to Jesus. That shouldn't qualify as an appearance, though. I don't recall any appearance by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, either, although the same do play a large role in another Gaiman body of work, "Good Omens." ChipEverwood 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of all the gods is essential and the very nature of what an encyclopedia is all all about: easily accessed information linked to further information. The list could be a seperate page, but what does it matter if it makes the page long, it's at the bottom of the page. :
Robauz (
talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter Vasiljev 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC): AFAIK, Cthulhu was never mentioned in the novel. Gaiman did write a somewhat spoofish short story of him/her/it giving an interview to a reporter ("I, Cthulhu", if I remember correctly).
Gaiman has indeed written various stories referencing the Cthulhu Mythos, but American Gods doesn't contain any direct reference to Cthulhu or any other Lovecraft creatures. The reference to Cthulhu does not belong on the list. ChipEverwood 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I just read a line in the book. It says "A young girl, no older than fourteen, her hair dyed green and orange and pink, stared at them as they went by. She sat beside a dog, a mongrel, with a piece of string for a collar and a leash." Anyone else think this is a reference to Delirium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.177.46 ( talk) 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thumbing through Fragile Things and something in the introduction caught me. More so for the back ground of "Pages From A Journal Found In A Shoebox Left In A Greyhound Bus Somewhere Between Tulsa, Oklahoma, And Louisvile, Kentucky" where Neil writes,"I wanted to write something about identity and travel and America, like a tiny companion piece to American Gods, in which everything, including any kind of resolution, hovered just out of reach." So would that make it part of the same universe of American Gods? It's worth a thought, maybe not a mention, but a thought.-- Pony English 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what is the difference of the 12,000 word extra version to that of the retail? Pony English 07:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the basis for listing Sam Black Crow as Morrigan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.1.17.5 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, i just reread the novel and although black crows were associated with the Morrigan, and only very briefly at that, there seemed to be no connection between Sam and the Morrigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.239.249 ( talk) 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Morrigan is featured at the battle. She's the one who pisses in front of Eostre and talks about the coming battle. Sam Black Crow is never mentioned at the battle. Plus, Sam is a lesbian, not bisexual as stated in the main article. Lots of lesbians experiment with men in their youth, same as gays experiment with girlfriends, if they're unsure or trying to act straight in front of family. Assume the same for Sam, she's clearly lesbian in her later years. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.113.81.76 (
talk) 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman has said that Sam is "basically bi" http://thebookbeard.tumblr.com/post/145768471426/do-any-of-your-books-have-lesbians-in-them-i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apow0896 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with The Sandman series, can anyone list those characters? Thanks a lot. :D -- TX55 TALK 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delirium. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.229.236.112 (
talk) 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Request to have American Gods added to wikipedia's "magic realism novels: american magic realism" category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_magic_realism_novels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholmcode ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone identified and/or fixed the error cited by Gaiman in the Wikipedia article (but not explicitly named)? Can editors familiar with this work check this out? SamuelRiv ( talk) 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gods. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Too much publishing history in the lede. Suggestions? Kortoso ( talk) 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "Shadow" Moon should be in quotes-- the book says it's on his ID and ticket, implying it's his legal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.127.77.18 ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Having browsed through the history of edits on this page it appears that the list of myths/gods/characters-from-previous-works etc is particularly contentious and subject to mini-revert wars. This is particularly problematic as the discussion page shows that a number of people come here looking for exactly this list and the justification for one name being kept while another is removed seems hazy at times. About the only thing people agree on is that a comprehensive and accurate list is very hard to agree on. :) Gaiman's own interviews and blog (referenced at the bottom of the main entry page) suggest that he himself is not completely certain who everybody is (Delerium in the park is a particularly good example of where general consensus, rather than authorial intent, seems to hold sway. If the author themself states that they're uncertain about something can it really be included as a definite?...or would Gaiman's own opinion count as the ultimate in original research? :) My point is that I thought the list could perhaps benefit from a caveat statement at the beginning of the section such as "Although a number of characters in the novel are explicit and occasionally named examples of specific gods and mythical figures, many more are implied in vague or passing references that are open to interpretation. Even Gaiman himself has admitted in interview (can't find the citation as yet...will keep looking) that he is unsure whether an ancillary character in San Francisco is in fact Delirium of the Endless as is widely accepted by his fans. As such it is extremely difficult to form a comprehensive and wholly accurate list of all mythical figures in the novel". I'm certainly happy for the wording to be changed if it's not ideal, but I think something ought to be there just to show that it's not 100% accurate with no debate and total agreement. Normally I'd be bold but this is obviously a tender issue and I don't want to just wade into it without discussion. If there're no major criticisms within a week or so I'll add it anyway and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozlucien ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a list of gods who appear as characters and a separate list of gods who are only mentioned? A lot of the gods on the current list don't make personal appearances, which makes the list sort of misleading. If anybody objects, please tell me so. If not, I'll make the changes as soon as I've finished the last hundred pages and have the time. Mythgeek Ellipsis ( talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiki is also not a bureacrocy. It says that next to its not a democracy. We are not taking a vote, we are merely making it user friendly. Im not sure why the list of gods bothers you so. It is well within the rules of wiki. reread them. It is merely saying things can't be decided by an ctual poll. Not that we can't do what makes research easiest for those looking up the article. I am re deleting the edit. that lit helped me. im sure it will help others. All information starts out as original researxh. there is plenty of worse offenses in wikipedea if you need something to keep you busy, look at the Dragonlance article. that is all original research seemingly. Maybe if you have theb chance go clean that up. It sure needs it, Azemandeus. isn't that the name of the smartest man on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 ( talk) 10:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the whole list should be removed, as it is mostly OR. It's not really necessary, even. Link the appropriate names to the article on that god or myth and leave it at that. If, in a few days, no one has a valid argument, I'm just going to remove it. ~ Auzemandius { talk/ contrib} 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted this edit - that list you're so quick to disparage is one of the main reasons people access this article, it's essential. I would favour seperating the list altogether and giving it a page of its own rather than deleting it outright. 193.1.100.7 ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I read an online summary of a presentation by Neil Gaiman, and edited the entry based on that summary. But upon reading this discussion I feel compelled to ask: Should the author's direct assertions be considered authoritative on the matter of identity or representation of mythological beings in the author's own work? I believe so, and thus feel justified by my edit. Is anyone in disagreement with the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.36.46 ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, or a Democracy, then what is it? Andy_Howard ( talk) 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If one cannot get a list of all the Gods in Wikipedia, then where else can one. If it's so offensive, perhaps a separate entry. One can list the characters with descriptions from the book, without any speculation, with verifiable material only. Robauz ( talk) 12:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I m sorry, but spoilers are a part of wikipedia. It says that in the rules that this is not an advertisement for books or movies, and it is very reasonable to have complete plots included here. So there will be no "spoiler " warnings. I guess if you don't want the plot spoiled best not to look in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 ( talk) 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Somebody please put some of these spolier marks in the book plot because I just read a bit through it and I think I know way too much already. Sorry for not editing it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.54.3 ( talk) 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to add spoiler tags, I figured since they didn't have them, it would be safe.
68.229.55.89 ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It says that the book was only done in hardcover and softcover print format, yet I have the audio book on CD, can someone find a reference online and update the article? Thanks. 71.225.125.176 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --Stexe
Rewrote this after a review of the edit history here. I believe that if "Shadow is alluded to be Balder" is included in the article, then it should also be included that Gaiman himself said that Shadow's real name is Baldur Moon, although he has not (and doubtless, given his love of keeping the mysteries of this story intact, never will) said that Shadow is Baldur. Is there a reason I'm not able to find in the various edit histories for why this little fact was removed from the article? I want to open it for discussion before I add it back in, especially since I'm having some trouble finding a cite for Gaiman's statement about Shadow's real name. RaCha'ar 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed Paul Bunyan from the "for instance" of folk heroes line, because this character is specifically mentioned as NOT being a folk hero; rather he is an artificial construct for marketing. Myrrander 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Question. Where did Delirium appear? I don't remember her in the book. JethroElfman 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Loki, speaking to Laura, says that if he had a sprig of mistletoe he would use it to run Shadow through. This is how Loki is supposed to kill Baldr during Ragnarok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.246.162 ( talk) 09:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never before heard the assertion that Stardust and Sandman are intended to be part of the same world as American Gods and Anansi Boys. I'm going to leave this tagged with citeneeded but if the user who added it or someone else doesn't point to some proof for this I'm going to remove it as original research. - RaCha'ar 00:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have issues with the character being referred to as Balder "Shadow" Moon in this article. I understand that the character article is at Balder Moon (which I also have some problems with); however, Shadow is never referred to as Balder in this book. It's only from comments made in interviews by Gaiman, and later Monarch of the Glen, that we know that this is Shadow's real name. I'm having trouble figuring out how to point this out while still linking to the character's real name; any help? - RaCha'ar 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The guy who no one remembers, who tells a waiter about her futere, anyone who know who this is? Is it ever explained?
Do we really need this long list of every god who appears or is even briefly mentioned in the book? It's taking up the bulk of the article now and it looks sloppy. I vote to cut it down to major characters only. - RaCha'ar 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The List is essential, it should stay. However I think many of the characters listed are not, in actuality, mentioned in the book. I move the List be trimmed to include only characters mentioned. -G.Hargreaves
They are all explicitly named; I think the list may be nearly complete now though (I'm getting sick of it at least !) Can it not be separated off ? The title of the list is "Gods and legends appearing in the novel", If the list is to be trimmed then the Title needs to be changed. I beleive the list is now more or less complete so the 'Incomplete' note could be removed... GrahamHardy 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that; I just went with the current title of the list "Gods and Legends appearing in the Novel" saw that it was incomplete and was asking for help so completed it ! I Change the title and slash the list; I've taken the book back to the library though so I cannot do it ! Thanks, GrahamHardy 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The list is too long an cumbersome to be useful in its current form. If it's going to be left up in its current form, the more obscure references should probably include a footnote that lists the page number the figure appears on and a line or two that refers to it. I do question the list's compiler regarding what exactly qualifies as "appearing in the novel". Specifically, Jaquel makes passing reference to Jesus. That shouldn't qualify as an appearance, though. I don't recall any appearance by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, either, although the same do play a large role in another Gaiman body of work, "Good Omens." ChipEverwood 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of all the gods is essential and the very nature of what an encyclopedia is all all about: easily accessed information linked to further information. The list could be a seperate page, but what does it matter if it makes the page long, it's at the bottom of the page. :
Robauz (
talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter Vasiljev 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC): AFAIK, Cthulhu was never mentioned in the novel. Gaiman did write a somewhat spoofish short story of him/her/it giving an interview to a reporter ("I, Cthulhu", if I remember correctly).
Gaiman has indeed written various stories referencing the Cthulhu Mythos, but American Gods doesn't contain any direct reference to Cthulhu or any other Lovecraft creatures. The reference to Cthulhu does not belong on the list. ChipEverwood 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I just read a line in the book. It says "A young girl, no older than fourteen, her hair dyed green and orange and pink, stared at them as they went by. She sat beside a dog, a mongrel, with a piece of string for a collar and a leash." Anyone else think this is a reference to Delirium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.177.46 ( talk) 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thumbing through Fragile Things and something in the introduction caught me. More so for the back ground of "Pages From A Journal Found In A Shoebox Left In A Greyhound Bus Somewhere Between Tulsa, Oklahoma, And Louisvile, Kentucky" where Neil writes,"I wanted to write something about identity and travel and America, like a tiny companion piece to American Gods, in which everything, including any kind of resolution, hovered just out of reach." So would that make it part of the same universe of American Gods? It's worth a thought, maybe not a mention, but a thought.-- Pony English 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what is the difference of the 12,000 word extra version to that of the retail? Pony English 07:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the basis for listing Sam Black Crow as Morrigan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.1.17.5 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, i just reread the novel and although black crows were associated with the Morrigan, and only very briefly at that, there seemed to be no connection between Sam and the Morrigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.239.249 ( talk) 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Morrigan is featured at the battle. She's the one who pisses in front of Eostre and talks about the coming battle. Sam Black Crow is never mentioned at the battle. Plus, Sam is a lesbian, not bisexual as stated in the main article. Lots of lesbians experiment with men in their youth, same as gays experiment with girlfriends, if they're unsure or trying to act straight in front of family. Assume the same for Sam, she's clearly lesbian in her later years. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.113.81.76 (
talk) 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman has said that Sam is "basically bi" http://thebookbeard.tumblr.com/post/145768471426/do-any-of-your-books-have-lesbians-in-them-i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apow0896 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with The Sandman series, can anyone list those characters? Thanks a lot. :D -- TX55 TALK 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delirium. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.229.236.112 (
talk) 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Request to have American Gods added to wikipedia's "magic realism novels: american magic realism" category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_magic_realism_novels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholmcode ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone identified and/or fixed the error cited by Gaiman in the Wikipedia article (but not explicitly named)? Can editors familiar with this work check this out? SamuelRiv ( talk) 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gods. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Too much publishing history in the lede. Suggestions? Kortoso ( talk) 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "Shadow" Moon should be in quotes-- the book says it's on his ID and ticket, implying it's his legal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.127.77.18 ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)