This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know the significance of the " Greater Powers" listed here? There is no explanation, and there are no links to additional information. Is this a joke? Does this section belong on this page? Can this section be safely deleted, or is it a legitimate contribution to the subject? Canonblack 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, new one: under the "Angel and Buffy Universe", we have listed Osiris. The list should be for deities in fictional universes, but Osiris is/was a deity in the real universe (I won't approach the subject of whether Osiris is really fictional), and the link is to the article on Osiris as he is known to us through Egyptology, etal. (although there is mention of Osiris as a character in Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The question: does Osiris belong here, since Osiris is not just a deity in a fictional universe? [EDIT] And add Sterculius under Beavis and Butthead: although used as an object of literal toilet humor, Sterculius was an actual Roman deity, so does it belong here? Canonblack 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this be merged into List of deities, since that page seens to serve the same purpose, listing fictional deities.
What is the criteria for whether a character is a god or not? If it is simply that a being is worshiped as a god by someone, then we should include the Go'a'uld and Asgard from Stargate, the Vorlons from Babylon 5 (who appear to the Drazi as their god), and many others. However, if we only include those who actually are gods in the fictioal world, then the Valar should not be included, as they were only worshiped as gods by some men, and not actually defined as gods by Tolkien in any of his canon works.
The Elder God thats exists within the legacy of kain universe should be on this list.
Why do some of these deities have their own pages and others do not? It seems many pages, especially those on TES, are being deleted and others are being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinlong ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Dragonball Z? They've had The North Kai, South Kai, East Kai, West Kai, Grand Kai, Supream Kai and Elder Supream Kai. If this counts, there also were Guardians of earth like, Kami and Dendai(Dendai might be spelled wrong)and also the Eternal Dragon that grants a certain number of wishes to anyone that summons him. If a diety is counted as just a magical being, then every good and evil character from the entire series should be counted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.54.199 ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
latias/latios and mewtwo 24.226.77.23 ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed now. 24.226.77.23 ( talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely all deities are fictional. Why aren't Yaweh, Allah, etc. included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappa ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Because they are asociated with acutal reality, their worshipped in the real world. While the beings on this list were made up in various games, and fastasy & fiction novels, television programmes, etc. Don't worry though, you can put the name of Allah or Yaweh on the List of Deities that list is for the deities of the real world. You'll also find their names on Names of God. I hope this helps you.
and Shaman king entries got mixed up. [2012-05-19, truncate heading -P64]
"There are also Five Grand Elemental Spirits[15] that formed from the Great Spirit itself. Each are controlled by their respective Elemental Warriors (or Shamans of great power). These spirits are:
* Spirit of Fire * Spirit of Rain * Spirit of Earth * Spirit of Wind * Spirit of Thunder
"
I'm fairly sure this bit of the Dwarf Fortress entry belongs under the Shaman king one. Particularly considering that [15] links to the Shaman king wikia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeimosTheOdd ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
no no it doesn't. Those links connect to a wikia designed specificly for the shaman king manga/anime. I'm not sure what Slaves to Armok is but its possible it has its own wikia. Look around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.13.2 ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Though I suppose this could be better described as deities appearing in fiction and/or fictionalized deities?
Maybe 'List of deities APPEARING (or mentioned, etc.) in fiction'? ((Wait, are you saying the written works in which Yahweh (for example) appears is non-fiction?))
The list of purely make-believe deities that people were never 'supposed to' take seriously... but ended up having 'followers' anyway is getting sort of long, too.
Of course, pretty much all deities appear in fiction, even discounting 'holy books' as works of fiction.
On a related stream of consciousness.... Should Stephen Colbert appear on the list of fictional deities, since he had his 'minions' edit the Conservapedia 'Conservuhtive Bible' and insert him in it (however briefly), or appear in the 'Real Deity' section for being IN a bible, or should he be in the 'Imperial Cult' category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildave ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, we get it, deities are fictional to begin with. This has only been pointed out about ten times over the past three years.
This list is of course supposed to include deities whose cult is fictional.
The question remains what the point or purpose of such a list could be. How is it different from simply linking Category:Fictional deities? It seems to be just a random list of unrelated pop culture items. Not encyclopedic. -- dab (𒁳) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Elder Scrolls section Nerevar is listed as a god, but he is never worshipped as a god, only as a saint. The three Tribunal are actually worshipped as gods. Nerevar is counted amongst the other saints (St. Rilm, St. Felms, St. Veloth, etc)and is not considered a god. 86.132.6.156 ( talk) 13:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the characters on this page deviate from what its all about. A list of deities in fiction; not a list of deity-like and/or deity-level beings in fiction, just those who were seen and/or worshipped as such, as well as those who actually were. Does anyone agree or is the page fine as it is?
Most of the Comic characters aren't dieties, it's just a list of the most impressive and powerful characters. I can't speak on most of the list because I'm not familiar with the mythos. 173.73.159.61 ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up some vandalism and created links to some historical deities (where there is obvious 1:1 correspondence). BTW, many of the historical deities have sections such as "In popular culture" in which connections can be discussed. Kortoso ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it needs to be cleaned anew. too many real world deities in that list, and a few, like Set the Old Serpent, that might need a stub of their own. -- Svartalf ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
WTF?? I spent ages listing the gods from the palladium fantasy rpg only to have the whole lot deleted! I realize I didnt do it perfectly as Im new at this but couldnt it just have been fixed instead of removing the whole thing?! Nothing on this page has sources sited yet mine gets singled out. Im surprised you didnt just delete the whole Palladium section while youre at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraineWilliams ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that outright removal is a bit excessive. particularly seeing that Dungeons and Dragons received it's own section, none of which are cited either. If there were issues with editing, fix them rather than just deleting the whole section. 50.21.197.234 ( talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 14:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
List of fictional deities → List of deities in fiction – This list relates to representations of deities in fiction and this wording helps avoid the issue of the veracity of deities. SFB 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The list previously had information about what was linked to. One editor decided to remove that. Why? @ TompaDompa: Please explain why you removed valid information. A list article doesn't just list links, it also allows for more information about each link to be presented. Look at how other fictional list are done. Category:Lists_of_fictional_things Dream Focus 17:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Either write a prose article with proper sources or stick to a navigational list that merely collates links to stand-alone Wikipedia articles. A list with brief descriptions citing no sources is appropriate for TV Tropes but not for Wikipedia.This is now a navigational list, the purpose of which is to let readers find the articles they want if they don't know the exact title. This doesn't really require citing any sources (which indeed the article doesn't and didn't); references are only strictly speaking necessary for entries whose inclusion is disputed. If you want to write an informational list, rather than purely navigational one, you need to cite sources for every single entry and every piece of information about them. You also need to do that while treating
each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectso as to abide by WP:PROPORTION. That's not necessarily impossible, but it would take a lot of work. The alternative is to write the prose article gods in fiction as was suggested during the AfD, based on proper secondary/tertiary sources on that topic. This is something that I and Piotrus have done for quite a few articles that were formerly TV Tropes-style lists, some of which are now WP:Good articles such as Earth in science fiction, Immortality in fiction, Moon in science fiction, and Mercury in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.Entries with descriptions that reflect what editors, rather than sources, think is important is a typical hallmark of TV Tropes-style lists. It often results in vastly disparate levels of detail in the different entries' descriptions (presumably because fans of particular works want to go into a lot of depth when describing those entries because they think they are interesting). The way to avoid problems of this kind is to use sources on the overarching topic as the basis for the description so as to ensure that everything is treated in WP:PROPORTION to
its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It is common to add a little additional information (which may make reference to the full article unnecessary). For example, the disambiguation page for Roosevelt contains the entry " Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), 32nd U.S. president". On the other hand, " Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), US president 1933–1945, Democratic Party, a central figure in world events, creator of the New Deal, in a wheelchair from polio since 1921, died in office" would be inappropriate; it summarises the article rather than merely disambiguating.There is no need to disambiguate like that here (and this is of course not a disambiguation page in the first place). TompaDompa ( talk) 23:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
if there is a difference in emphasis between the two.... Did you see such discrepancies between the articles and the summaries we had here in a significant amount of examples? If there were such cases, the suggestion of that guideline is that
editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy, which in my view does not mean removal but improvement by editing. Daranios ( talk) 07:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verifiedin the first place. If there is no such reason, the material should never have been removed based on WP:V (other reasons may apply). So was there such a reason? Otherwise the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would apply in our case, and the removal should be undone until there is (at lease qualified) consensus to remove. (Otherwise the phrasing of WP:V would allow for removal of any verifiable but unreferenced material that somebody does not like.) Daranios ( talk) 13:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The Pokémon which created an alternate dimension to balance the world of which Dialga and Palkia have shaped. It possesses the ability to warp physical reality, gravity, and supposedly antimatter. It has two forms; Altered Form (introduced in Diamond and Pearl), and Origin Form (introduced in Platinum). The creators of the Pokémon franchise have described Giratina and its home world as being personifications of antimatter.is not exactly a navigational aid. Anyway, I've imported the WP:Short descriptions from the articles by using {{ Annotated link}}. That should be an acceptable compromise. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
TompaDompa's is a technically elegant solution, is better than having the bare link, and is an improvment in some cases. In many other cases, it gives little or no additional help compared to what's already in the headings ("Marvel Comics fictional character"). So are there any policy-based objections against me putting back short summaries where they were more helpful than the
WP:Short descriptions? (I don't plan on doing something like the quoted negative example from Pokémon.) @
Piotrus: I don't think it's hard to find references, but it's still quite a bit of ground-work, which I currently don't have the time and energy to do. "All entries have to be referenced." is so far only an opinion, as it is not based in
WP:V.
Our disagreement on that point notwithstanding I want to point out that I do appreciate the efforts of
TompaDompa on improving the list.
Daranios (
talk)
07:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Note on the subject—i.e. fictional deities. To write an informational list on fictional deities, we need to consult sources on the overarching topic of fictional deities (not just sources on individual fictional deities).All this being said, having considered Piotrus' points about subjectivity/gray areas in the #To add? section below, I think it's reasonable to require citations for every single entry even in a purely navigational list. I also think it's reasonable to have fairly high sourcing standards for that, because we're supposed to reflect not just the viewpoints of individual sources, but the consensus among the sources—we don't want to leave the door upon for cherry-picking a source that considers a particular character a deity if the consensus among the sources is that they are not one.So really, the question that we should settle first is how to construct this in the first place. My preference would be to scrap the list altogether in favour of a proper prose article. That would resolve all the issues I have with this in terms of WP:BALASP and so on. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
We need to do better than the current "This is a navigational list of deities exclusively for fictional works, organized primarily by media type then by title of the fiction work, series, franchise or author. This list does not include deities worshiped by humans in real life that appear in fictional works unless they are distinct enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article separate from the articles for the entities they are based on."
Recent changes suggest we want to only list notable entities, i.e. ones that have their own articles. Are there any exceptions that should be considered? It's important to avoid fancrut, i.e. listing entities that appear only in passing in some works, ex. minor game XYZ in one line of dialogue mentioned fictional deity ABC. What about entities that have substantial sections in other lists, ex. Gozer? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non- redirect article in the English Wikipedia.is one of the Wikipedia:Common selection criteria. Having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable. Having a substantial section in other lists is not, since it's subjective. WP:LISTCRITERIA are supposed to be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I would suggest "Described as a deity, god, or goddess by a reliable secondary or tertiary source on the topic of fictional deities, and has a stand-alone article on English Wikipedia". TompaDompa ( talk) 17:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
the criteria should still be phrased in a way that all those articles about fictional characters which are considered deities/gods/goddesses appear here– I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but if I did you seem to be saying that we should strive to avoid false negatives? I don't disagree with that in principle, but I think avoiding false positives should be a much higher priority. It's more important that the information be correct than exhaustive.As for demigods, I'll note that the entry " Gods and Goddesses" in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy does not mention them, nor does the " Gods" entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy or the "Goddesses and Gods" entry in The Tough Guide to Fantasyland. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
So, we didn't reach any majority-based conclusion here. So why don't we stick with what we have as the inclusion critereon? Possibly adding "notable"? I still think excluding cases like Gozer prevents this list from becoming the best navigational tool on the topic it could be, but I don't have good phrase that allows us to include cases where there is significant treatment (like a paragraph) and still avoiding the list becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Or how else do reach a conclusion? Daranios ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non- redirect article in the English Wikipedia.as per WP:Common selection criteria. And as I said above, having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable, whereas having a substantial section in other lists is not, since it's subjective. WP:LISTCRITERIA are supposed to be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. And none of this resolves the "what counts as a fictional deity?" question in the first place. I'm the only one who has actually proposed any proper list criteria here. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
we will simply have to wait for more people to join the discussion- I guess I can live with that.
having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable. However, we do have a conflict between the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline and the fith pillar here: applying that clear-cut critereon prevents the list form pointing to material existing on Wikipedia about fictional gods like the example of Gozer, and so it is not as helpful as it could be for navigation (which is the goal of the list's existence in the first place). Maybe the priority of these two conflicting values should be decided based on an opinion poll?
"what counts as a fictional deity?": Why can't we leave this to common sense? I think we here are all beyond the question of what we mean by fictional for our purposes here, and the second sentence of the article may be somewhat wordy but makes clear why we include Thor (Marvel Comics) but not Thor. For doubtful cases (cosmic entity or deity? etc.) we could simply depend on what sources say. Daranios ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Few fictional godes that have articles: Beerus... anyone? :) Also, maybe Paul Atreides? And Haruhi Suzumiya (character). Things frankly get weird with sf etc., when some characters are described as godlike, etc. The difference between some OP superpowered entities (superheroes, supervillains) and "gods" is in the eye of the beholder... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know the significance of the " Greater Powers" listed here? There is no explanation, and there are no links to additional information. Is this a joke? Does this section belong on this page? Can this section be safely deleted, or is it a legitimate contribution to the subject? Canonblack 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, new one: under the "Angel and Buffy Universe", we have listed Osiris. The list should be for deities in fictional universes, but Osiris is/was a deity in the real universe (I won't approach the subject of whether Osiris is really fictional), and the link is to the article on Osiris as he is known to us through Egyptology, etal. (although there is mention of Osiris as a character in Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The question: does Osiris belong here, since Osiris is not just a deity in a fictional universe? [EDIT] And add Sterculius under Beavis and Butthead: although used as an object of literal toilet humor, Sterculius was an actual Roman deity, so does it belong here? Canonblack 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this be merged into List of deities, since that page seens to serve the same purpose, listing fictional deities.
What is the criteria for whether a character is a god or not? If it is simply that a being is worshiped as a god by someone, then we should include the Go'a'uld and Asgard from Stargate, the Vorlons from Babylon 5 (who appear to the Drazi as their god), and many others. However, if we only include those who actually are gods in the fictioal world, then the Valar should not be included, as they were only worshiped as gods by some men, and not actually defined as gods by Tolkien in any of his canon works.
The Elder God thats exists within the legacy of kain universe should be on this list.
Why do some of these deities have their own pages and others do not? It seems many pages, especially those on TES, are being deleted and others are being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinlong ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Dragonball Z? They've had The North Kai, South Kai, East Kai, West Kai, Grand Kai, Supream Kai and Elder Supream Kai. If this counts, there also were Guardians of earth like, Kami and Dendai(Dendai might be spelled wrong)and also the Eternal Dragon that grants a certain number of wishes to anyone that summons him. If a diety is counted as just a magical being, then every good and evil character from the entire series should be counted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.54.199 ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
latias/latios and mewtwo 24.226.77.23 ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed now. 24.226.77.23 ( talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely all deities are fictional. Why aren't Yaweh, Allah, etc. included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappa ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Because they are asociated with acutal reality, their worshipped in the real world. While the beings on this list were made up in various games, and fastasy & fiction novels, television programmes, etc. Don't worry though, you can put the name of Allah or Yaweh on the List of Deities that list is for the deities of the real world. You'll also find their names on Names of God. I hope this helps you.
and Shaman king entries got mixed up. [2012-05-19, truncate heading -P64]
"There are also Five Grand Elemental Spirits[15] that formed from the Great Spirit itself. Each are controlled by their respective Elemental Warriors (or Shamans of great power). These spirits are:
* Spirit of Fire * Spirit of Rain * Spirit of Earth * Spirit of Wind * Spirit of Thunder
"
I'm fairly sure this bit of the Dwarf Fortress entry belongs under the Shaman king one. Particularly considering that [15] links to the Shaman king wikia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeimosTheOdd ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
no no it doesn't. Those links connect to a wikia designed specificly for the shaman king manga/anime. I'm not sure what Slaves to Armok is but its possible it has its own wikia. Look around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.13.2 ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Though I suppose this could be better described as deities appearing in fiction and/or fictionalized deities?
Maybe 'List of deities APPEARING (or mentioned, etc.) in fiction'? ((Wait, are you saying the written works in which Yahweh (for example) appears is non-fiction?))
The list of purely make-believe deities that people were never 'supposed to' take seriously... but ended up having 'followers' anyway is getting sort of long, too.
Of course, pretty much all deities appear in fiction, even discounting 'holy books' as works of fiction.
On a related stream of consciousness.... Should Stephen Colbert appear on the list of fictional deities, since he had his 'minions' edit the Conservapedia 'Conservuhtive Bible' and insert him in it (however briefly), or appear in the 'Real Deity' section for being IN a bible, or should he be in the 'Imperial Cult' category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildave ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, we get it, deities are fictional to begin with. This has only been pointed out about ten times over the past three years.
This list is of course supposed to include deities whose cult is fictional.
The question remains what the point or purpose of such a list could be. How is it different from simply linking Category:Fictional deities? It seems to be just a random list of unrelated pop culture items. Not encyclopedic. -- dab (𒁳) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Elder Scrolls section Nerevar is listed as a god, but he is never worshipped as a god, only as a saint. The three Tribunal are actually worshipped as gods. Nerevar is counted amongst the other saints (St. Rilm, St. Felms, St. Veloth, etc)and is not considered a god. 86.132.6.156 ( talk) 13:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the characters on this page deviate from what its all about. A list of deities in fiction; not a list of deity-like and/or deity-level beings in fiction, just those who were seen and/or worshipped as such, as well as those who actually were. Does anyone agree or is the page fine as it is?
Most of the Comic characters aren't dieties, it's just a list of the most impressive and powerful characters. I can't speak on most of the list because I'm not familiar with the mythos. 173.73.159.61 ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up some vandalism and created links to some historical deities (where there is obvious 1:1 correspondence). BTW, many of the historical deities have sections such as "In popular culture" in which connections can be discussed. Kortoso ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it needs to be cleaned anew. too many real world deities in that list, and a few, like Set the Old Serpent, that might need a stub of their own. -- Svartalf ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
WTF?? I spent ages listing the gods from the palladium fantasy rpg only to have the whole lot deleted! I realize I didnt do it perfectly as Im new at this but couldnt it just have been fixed instead of removing the whole thing?! Nothing on this page has sources sited yet mine gets singled out. Im surprised you didnt just delete the whole Palladium section while youre at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraineWilliams ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that outright removal is a bit excessive. particularly seeing that Dungeons and Dragons received it's own section, none of which are cited either. If there were issues with editing, fix them rather than just deleting the whole section. 50.21.197.234 ( talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 14:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
List of fictional deities → List of deities in fiction – This list relates to representations of deities in fiction and this wording helps avoid the issue of the veracity of deities. SFB 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The list previously had information about what was linked to. One editor decided to remove that. Why? @ TompaDompa: Please explain why you removed valid information. A list article doesn't just list links, it also allows for more information about each link to be presented. Look at how other fictional list are done. Category:Lists_of_fictional_things Dream Focus 17:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Either write a prose article with proper sources or stick to a navigational list that merely collates links to stand-alone Wikipedia articles. A list with brief descriptions citing no sources is appropriate for TV Tropes but not for Wikipedia.This is now a navigational list, the purpose of which is to let readers find the articles they want if they don't know the exact title. This doesn't really require citing any sources (which indeed the article doesn't and didn't); references are only strictly speaking necessary for entries whose inclusion is disputed. If you want to write an informational list, rather than purely navigational one, you need to cite sources for every single entry and every piece of information about them. You also need to do that while treating
each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectso as to abide by WP:PROPORTION. That's not necessarily impossible, but it would take a lot of work. The alternative is to write the prose article gods in fiction as was suggested during the AfD, based on proper secondary/tertiary sources on that topic. This is something that I and Piotrus have done for quite a few articles that were formerly TV Tropes-style lists, some of which are now WP:Good articles such as Earth in science fiction, Immortality in fiction, Moon in science fiction, and Mercury in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.Entries with descriptions that reflect what editors, rather than sources, think is important is a typical hallmark of TV Tropes-style lists. It often results in vastly disparate levels of detail in the different entries' descriptions (presumably because fans of particular works want to go into a lot of depth when describing those entries because they think they are interesting). The way to avoid problems of this kind is to use sources on the overarching topic as the basis for the description so as to ensure that everything is treated in WP:PROPORTION to
its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It is common to add a little additional information (which may make reference to the full article unnecessary). For example, the disambiguation page for Roosevelt contains the entry " Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), 32nd U.S. president". On the other hand, " Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), US president 1933–1945, Democratic Party, a central figure in world events, creator of the New Deal, in a wheelchair from polio since 1921, died in office" would be inappropriate; it summarises the article rather than merely disambiguating.There is no need to disambiguate like that here (and this is of course not a disambiguation page in the first place). TompaDompa ( talk) 23:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
if there is a difference in emphasis between the two.... Did you see such discrepancies between the articles and the summaries we had here in a significant amount of examples? If there were such cases, the suggestion of that guideline is that
editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy, which in my view does not mean removal but improvement by editing. Daranios ( talk) 07:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verifiedin the first place. If there is no such reason, the material should never have been removed based on WP:V (other reasons may apply). So was there such a reason? Otherwise the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would apply in our case, and the removal should be undone until there is (at lease qualified) consensus to remove. (Otherwise the phrasing of WP:V would allow for removal of any verifiable but unreferenced material that somebody does not like.) Daranios ( talk) 13:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The Pokémon which created an alternate dimension to balance the world of which Dialga and Palkia have shaped. It possesses the ability to warp physical reality, gravity, and supposedly antimatter. It has two forms; Altered Form (introduced in Diamond and Pearl), and Origin Form (introduced in Platinum). The creators of the Pokémon franchise have described Giratina and its home world as being personifications of antimatter.is not exactly a navigational aid. Anyway, I've imported the WP:Short descriptions from the articles by using {{ Annotated link}}. That should be an acceptable compromise. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
TompaDompa's is a technically elegant solution, is better than having the bare link, and is an improvment in some cases. In many other cases, it gives little or no additional help compared to what's already in the headings ("Marvel Comics fictional character"). So are there any policy-based objections against me putting back short summaries where they were more helpful than the
WP:Short descriptions? (I don't plan on doing something like the quoted negative example from Pokémon.) @
Piotrus: I don't think it's hard to find references, but it's still quite a bit of ground-work, which I currently don't have the time and energy to do. "All entries have to be referenced." is so far only an opinion, as it is not based in
WP:V.
Our disagreement on that point notwithstanding I want to point out that I do appreciate the efforts of
TompaDompa on improving the list.
Daranios (
talk)
07:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Note on the subject—i.e. fictional deities. To write an informational list on fictional deities, we need to consult sources on the overarching topic of fictional deities (not just sources on individual fictional deities).All this being said, having considered Piotrus' points about subjectivity/gray areas in the #To add? section below, I think it's reasonable to require citations for every single entry even in a purely navigational list. I also think it's reasonable to have fairly high sourcing standards for that, because we're supposed to reflect not just the viewpoints of individual sources, but the consensus among the sources—we don't want to leave the door upon for cherry-picking a source that considers a particular character a deity if the consensus among the sources is that they are not one.So really, the question that we should settle first is how to construct this in the first place. My preference would be to scrap the list altogether in favour of a proper prose article. That would resolve all the issues I have with this in terms of WP:BALASP and so on. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
We need to do better than the current "This is a navigational list of deities exclusively for fictional works, organized primarily by media type then by title of the fiction work, series, franchise or author. This list does not include deities worshiped by humans in real life that appear in fictional works unless they are distinct enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article separate from the articles for the entities they are based on."
Recent changes suggest we want to only list notable entities, i.e. ones that have their own articles. Are there any exceptions that should be considered? It's important to avoid fancrut, i.e. listing entities that appear only in passing in some works, ex. minor game XYZ in one line of dialogue mentioned fictional deity ABC. What about entities that have substantial sections in other lists, ex. Gozer? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non- redirect article in the English Wikipedia.is one of the Wikipedia:Common selection criteria. Having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable. Having a substantial section in other lists is not, since it's subjective. WP:LISTCRITERIA are supposed to be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I would suggest "Described as a deity, god, or goddess by a reliable secondary or tertiary source on the topic of fictional deities, and has a stand-alone article on English Wikipedia". TompaDompa ( talk) 17:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
the criteria should still be phrased in a way that all those articles about fictional characters which are considered deities/gods/goddesses appear here– I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but if I did you seem to be saying that we should strive to avoid false negatives? I don't disagree with that in principle, but I think avoiding false positives should be a much higher priority. It's more important that the information be correct than exhaustive.As for demigods, I'll note that the entry " Gods and Goddesses" in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy does not mention them, nor does the " Gods" entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy or the "Goddesses and Gods" entry in The Tough Guide to Fantasyland. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
So, we didn't reach any majority-based conclusion here. So why don't we stick with what we have as the inclusion critereon? Possibly adding "notable"? I still think excluding cases like Gozer prevents this list from becoming the best navigational tool on the topic it could be, but I don't have good phrase that allows us to include cases where there is significant treatment (like a paragraph) and still avoiding the list becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Or how else do reach a conclusion? Daranios ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non- redirect article in the English Wikipedia.as per WP:Common selection criteria. And as I said above, having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable, whereas having a substantial section in other lists is not, since it's subjective. WP:LISTCRITERIA are supposed to be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. And none of this resolves the "what counts as a fictional deity?" question in the first place. I'm the only one who has actually proposed any proper list criteria here. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
we will simply have to wait for more people to join the discussion- I guess I can live with that.
having a stand-alone article is clear-cut and easily enforceable. However, we do have a conflict between the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline and the fith pillar here: applying that clear-cut critereon prevents the list form pointing to material existing on Wikipedia about fictional gods like the example of Gozer, and so it is not as helpful as it could be for navigation (which is the goal of the list's existence in the first place). Maybe the priority of these two conflicting values should be decided based on an opinion poll?
"what counts as a fictional deity?": Why can't we leave this to common sense? I think we here are all beyond the question of what we mean by fictional for our purposes here, and the second sentence of the article may be somewhat wordy but makes clear why we include Thor (Marvel Comics) but not Thor. For doubtful cases (cosmic entity or deity? etc.) we could simply depend on what sources say. Daranios ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Few fictional godes that have articles: Beerus... anyone? :) Also, maybe Paul Atreides? And Haruhi Suzumiya (character). Things frankly get weird with sf etc., when some characters are described as godlike, etc. The difference between some OP superpowered entities (superheroes, supervillains) and "gods" is in the eye of the beholder... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)