Talk:List of fictional deities

(2005/2006)
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)
 * Fails Google test; fire at will. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, Lance Leader. Consider the subject terminated. (Random Annonymous, 2005 Nov 11)

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 was just on my way to add precisely the same comment. Osiris should be removed from this list, although you could include Olaf the Troll God in his place as he is loosely based on Thor (well, he's got a hammer) but as a composite would not be recognised as any creature from pre-existing mythology.


 * Perhaps it is just the distinction between 'fictional' and 'mythological' which needs to be more clear? I'd suggest that if a character is loosely based on a pre-existing myth (as happens frequently in Buffy and Angel), they can be included. If they are importing characters from genuine mythology (as with Osiris, who is a recognised name in Egyptology and has many similar characteristics to the ones attributed to him in Buffy) then they should be removed from this list.


 * The other alternative might be to change the list, something like 'list of fictional and mythologgical characters'? That would allow for characters like Olaf to be included as he falls between the two. Curiousbadger 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; been having major computer problems at home (although I've been contributing haphazardly from work).


 * I'm not sure I agree that Olaf is loosely based on anything, I think he's meant to be a generic pseudo-Medieval warrior demi-god type. He certainly doesn't exhibit the powers of Thor (who, mythologically, controlled the weather and slew giants/trolls with a hammer even he couldn't lift without special equipment), although he is similar in some ways to the Marvel Comics Thor (who wields a big hammer no one else can use and summons lightning).  The two Thors are not the same, although the comics version is obviously based on the mythological one, there are many differences (the comic writers didn't feel it necessary to adhere to the actual myths).  The hammer isn't distinctive enough to link Olaf to any particular mythological entity; most smithing deities (Vulcan, Hephaestus, etal.) were depicted with hammers.  Trolls, though specific to Norse and Finnish mythologies, were superhuman but not gods and were often the opponents of the gods.  Olaf is more of a slapdash strongman character, not really a pastiche of any one mythological character.


 * A distinction between "fictional" and "mythological" is important, and that's what I thought the purpose of this page is. I don't think blending the two together is very useful, and I'm not sure that Olaf would fall into a middle ground.  He is, IMO, entirely fictional.  Fiction loosely based on or inspired by mythology is still fiction; you'll never find archaeological evidence of a cult that worshipped Olaf.  But, like Wikipedia, we could distinguish between the mythological and fictional versions of a deity just as Wikipedia distinguishes between the mythological and comics versions of Thor.  However, I think that treating Olaf like a fictional version of Thor is based on a pretty tenuous link.


 * So I guess I've just convinced myself that Osiris actually does belong here, as a fictional character based on the mythological Osiris. ;\ Canonblack 11:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about two sub-sections (or whatever the appropriate term is); one for "fictional deities" and a second for adapted/adopted/derivative (what's the best encyclopedic phrase?) deities? Curiousbadger 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I really got off track with the Olaf vs. Thor aspect, and confused myself in the process. I didn't really mean we should distinguish between "fictional" and "mythological" (or adapted) within this list, I mean we should consider carefully whether an appearance in fiction is really fictional or just an occurance of the mythological entity, which is what you stated in the second paoragraph of your previous message.  I question whether making a distinction between adapted and purely fictional is really useful, or whether it will just confuse later editors who may then add names to the wrong section of the list.  Definitely, if the deity is modified to fit the fictional universe (as with Buffy and Angel and Marvel's Thor, etal.) it belongs here; if it's just the unadulterated mythological being (as Osiris might be), then it doesn't.    Canonblack 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, before I saw this reply, I had already been a bit too bold and made subsections for them. Tell you what, I'll do some revision this weekend (ah, my life is so hard, I have to spend a weekend watching Buffy and Angel) and see if these subsections make sense and come back and edit them/discuss further if they don't?
 * I still think that because the entire 'Buffyverse' is fictional, any represented deities within it should be classed as fictional too (for the purpose of this list), but there should be a distinction made between entirely fabricated characters and ones that are wholly pinched/only slightly tweaked from myth and legend... Curiousbadger 09:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger
I suggest this be merged into List of deities, since that page seens to serve the same purpose, listing fictional deities.


 * Support. In all seriousness. All deities were "created" by someone. Having a list of fictional deities implies that there are other real deities. And, as I think we all know, there is absolutely no way to prove that a deity exists. At the very least, this article should be retitled to something that doesn't inherently assume the existence of what is impossible to prove. 71.122.65.34 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename Perhaps to "List of deities in fiction" or similar. Merging with List of deities would just be confusing for most readers. While all deities are fictional their worship in the real world isn't. -- Boreas Talk 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename seconded I agree, rename the section as a "list of deities in fiction", since we all know that all deities are fictional anyway (so the "Fictional Deities" title is misleading), whether or not they were made up in the real world or exist in a fictional story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.119.129 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone who knows what he/she is doing please rename this article to "List of Deities in Fiction"? The cognitive dissonance is hurting my eyes, but I don't know how to create the pages or the redirects.173.8.220.209 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Abdullais4u (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Valar
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.

legacy of Kain
The Elder God thats exists within the legacy of kain universe should be on this list.

Individual Pages
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)

I Can't Believe No One Mentioned This Yet......
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)

pokemon missing
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)

Yaweh? Allah?
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.

Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress
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)

Irony... A separate section for 'fictional' deities.
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)

Nerevar a God?
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)

Seperation Issue
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)

Robert E. Howard works
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)

Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying game
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)


 * Lists should contain notable examples, as indicated by items on the list having already established articles, which are supposed to contain reliable sources. Deleting the Palladium entries was the way of fixing it, since none of the entries had cited articles. Palladium has not been single out - the page history will show that other sections have also been deleted in whole or in part because there was no indication the individual items on the list were notable. D&D does have its own section, which links to existing articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

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)
 * This is a contested technical request. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Only because you changed the lead of the list to say so; it currently only seems to deal with actual fictional deities, not the portrayal of actually worshiped ones in fiction. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that the current title is potentially confusing. All deities could be considered "fictional". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The suggested title is an obvious magnet for being flooded with entries about the portrayals of ordinary deities (those currently worshiped and those that have historically been worshipped) in fiction. Although all deities may be considered fictional by some people, that issue can be clarified in the lead. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the suggest title is confusing and unclear. "Real" deities (such as the the Abrahamic god and other gods) appear in fiction. Fictional deities suggest that the deity was created for that piece of fiction. cookie monster  (2020)  755  21:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the proposed title leads to a massive change in scope. Please let's not go down the "Herp-derp, all deities are fiction" quagmire. This list is reserved for those gods created for fiction, not those created by humans in the real world that appear in fiction media. Do we really want the Oh God! franchise listed here? -- Netoholic @ 02:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Deities in fiction" may refer to all deities (both fictional and "real") mentioned in works of fiction whereas "fictional deities" clearly means that they were created as a part of a fictional world. Less Unless (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fictional deities are purely fictional, whereas real world deities can appear in fiction, the proposal is a misnomer and would lead to useless contributions and malicious editing.--Svartalf (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Rreagan007. How do we define the difference between a real deity and a fictional deity as there is no verifiable, objective evidence that any deity is real? J I P  &#124; Talk 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is saying that deities exist in real life. What the opposers are trying to say is that there is a difference between deities worshipped in real life by humans (like the Abrahamic god) and deities created exclusively for fiction like books, films and movies. Changing the title would be too confusing and would suggest that the scope of the article covers deities worshipped in real life that appear in fiction - but that is not the scope of this article. It is about fictionally created deities that appear in fictional works. cookie monster  (2020)  755  22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm changing my vote to oppose. But the article needs to make it clear that this is a list of deities that were invented as fictional in the first place, not a list of deities people actually worship. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why remove descriptions of things?
The list previously had information about what was linked to. One editor decided to remove that. Why? 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  D r e a m Focus  17:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary: 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 subject so 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 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)
 * Ridiculous. If the information is in the article linked to, you don't need to bother with a reference.  The article looked far better after it survived AFD, before you then went through and gutted it.  The reasons why navigational list are far superior to categories is because you can have additional information to help people find what they might be interested in readnig more about.   D r e a m Focus  18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this mostly like . I think it is reasonable to stick to blue links, that alone avoids all the critcisms of the deletion discussion of being indiscriminate, unwieldy, or like TV Tropes. So I am okay with 's removal of other entries. But having a short description for each entry rather helps than hinders navigation, and is in keeping with both WP:CLN, specifically WP:AOAL point 5., and WP:LISTPURP. That guideline points to e.g. Lists of basic topics, which is a very basic and important list indeed. And it does have a short description in many cases. If we stick to a short summary description, I don't see a problem with WP:PROPORTION, when we have already excluded non-notable entries. And to compare again with the baseline example of Lists of basic topics, its summary of "death" is shorter than of, say, the "Vietnam War", but each is a short summary description. If we had such summaries here, that would also not in any way diminish a future article Deities in fiction. And not everything needs a citation. It would be nice to have them, but as our entries here lead to articles with presumably have references, I don't see a problem here either. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out the concept of common sense. The article has subsections telling you what book, television show, movie, or comic book, each entry is from.  There is no reference for this.  You can just click on the link and confirm that for yourself.  So mentioning something from the article linked to without any references is fine for these situations.   D r e a m Focus  23:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:V is not optional. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything has to be verifiABLE, not everything needs to be verified by references. Compare again the Lists of basic topics, or that we generally do not require references for the lead, which summarizes an article, and thus is very comparable to the summary descriptions we had here. Or do you, to quote WP:V, "have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified" (emphasis mine)? E.g. by summarizing the primary sources? Daranios (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is not the only reason we require sources. WP:Balancing aspects is just as important. That's rather similar to your point about the WP:LEAD, actually—see MOS:LEADREL: 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)
 * John Smith and thousands of other articles like this, list every relevant entry with its own article, and then provide some information about it as well. There are no references on any of that.  As long as the information is in the article linked to, then its fine.   D r e a m Focus  23:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John Smith is a disambiguation page. The purpose of giving brief information about each entry there is disambiguation—to make sure people find the article for the John Smith they are looking for, rather than some other John Smith. See WP:DABNOINCLUDE: 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)
 * The same as for disambiguation pages is true for lists: It says in Manual of Style/Lists: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area and may include additional information about the listed items." And as already pointed to, WP:CLN lists "Can be embellished with annotations (further details)." specifically as an advantage of lists. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, so to go about this from a more common-sense point of view: If you are a user who is interested in "what does Wikipedia have on fictional deities", but are unfamiliar with most specific instances, would it be more helpful to have a short explanatory sentence or not? I think it would be better to have it.
 * As for the apporiate comparison with lead section, you quoted 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)
 * This is (currently) a navigational list. Extra information can be added if it serves to aid navigation. We actually already do include information for each entry besides the link to the article, though it may not be immediately obvious that's what we're doing since it's part of the structure of the article: we identify the work of fiction (or franchise, or whatever) the deity appears in. If you want this to instead be an informational list that presents information for the sake of informing the reader, that's also an option—but then you have to treat it like an informational list and source it like an informational list, which is a much higher bar to clear. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support having descriptions for items on lists, and other relevant info, but references are required. Now, I'd not bother removing plot description and such, which is likely correct, although I'd also not restore it if it wasn't referenced, since WP:V clearly states that such content, once removed, needs to be referenced upon restoration. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it removed because someone sincerely doubted the information was true, that would make sense. That is not the case here though.   D r e a m Focus  13:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * beat me to it, but since I've already typed it, my concurring opinion in my words: That restoration requires references is only the case, if there was considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified in 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 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)
 * Truth, or even verifiability, is not the only factor to consider here. There is also the issue of appropriate weight, which can only be demonstrated by citing sources on the topic at hand (fictional deities). I'm not necessarily opposed to converting this to an informational list based on proper secondary/tertiary sources on the overarching topic, but at that point we might as well go the full distance and just write a proper prose article like the ones I mentioned above. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We can say Aslan: creator of Narnia and Tash: a demon god of Calormen without references being needed for something found easily in their articles.   D r e a m Focus  15:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that aid navigation or is it meant to inform the reader in itself? TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It aids navigation so you know what you are clicking on. Right now I see names I don't recognize and have no idea what they are.   D r e a m Focus  15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what a navigational list is for. Navigational lists are for finding the article you were already looking for. TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't make any sense. If you knew what article you were looking for, you'd just go straight to it.  Unless you aren't sure of the name, then you'd use this to look for a description, then click to find what you are after.   D r e a m Focus  16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, to show that adding descriptions to navigational lists is established practice, lists of basic topics is called out as a positive example of a navigational list at WP:LISTPURP. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Navigational lists are for locating an article you know that you want to find without knowing the exact title of, one you expect to recognize when you see it (possibly aided by some brief disambiguating information).Did you look at what the descriptions were like before they were removed? 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)
 * That's an elegant solution. Anyone who thinks the descriptions are not accurate or whatever, can improve them in the target articles, benefiting not just this list. Noice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All entries have to be referenced. Is it hard to find a reference that states this kind of information, for a topic that is notable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

'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.) 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 on improving the list. Daranios (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Daranios While it is a somewhat wikilawyering, technically, once anyone disagrees, . "All entries have to be referenced." is a rule. As in, it's ok to add unreferenced content until someone disagrees, at that point if no reference is provided, that content needs to go (which means that if removed, it cannot be restored w/out a ref). That's my reading of WP:V. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to WP:V/WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If you look again, this does not say that anything challenged for any reason has to be referenced (it would be hard to believe a rule existed that allowed for removal of material simply because someone does not like it, no reason required). Rather, this refers only to "material whose verifiability is challenged". So if you remove material when you don't, as the same guideline phrases it, "have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified" (e.g. by doing research and can't find sources), then the requirement for references based on WP:V is not applicable. Insisting on it independent of the concern for verifiability would be gaming the system. Such behaviour might be sanctioned, but in any case should not be followed. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daranios From the lead of V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. " Regardless or reason, I am pretty sure User:TompaDompa has "challenged" any and all material here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Argh. So to summarize your interpretation: "material has been challenged, so based on WP:V you cannot restore it until you provide inline citations", while what the policy actually says is "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation" (emphasis mine). Seeing that noone has explicity questioned the verifiability of the material so far, how is this not WP:PLAYPOLICY, point 3 "Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy ... to support a view which does not in fact match policy" (as well as point 1)?
 * To make this even more clear, I want to give an example. Let's say I am having a bad day and want to mess up a Wikipedia article. I am removing all summary statements from the List of basic topics, leaving only the bare links, saying "I challenge the verifiability of those statements. I don't have a good reason for it, but I am challenging them anyway." If your interpertation was correct, then this uncontroversial, WP:SKYISBLUE-obvious descriptions could only be gotten back within WP:V if Wikipedians did the unneccessary work of providing inline citations for all of them, rather then simply revert my edit as the vandalism it obviously was. That can't be what the policy aims for. The essays When to cite (linked from WP:V!) and You don't need to cite that the sky is blue also make this clear.
 * Getting back to our list here: has already indicated that verifiability is not their main concern. So, do  and  really think that Ares (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess) is the "God of War" in the franchise, that Darkseid is the "Apokoliptian God of Evil" in the DC universe, and that Tash (Narnia) is "a demon god of Calormen" in the Narnia chronicles probably cannot be verified with the help of primary and/or secondary sources? Is so, why? If, however, your concern is not with verifiability, please stop basing your resistance against the content on WP:V. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is with the construction of the list, and this is one of the downstream issues. If this is to be a purely navigational list, we can add a minimal amount of additional information to aid navigation, and to my eye the work the deity in question appears in is clearly sufficient. If we want to provide additional information for its own sake, we need to treat this as an informational list, which means we have to source it accordingly. As I said above, that means we have to source the inclusion of every single entry (to comply with WP:NOR/WP:V) and we have to source all the additional information not only to comply with WP:NOR/WP:V but also—equally importantly—to comply with WP:BALASP. Verifiability is not the only reason Wikipedia requires sources—we are supposed to to treat each aspect in WP:PROPORTION to 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 ' points about subjectivity/gray areas in the 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)
 * Allright, I have undone some removal of content, where I think the former version was more helpful for navigation, as it gives a short description who the deity in question is, based on WP:BRD. I have stuck to short summaries, taking into account 's critcism of the Pokémon example. WP:V/WP:OR does not require citation, just verifiability. That policy also places the WP:BURDEN of looking for sources before removing content on the editor who considers the removal! Obviously there is disagreement if there is any problem with regard to WP:PROPORTION or not. Please do not remove the restored material until there is at least qualified consensus that removal is the preferred course of action in accordance with WP:EPTALK. Daranios (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is all, IMHO, ignoring the most important element, which is adding proper references, with quotes. I tried to show, with example, how to do it. May I suggest that instead of thinking about the length of descriptions, 5 words vs 15, sigh, interested editors try to reference this article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "the most important element, which is adding proper references" is your opinion, I have still not seen a convincing policy-based reason (which does not omit parts of said policy) why they should be required here. So please don't hesitate and add them if you find that important. I see them only as a "nice to have" for the basic statments we have (I can't imagine them being generally controversial), as their main benefit is to no longer having to depend on WP:Good faith in what previous editors did. I don't have a problem with asking others to help with sources, but I myself am still not finished with looking upon your last request. To show good faith, I can shift my priorities and do search for references for a few cases down the line. With all due respect for your additions and 's general improvements, I do have a problem with an attitude of removing likely verifiable content first, and then expecting others to add it again with references if they like. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the most important thing is further upstream: settling how this should be constructed in the first place (list vs. prose and inclusion criteria if the former). TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there is any list vs. prose decision necessary. We have a list for navigational purposes, and should keep it. I think secondary sources would support a prose article which deals with the topic "deities in fiction" as such. We don't have it yet, it would in my view be a good addition to Wikipedia if someone wanted to create it, and it would not impact our list here. As for the inclusion criteria, I agree, though I have only limited input there. Daranios (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
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&#124; reply here 09:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel that "entities that have substantial sections in other lists" should also be included. We have to avoid being indiscriminate somehow, but a navigational list such as this should include material present on Wikipedia even if not in a stand-alone article. Doing otherwise would be a disservice to the interested reader. Daranios (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.  D r e a m Focus  16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There's a reason Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. is one of the 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)
 * Why not include deities described as such in primary sources, if they are otherwise notable (if there is such a thing)? I would not include that the source has to be "on the topic of fictional deities". Presumably most secondary/tertiary sources discussing such fictional characters will be on the respective works of fiction rather than on the topic of deities. Daranios (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To avoid populating the list with edge cases. We don't want the list to be made up of entries so disparate in nature that the term "deity" essentially becomes an equivocation. See also in another section of this talk page where I talk about reflecting the consensus among the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But the criteria should still be phrased in a way that all those articles about fictional characters which are considered deities/gods/goddesses appear here, so that the navigation function can be properly fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, The Encyclopdia of Science Fiction does include demigods in its discussion of gods in fiction. My general feeling is that demigods are usually included in discussions of deities, but that's the one secondary source I happened upon to back this up so far. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 23 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)
 * Yep, you understood correctly, my opinion is we should strive to be exhaustive. Of course we want to be correct, too. To achieve both, in my view we should not limit the sources unnecessarily. So rather than "Described as a deity, god, or goddess by a reliable secondary or tertiary source on the topic of fictional deities" the simpler "Described as a deity, god, or goddess" to me is sufficient. That we have to adhere to WP:Verfiability for everything anyway takes care of the rest, no need to mention that in every article. Daranios (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So.... Diego Maradona, add or not? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not fictional, is he? Daranios (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daranios The person or the cult? In either case, I see your point, but what do we do about Category:Parody religion deities, under Category:Fictional deities? Should it be removed from there? It contains the (famous?) Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Parody religions, huh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously a somewhat different creature than the rest on our list. Personally, I think we should include those, a) for the sake of completeness and b) because I think in nature the Invisible Pink Unicorn is somewhat closer to Aslan than to Zeus. But let's please decide that here on the talk page one way or another, rather than making the introduction to the actual article more complicated by include a reference to parody religion. (As for the case of Diego Maradonna, I was not aware of a cult making him their deity, because that's not yet in the article. So I think he should not be included on that grounds yet, because it might be as confusing to others as it was to me. If there were a paragraph on such a cult, I'd vote to include it here. If we were to use 's more stringent "only stand-alone article" standard, we should only include him if there was a separate article on him as a the deity of a parodistic cult separate from the real person.) Daranios (talk) 18:39, 27 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)
 * I expect that we will simply have to wait for more people to join the discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Its been three weeks and three days, no one else is likely to participate. You are the only one against "entities that have substantial sections in other lists".  Other list articles commonly link to such things anyway.  Standard practice.   D r e a m Focus  13:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard practice is 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)
 * Gozer is a god. The article linked to shows people worshipped him in 6000 BC.  Anyway, did a quick news search and easily found: https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/things-in-ghostbusters-you-notice-after-watching-it-more-than-once/ar-AAYI99o "Gozer, an ancient evil pagan god" "Gozer, a Sumerian god"   D r e a m Focus  12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * we will simply have to wait for more people to join the discussion - I guess I can live with that.
 * I agree 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?
 * As for "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)

To add?
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... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Paul Atreides is worshiped as a god by the Fremen, so goes there. They are based on the Arab Muslims, and their holy prophet.  Beerus is the god of destruction.  Haruhi is also a fictional god.   D r e a m Focus  13:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)