Mythology

edit

Hello! I'm a new user, so sorry if I say something weird. I always heard stories growing up that meeting your Doppelgänger meant that you would die soon, because there could not be two of the same person in the world. If I find a reputable source on the subject, could I cite and add it into the mythology headline?ClerisySmir (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Prince and the Pauper

edit

Shouldn't The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain be mentioned in the "Examples in Literature" section? It's probably one of the most well-known examples of the trope in works of fiction, and it seems weird that not a single mention of the story appears anywhere in the article... Alex the weeb (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, Twain's 1882 novel The Prince and the Pauper is listed in the literature section of the "Look-alike" article.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge of Look-alike into Doppelgänger

edit

As currently written, these two articles (ironically) have a lot of the same material: biologically unrelated people who look very similar, in real life and in mythology/fiction. The look-alike article has some unique detail about professional celebrity impersonators, the doppelgänger article includes some examples of non-human creatures that look like specific individuals, but it mixes these in with sitcom plots.

Given the amount of repetition across both articles, combining them into a single page which has sections on the celebrity and non-human aspects may be the way to go. Belbury (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are substantial differences between the "look-alike" and "doppelgänger" articles. The first is a list of human look-alikes, nonfictional and fictional. The second article contains extensively-described case studies, many with supernatural overtones; in addition to a section of mentions of look-alikes which are not presented in a list format.
A counter-proposal might be to move all clearly listable "doppelgänger" examples that do not already appear in the "look-alike" article to that article, and to leave the extensively-described and supernaturally-tinged case studies where they now are, at the present "doppelgänger" article.
Best,
Nihil novi (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That could work. What title would the list article take - List of look-alikes or List of doppelgängers? (Do we regard doppelgängers as being a subset of look-alikes?) Belbury (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Each current article would retain its present title: respectively, "look-alike" and "doppelgänger".
The listable "doppelgänger" examples that do not already appear in the "look-alike" article would be moved to the "look-alike" article.
The extensively-described and supernaturally-tinged case studies would remain where they are now, in the present "doppelgänger" article.
This would permit continuing the distinction between the list of uncomplicated look-alikes and the extensively-described and supernaturally-tinged case studies prominent in the doppelgänger article, which are more compatible with most of the Wikipedia definitions of the word "doppelgänger".
Nihil novi (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply