Jump to content

Talk:Doppelgänger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]