Talk:Doppelgänger

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doppelgänger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2014. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Mythology

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge the articles. Belbury (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I think there is too wide of a difference between look-alikes and dopplegängers to merge the two together. The notion of the dopplegänger has many literary, film, mythological/folklore and paranormal associations; look-alikes do no necessarily have these characteristics or connotations. Netherzone (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely try to get the definitions down, if it's possible to make a distinction.

Currently the two articles define their scopes as a person who bears a strong physical resemblance to another person, excluding cases like twins and other instances of family resemblance and a biologically unrelated look-alike or double, of a living person, which are practically the same.

Most dictionaries seem to define both lookalike and doppelgänger as meaning "a person who looks very similar but is not biologically related", with doppelgänger having an additional second meaning of "a spirit who resembles a living person". Belbury (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Look-alikes are just people who look similar, but do not have the same parents. JanZakrzewski13 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)~~(

Blocked sockpuppet of JanZakrzewski, see investigation)[reply]

Look-alikes exist in real life - in terms of two people's similarity of their outer appearance; their physical characteristics (look alikes). Dopplegangers exist in fictional realms such as literature, art, film, folklore, mythology and usually have a "dark" sinister or even evil aspect. There is a psychological aspect that is not necessarily present in look-alikes. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that these should be merged. Look-a-like literally has the word "doppeldanger" in that article. We should redirect one to the other. Pedianerd416 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem a reasonable line to draw, although where there is zero paranormal element to the fiction (eg. the titular detective is recruited to impersonate a dead mob hit man who was his double) I'd say that belonged in Look-alike#Fictional look-alikes rather than here.

Should this doppelgänger article's lead be reframed using that much clearer paranormal scope, and the non-paranormal examples moved to look-alike? Belbury (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, based on my comments above. Netherzone (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, for reasons given above by myself and others. Nihil novi (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most fundamentally, by whatever definitions, not all look-alikes are doppelgängers. Nihil novi (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion retracted, giving the two articles clearer scopes seems like the way forward. --Belbury (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.