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]