Too much speculation and personal opinion

This page is a travesty, please stick to pure fact only. Not derivatives, not conjecture, not theorising, not opinion, just pure fact. If it's questionable then take it out. The Milletians page was bad enough in this regard and it was said outright not to do that crap on the wiki.

What is it you are referring to?

Near the entire damned page.

Please post, in this thread, what you believe to be untrue.

Ignoring that it's not a matter of true vs untrue, I'll humor you for a bit.

The following should be removed outright; Glas, Lugh, Cromm, Elatha, Nuadha, Falias Gatekeeper (unless he actually says outright he's a God), the distinction of tiers of Gods and all the trivia.

• Glas: Classified as a God through various context.
• Lugh: ^
• Cromm: ^
• Elatha: Descendant of a Goddess. Lebbaeus also says he's not of Incubus bloodline.
• Nuadha: King of the GODS.
• Falias Gatekeeper: Same reason as Elatha.
• Distinction: None of them are all alike. If the lower-tiers were considered higher-tiers, they'd be able to blow up Erinn.
• Trivia: All of it is factual.

"Classified as a God through various context. ". This is why I said it's conjecture and opinion, which has no place on the wiki (apart from Nuadha, dunno why I said him, I was meant to say Corple). Find where it says he's actually a God. I'll bet that you can't because it's not actually in the game. Same goes for Lugh and while there's a single reference to Cromm as "god of destruction" it's dubious at best (the shitty trivia even makes note of this). You can argue that Elatha is a descendant of a Goddess but that doesn't matter. He's also the descendant of a human. Otherwise it's not stated what he is in-game other than "incubus" even if he's not of their bloodline. This is a another example of you guys deriving an idea from what you've seen in-game. Nowhere do they call him a god despite referencing his very clear link to one. Same goes with the Falias Gatekeeper, unless it's directly stated he's a God it's just you guys drawing the idea from his father. The distinction between tiers is just a construct made by you guys. It doesn't matter that they're different. It doesn't matter that none of them are alike, separating them into "low-tier/high-tier/lesser gods" is just an act by you guys and has no basis in the game. If you want to argue for it then show me where it's clearly stated and defined in game. "Trivia: All of it is factual. ", yeah no. Being factual doesn't make it fact nor does it make it pertinent. "Although the actual term is Deity, Lower-Tier Gods are promptly referred as Gods or Goddesses in-game. " is outright not a fact nor factual, it's someone failing at English. I see little basis for other statements within the trivia but at this point it no longer matters. Impetus now lies on you guys to show how/when/where all of this crap is said in game and why it matters.

I see where you're going with the descendants. Although, it was never stated whether Elatha's father was a mortal nor god and it shouldn't be assumed either way. (Neither does it say he's an Incubus. He appears to be an Incubus, yet the storyline implies he's not so we can't say he is or isn't.) I don't exactly agree with the rest though. The godly classifications actually are written ingame. And so is the references of everyone on that list being known as gods. Looking back, I'm starting to think Infodude partially based this on an article in Mabidata, but I don't see how its nonfactual excluding the descendants, which I previously thought to be factual.

Article on Mabidata? What article? I didn't base my statements on anything.

This one. It just seemed similar to it to me.

Find it, show it. The only people saying as such are you guys. Otherwise I'm going to go through and edit the page myself.

The only person saying otherwise is you.

You're welcome to come to the IRC to hear the others.

That aside, my statement from before still holds. Impetus now lies with you two to make your case.

I'm kind of with both sides here.

I can't think up more than one example where Glas, Lugh, or Cromm were referred to as gods (Embodiment of Destruction book for Glas and Seumas in G3 for Cromm being the only ones to come to my mind), and in those cases it's likely that the "deitifying" was done out of reverence only. Their standing is pretty shaky.

On the other hand, if multiple real sources do refer to them as "gods", then I think they do deserve a place here. Can I suggest that we remove them for now, but if there's three or more different places call any one of them a god, that one can be placed back?

(I think Corple should still be removed, though. The book his name came from strongly implied he was human, so the best he can hope for on this page is a trivial mention...which I still think is too much for him.)

As for Elatha and the other Eabha, Mystickskye is right in the fact that even if one undeniably has both supernatural powers and a relative who's a god, that doesn't mean that he, himself, is a god. I think a god not only need to be well known, but also worshiped, before he can enjoy godly status. So I don't think this page can label them a god...though, I think we can just as easily make a section here for "descendents of gods".

For the distinction, I have to say that the first time I've even come across the difference in ranks is when I stumbled onto this page. Admittedly, they're a good guide to divide them by, but if it's not referred to in-game, I don't think it has a place there. Can we divide the sections into "Known Gods", "Other Gods Mentioned", and "Descendant of Gods", and then just list their known powers next to each listed god?

And finally, the trivia...with the exception of the last one (the one about Shakespeare), I think they're all either not important or should be moved to the main section if not already mentioned. (I think the last one's significant only because it's an inconsistency in-game.)

If I remember correct, Glas is referred to as a "God" by Kristell, an "Embodiment" by the book, and by "Avatar" by Morrighan. These all refer Glas to its deity-like status.

This is what I mean by personal opinion and conjecture. "Embodiment" and "avatar" doesn't necessarily make it a god, it's just your drawn conclusion. And from checking the G1 transcript it's not actually called a God anywhere. I went and read through all the gens up to around partway through G9 and found nothing to solidly call them Gods.

With no new replies to date and no reasonable reason not to, I'm going to go ahead and edit the page if there are no more developments.

Aww...no taking up my suggestions?

Nothing really going for it.

I'm...not entirely sure if you mean "no reason to do so" (in which case I would ask "Why not?") or "I have no opinion on this, if you want to do it do it yourself".

I mean there's nothing said so far to provide any real reason to do so. On the other hand I started and maintained why it shouldn't be on the page from the beginning.

My proposed division and the "demigods", yeah, I guess haven't given a solid reason. So lemme say that it's for the sake of giving a sense of categorization that had been removed. This way it would clearly mark the more common gods, and shove off the less common gods into a trivia-like position that acknowledge their status here, but reminds that they're minor. The "demigods", I just thought their connection to gods should be acknowledged.

For re-promoting Glas, Lugh, or Cromm, I would think that the criteria outlined is enough of a qualifier to reinstate them, so wouldn't the onus be reversed now to anyone against this explaining why they're not good enough standard to use? (Though you're right that establishing what counts as "God" would be needed before that happens.)

As to listing the Gods' powers - why the heck not? Among the information you removed were real, concrete, and displayed facts that obviously come from each Gods' standing as one. This place is pretty much the only proper place that can actively note differences between the gods, you know, and that definitely gives a better understanding of "Gods" as a whole.

In kind of the same way, the trivia about Shakespeare is an inconsistency from the facts so far given about gods. There's no clear answer to this yet, and that should be acknowledged, and where better to place that tidbit than here?

I completely agree with Akira. Sorry I haven't been replying, I've been looking for the source of the god categorization (Higher-tier, Lower-tier). I remember seeing it somewhere within the game however, it's not in C3, it's probably not in C4 or C2, and I don't have a human to do C1 and all the humans I talked to have nothing of relevance to say.

Infodude, you claim you didn't base your article on Mabidata and you use the same terms as them, so their is a possibility that the terms are official. Where did you get those names from, if you remember?

Mystickskye, I don't see the the backing for removing 90% of what you removed; we're not trying to target you (since I did get that vibe when reading this myself), but I don't see why what was removed was removed.

Edit: What I said only applies to Lower and Higher tiers, Lesser is obviously not a real tier.

The names? They were merely made-up, seeing how Aton Cimeni and the three were omnipotent and the rest just have one or two lower commands.
Lesser was just the result of those with a deity-like status whom had made no appearance and/or no specific role in the mainstream story.

And, I totally agree with Akira on this whole fiasco.

@Akira What criteria? The single fact that they're not really called Gods in game (as I said I can find very, very few references to Cromm being a God and they're dubious at that whilst I can't find any claims that Glas and Lugh are gods at all) means that no one agreeing with this statement has to do anything other than wait for arguments that they are gods. As for "powers".... I'm not sure what you're referring to. The powers of various gods are still in there. I did remove the tiers and the descriptions of those but removing those doesn't actually go against what you said. As for Shakespeare this is a perceived inconsistency, we don't have the full picture. If you think it's really that important then put it on Shakespeare's page. @Pyro I see nothing of the sort in C1. Also, all the information is there. If you don't see the backing then I suggest you look harder.

All I'm doing right now is repeating what I've been saying since the beginning. I again welcome you to the IRC if you want to discuss it in person.

Overview: We proved those who were called gods are gods. Doesn't matter how many times its mentioned as long as its mentioned within the game in the NA version. So far, the only valid changes would be: removing the non-canonical categorization of god types and either removing the Falias Gatekeeper and Elatha or keeping them and adding a section for descendants as Akira suggested.

So... how are we going to classify them now? I mean, the "lower-tier" are obviously not as powerful as Aton Cimeni.

@Mystickskye - The trivia about Shakespeare is useless on his page. It is an inconsistency on the part of the gods, not Shakespeare himself. Therefore it should be placed here.

As for "powers"...I admit, that was kind of a misinterpretation on my part. I thought for some reason that the cataloging you removed had listed the common powers of each "tier". The "powers" I meant to refer to amounts to the fact that some Gods can die and revive, which was in the trivia section (though Infodude placed it back by now), though I'm still all for listing other powers (teleportation, dream visits, some degree of foresight and perhaps some skills) on this page too.

As for the "criteria" - near this whole freaking thread is exactly about whether Glas, Lugh or Cromm are gods or not. We're already arguing about this here. That is sort of why I'm asking you whether my rudimentary "criteria" is good enough to promote a powerful figure into god status or not.

@Pyro & Infodude - Waitwaitwait! I think you guys totally misunderstood what I was saying. I was actually agreeing with Mystickskye on some of his points. Specifically on the points that:

• Parts of the trivia is trivial
• Glas, Lugh, and Cromm are not gods until proven otherwise
• Corple can show himself to the door

Infodude, that list you got for Glas was a good start, but I think first we need to come up with the exact wordings and the exact instances first, to verify them. (It may just be me, but this page is mostly built out of vague remembrances that one can't quite find, after all.)

@Everyone - Considering they used the word considered, I think Corple's standing is debatable. I searched the wiki (still haven't done C1 yet and frankly I don't really want another Human so I'll wait until G16S2 for that) and I found one mention of Lugh being a god. Seal Stone Research Almanac : Ciar Dungeon As for the other mentions, we'd have to search C1 and C2.

@Infodude - You added them to the list, do you remember the sources for Glas and Cromm?

@Everyone - By the way, just a reminder. In G16S2 they're going to make G1 available to Elves and Giants and they are working on G2, possibly G3 too. That being said, the storyline for G2-3 will end up changing for Elves and Giants and maybe for Humans too.

Edit: Do we have a majority vote on reinstating Elatha and the Falias Gatekeeper under a Descendants subheader?

I remember Kristell in G1 calling Glas as a god... As for Cromm, I wasn't the one who put that there.

For reinstating Elatha and Gatekeeper, I agree. They are related to gods so they deserve to be here.

Three out of four votes plus proof of their ancestry, that qualifies for reinstation.

I disagree with the Falias gatekeeper. Also you didn't even bother waiting for everyone to comment on this >:

@Akira I beg to differ. First off it's trivia of minor importance that we're not even sure of and it's still related to him. If it's an inconsistency on the part of anything it's an inconsistency on the part of the story rather than the gods or Shakespeare. Furthermore we're still not even entirely sure of what various groups of Gods are/aren't restricted too which makes it more speculation than fact. We have seen Cichol "die" with our own eyes and seen him come back. We have the words of others that Nuadha died and of his return. It's too limited in scope and there are too many other gods that have displayed other traits for any of us to truly say otherwise. In light of that it'd be irresponsible to say so.
@Pyrus You didn't prove anything. I asked again and again for clear solid proof and it has yet to be shown. You're not performing up to the standards asked for and behaving of your own accord without consulting others thoroughly to serve your own ends. An arbitrary vote held by a biased party that no one agreed to is outright facetious and even almost insulting. You're not even trying to work with me here, just yourself.
@Infodude I have yet to see a compelling argument for why they "deserve to be here". The (lack) of significance and notability makes me think otherwise. If it's just that they're descendants then the information can be combined with the progenitors.
I have constantly asked for real, solid proof. Do NOT act when this has yet to be addressed.

First of all, it's not biased, and everyone voted. Akira brought up the idea so she's obviously voting for it, Infodude and I voted for it, and you clearly seem to be against it which is overruled by a majority. Proof of ancestry: Elatha's bloodline should be obvious. The Gatekeeper's bloodline is stated by him when speaking to him outside of G12. (End chat and talk again for different results.)

Also, please don't insult me or anyone on this wiki. That is rude and comments like "You're not even trying to work with me, just yourself," are straightforward insults and moreso insulting than anything that can be implied.

My point is, fact is fact. If the game mentions it in one place, it deserves to be on the wiki. If it is contradicted in another place, it still deserves to be on the wiki in that spot with a notation of it.

It is biased because you're for it (this is the very definition of bias) and you don't even know who "everyone" is. Shall I count the votes from the IRC from the members that detest what you're doing? To quote you, "fact is fact" (and on this matter, the only fact for you is that someone calls [being] a god, this isn't the same as "fact: [being] is a god"). You're not cooperating and you're acting on your own without proper consultation as evidenced by your reinstating Cromm/Glas/Lugh and the "Descendant of Gods" even whilst discussion is still ongoing. This is ignoring that a poorly thought out vote isn't even a good measure in this case. And no, it doesn't. To do so can be misleading and misinformative. This is precisely why we're having this discussion and the points I stated above are why I'm constantly repeating myself and retreading the same ground. You've even be told before by mabiworld staff to keep conjecture, speculation and personal opinion off the actual pages and solely on the discussion pages. I can find this for you again if you have trouble remembering.

Seeing as we've reached an impasse of sorts, I once again invite anyone who wishes to continue to the IRC where we can have a proper discussion.

Uh, "You're not even trying to work with me, just yourself," is not even close to an insult, it's a statement of concern. For a real example, "You're a butthead" is an insult.

And everyone who formerly posted in this thread voted doesn't really constitute everyone. There are plenty more people following this.

I don't have an opinion on the descendants of gods section. It doesn't bother me, but they aren't gods and this is a page about gods. Though I'd rather not have a primarily empty page about the two of them if you're going to be that insistent.

In any event, this is a prime example of speculation: "I remember Kristell in G1 calling Glas as a god... As for Cromm, I wasn't the one who put that there." There is no direct quote, here. And you don't have to play through the game to see the quotes, they're transcribed in the strategy guide, apparently.

Objectively, no, Glas is not a god, nor is Cromm, nor is Lugh, nor is Corple.

First of all, with Glas, there is not only one Glas, it's a species from another world. The fact that there are **many** of them implies that it's not a god. To quote from the book: "There is a story that says several giants, larger than a house, came and destroyed and burned everything...which must've been the Glas Ghaibhleanns."

Cromm, there's nothing that actually calls him a god. Titles mean nothing, because they're often hyperbole. In fact: "Cromm Cruaich is a Dragon who is a pet of the Goddess, Macha." - He's just a pet.

Lugh is just a miletian that became an important commander under Cichol. Nothing ever called him the "God of Light", anyway, I have no idea where anyone pulled that out of. As long as it's not someone's ass, show me where it even says that, not like it'd mean anything anyway.

Corple is clearly not a god, it's only a term emphasizing his ability. Being unable to see that only states your inability to critically read texts.

Tip for being a pro wiki editor: Burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim. As for the criteria, I don't know, it seems pretty common sense to me. Would you believe someone's a god in real life if only one person said so? Would you believe it if someone you trusted as being a god told you so? Would you believe it if he himself told you? Would you believe it if people claimed one was a god of an ability? I'm not going to answer these questions, partially because they have different answers and partially because they're rhetorical. But seriously, you say "fact is fact" like you're actually quoting facts and all I seem to hear are vague memories of years ago when you may have done the generation and maybe an NPC said something, maybe. Stop it.

@Mystic The vote was not bias since I was not acting on it based on my own opinion, I was acting on a justified vote. I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there. If they want to be a part of this discussion and have their votes heard then please invite them to join the conversation. Also, I apologize for doing that edit, I assumed the conversation was over. Please leave my past history out of this, if you notice since then I have taken their advice and have been editing solely on fact. As for the examples, I clearly highlighted them below.

@Generally Remembrance≠Speculation, especially since everything we know is a form of memory.

@Kadalyn Saying there is multiple Glases makes him not a god is speculation... The Lugh being a Milletian was disproved in another thread. (If you don't know where it says Lugh's a God then please read the whole thread.) I kind of agree with Corple not being a god, but as I said, that is debatable based on context, which isn't our place to decide. Also, not all important text is included in the strategy guide and neither are keyword responses. What we think is irrelevant, fact is fact is correct. If somewhere in the game it says that blank is a blank then we can't deny it, even if it is being contradicted. Facts are written in stone. Wikis (or at least this one) are supposed to be based on fact. Our opinion on how something is being taken into context or if we should disregard a fact do to another fact is irrelevant.

@Infodude

“	As for Cromm, I wasn't the one who put that there.	„
—Infodude

Yes you were. http://wiki.mabinogiworld.com/index.php?title=Gods&diff=prev&oldid=321676

Evidence for Lugh:

“	With composing several situations and current studies for the SealStone of Ciar Dungeon, it can be thought the SealStone was constructed here during the reign of King Lugh, whom is the god of light and king of light after War Mag Tuireadh, and if you approach this Dungeon you can get the vicious message as follows.	„
—Seal Stone Research Almanac : Ciar Dungeon

Evidence for Elatha: The ending of G10...

Evidence for the Falias Gatekeeper:

“	I'm one of Manannan Mac Lir's nine sons. They call me the Wave of Death. My job is to collect the white bones of the gods here in Falias, the decayed city.	„
—Eabha (Falias), talk to him a few times outside of G12

Evidence for Corple:

“	This is why he's considered the God of Music.	„
—Musicians of Erinn

Another piece of evidence for Lugh:

“	...Or perhaps about Lugh, the God of light...	„
—Meven, Mabinogi Keyword

@Pyro That's odd, I remember someone else putting up Cromm as a God...

Except it was based on your opinion because you had to formulate that conclusion from somewhere (and I laugh at the claims of a justified vote when you didn't consult anyone on it, didn't verify votes nor wait for responses before acting on it). You should care what people on IRC have to say because they're contributors like you and some of them are even wiki staff (in fact, some of them are people who have told you what to do and what not do do). To say you don't care is just displaying your own self-serving nature, it was clear from the beginning that I was acting as their representative and letting their voice be heard through me. Furthermore you can't just dismiss them and then turn around to say that I should call them here (especially when fluid text would be more beneficial to this situation than static conversation). I brought your past history into this because despite your claim otherwise it's exactly what I "notice" that you're doing here. So no, you haven't been taking that advice. You can't say that Lugh was disproved as a Milletian in when it's all your speculation because that's not proof.

You're still ignoring parts of the argument for your own benefit. To repeat what I said in my very last post, the things you've been bringing up aren't FACT: [being] is a god. It's "Fact: [person] said [being] was a god.". It's too circumstantial to be called "proof" which is what I said earlier regarding solid proof. What we think is relevant because it helps us discern between these differences which you can't seem to be able to see. Context is important and we can't leave it out because context also carries meaning (this is ignoring that Corple is very clearly called a mortal and that's not contextual). It's most definitely not irrelevant, to say so just displays a lack of understanding of language, communication and meaning. You haven't been able to display "Fact: [being] is a god" which is what I said from the beginning. It's all conjecture and speculation on unreliable testimony which seemingly contradicts other information given in game. Since the beginning I've maintained and still say that no one has been able to conclusively say that [being] is a god. Without that you lack justification to say that, to do otherwise is (again) misleading and misinforming. The purpose of the wiki is to accurately inform, language etiquette says we're to do this as efficiently as possible. You appear to display interest in neither of these. If you think that's unfair of me to say then show me wrong.

If you don't mind me making an interpretation, and no offense intended to anyone I may accidentally end up insulting, but I think what Pyro's trying to imply is not that the IRC members' opinions don't matter; rather, it's more like they're not going to be considered because they're don't appear to be interested enough to post here, where the discussion is taking place, with the sole exception of you. I'm kind of of the same mind; I'm not a regular member of the IRC, and I don't think Pyro or Infodude are either, so forgive me if I say I can't exactly take seriously complaints that were made "behind our backs"-esque. That's kinda the reason I suggested you use direct quotes too, down below (or maybe bring some IRC members to the wiki?).

And to be fair, you may have displayed why they may not be called gods yet, but you've not proven why they should stay in the category of "mortals". Kinda following from Kadalyn's comment below, but in my mind those three are kinda stuck in a limbo of "could be considered a god in a way". Not exactly an ideal section to place in a wiki, so yeah, let's resolve this discussion first.

"I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there. If they want to be a part of this discussion and have their votes heard then please invite them to join the conversation" leaves little room for interpretation. I also stated exactly why it was that they don't want to come here earlier. They don't want to have to deal with this due to how Pyrus and Infodude have and continued to behave. As to the last point, that's not really being fair. Rather it's more like picking at straws. For the purpose of the debate with the points I've made and set it's irrelevant.

"I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there." That sounds a lot like a location to me.

Though I can agree that Pyro and Infodude - perhaps me, as well - tend not to look out of other people's viewpoints often. So, thanks for working with us for this long, I suppose.

And...I wouldn't quite call it picking at the straws. They've enough power to be gods; what we're discussing more now is whether the general populace "worships", for a rather general term, them enough to be considered one. Sure, you've pointed out rightly that not a lot of people were claiming them to be gods, which is why I proposed the "criteria", but neither have you brought up the exact instances of their "deitification" and said conclusively why those specific sources are dubious. And in light of the recent posts, especially more so for Lugh. You're going to have to discredit a head clergyman before you can remove the label of reliable source from that.

No, I don't think I'm wrong when I say you haven't fully pulled them outside the "god" heading.

Location doesn't matter, if anything it just reinforces my point. Doesn't matter where their opinion comes from, it still counts and that should be recognised.
And yes it is strawpicking because I don't have to conclusively show that they're mortals for my original reasoning to be valid. Simply in showing that the state of things appears to be invalid is sufficient to remove it. If it remains inconclusive then it can't go back on the page the way it was before. On that matter, if only a few people claim it when no one else does then it's innately dubious simply because accounts don't match up. It's only natural that when the vast majority claims one thing and then a very select few claim something different with no apparent link or basis to build off that one would be suspicious of the few unless those few had something solid to back them up. Meven might be a head clergyman but that has no real bearing on this because it doesn't necessitate knowledge of all things to do with religion. He's no more or less a reliable source than any other in the game.

What? Lugh is a Milletian, it says it throughout all the generations. O.o Example: "According to the Knight of Light, who is a Milletian himself" per Tarlach's Record.

Nice to see "God of Light" wasn't randomly pulled out of nowhere though. Still doesn't make him a god on its own.

Also that is seriously not evidence for Corple if you read the whole thing.

And really, if you're not going to bend on this for some god-forsaken reason; I want to suggest we change the page title to "People or Things that Someone Referred to as a God in Any Form"

EDIT: Oh, yes, saying "because there are multiple Glas he can't be a god" is speculation, but he's still not legitimately called a god anywhere. The references to him as a god are still hyperbole.

First things first.

@Pyrus - I am a he, not a she.

Second, I feel it's important to at least have a base for what gods are defined. The following was taken out of Wikipedia's "Deity" page (as that was supposedly the page about gods in polytheistic rather than monotheistic contexts), but since it's Wikipedia anyone's welcome to supply an amendment based on a different source.

“	A deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.	„

Based on that, I don't think Corple cuts it. He's definitely not supernatural or immortal, and calling his skill preternatural might be stretching it. Besides which, the quote Pyrus supplied do have the keyword considered in it, so...

On the other hand, Lugh's looking a whole lot more credible to me. It doesn't get much better for religious support than a clergyman going and saying so. And, at least to the rest of the inhabitants of Erinn, he's definitely accomplished the aspects of being preternatural, immortal, holy, and respected. (Though I would like to see the thread where Lugh was disproven as a Milletian. I thought that had been clearly established in the game?)

@Mystickskye - The Shakespeare trivia doesn't have to pertain to only Shakespeare it can apply to any escapee of Avon (though I admit that point is speculation). More importantly, there's not exactly place to list this under a subheading of "storyline" - the walkthroughs, I'm pretty sure are supposed to be kept as spoiler-free as possible, and the mabinogi storyline recap page is supposed to tell a story, not critically analyze it. As well, just because it's related to Shakespeare doesn't automatically guarantee it a place in his page - there, it's just as useless as most of the trivia you've removed from this page. You have to remember that it the trivia doesn't tell us anything about Shakespeare himself, which is the point of his page. On the other hand, one interpretation tells us two things about the gods: one, it's the gods' jobs to hunt down escapees, and two, some of them are either purposely ignoring this or sleeping in. The other interpretation says that "hey, we accidentally told you before it's the gods' jobs to hunt down escapees, but we were, uh, kinda, wrong. Just thought you should know!" which is still pretty important to note here so that no one gets confused.

There is the possibility that the other gods are working with Morrighan against Shakespeare, but until the game demonstrates this, any attempt to say so is just speculation and doesn't deserve to be heeded.

As for the second paragraph...I think you're not entirely following my thread of thought. Or I'm not following yours. Either way, I'm arguing that a list of powers that the various gods have definitely demonstrated, each placed (and I think this is the point you missed) beside the god in question who demonstrated it for every god who demonstrated it, is a way to represent, compare, or contrast the diverse abilities of the deities.

And also, though this is a bit more of a request, but if there is anyone in the IRC who has something to say, can you actually get them to make an account and comment on here or just quote what they said as opposed to asking us to move to the IRC? Two reasons for this: first, generally wiki stuff should be done on the wiki and the IRC stuff on the IRC. I mean, if there's, say, a vote for re-designing the layout of the IRC channel or something (and mind you, that was off the top of my head), even if a lot of the wiki members are part of the IRC community too, doesn't mean they should try to move the voting/discussion of the subject to the wiki, right? And second, some people just perform better on different platforms - take me for example, absolutely horrible at face-to-face conversation, but here I can think stuff out before type it out, or think it over again and re-type it. So I would definitely prefer a wiki discussion over an IRC one. There might be some people to whom the reverse applies in the IRC, of course, so that's why I also asked you to quote what they said if you can.

@Kadalyn - Well, not to be nitpickyish, but people are insulted by different things. In this case it's not hard to imagine that someone who worked honestly to get his facts right yet is told that they are nothing more than speculation would have their pride injured. Though, I would agree with you that generally Mystickskye's comments won't be an insult.

As for the multiple Glas and "pets" thing, neither exactly have a direct co-relation to whether they can be gods or not. Disqualifying Glas immediately because of a base of "there's a lot of Glas Ghaibhleanns" is akin to disqualifying the Greek gods as deities because of a base of "there's a lot of Greeks" (though admittedly the Greek gods all had different areas of influence).

As for Cromm, I think the adjective "pet" itself may be a hyperbole. Even if it's not, it's not hard to imagine "pet" and "god" applied to the same thing, since just because an animal's cuddly, cute and subservient to one person doesn't mean it can't bully a different group and force them to worship it. And lastly, though I don't know for sure, the context you pulled that quote out from seem to indicate the speaker has a good amount of hate for Cromm Cruaich and Macha, and I don't quite think that's the best thing to rely a conclusion on.

@Generic air - Can we agree to not edit the article concerning the above subjects until there's been no response of at least 48 hours? Since, no offence Pyro, but I did think your edit was kinda hasty too.

...Anything else I should address...?

I never said it did automatically qualify him. What I said was that there's no more reason to put it on one over the other. We don't know the specifics of it and to pretend that we do is misleading. To draw further meaning from it is speculation.
Re: Lugh, speculation. Show that he is actually a God in the context of Mabinogi or drop the claim. Fact is that a very few npcs have called him a God. Fact also is that the vast majority haven't. These are both facts. "Lugh is a God" is a derived conclusion, not a fact.
I didn't ask you to move to IRC. I said you were welcome there to hear the words of others. Otherwise you have me to go through. I could quote some of the things said but I don't think people would appreciate that if some of my comments are considered rude. I suggested it later on due to the huge amount of text going on with the relative little progress which just bloats this page. Being on the IRC doesn't exclude thinking before you type it out and there is no shame or penalty for rewording something later on in IRC. Moving a vote to the IRC would hold little value due to the fact that there is nothing the wiki offers over the IRC for the given purpose (except maybe having a public reference of something and in fact we did move the transcripts of the Nexon Q&A sessions to the wiki for the exact purpose).

I'm sorry if this thing sounds like a trolling flame, but its my personal opinion; the Gods page reads like horrible fanfiction. Why does it read like horrible fanfiction? Its full of original content created by members on this site. How about we keep this page relevant to the -game?- After all, that's what this Wiki is for? If someone comes on a wiki looking for information about the people directly labelled as gods Mabinogi, they are probably looking for information on the actual gods in the mainstream storyline content, not endless speculation on who's a god and who's not.

And stuff like, Race: Gods or Race: Deity. Neither of these are defined as races in game. I could go on, but you get my drift. In essence, I'm agreeing with the OP of this thread.

Also, I forgot to mention that making the distiction between "god" and "deity" is just plain pointless. The words mean the same thing, and the game makes no distinction between them (is the word Deity even used in game?).

Not from what I recall, they never use Deity. Just "Gods".

@Mystickskye - Eh, you did say "If you really think that's important put it in Shakespeare's page". That is either a "it's better on his page" comment or "just anywhere but here" type of reaction, if you don't mind me saying so.

Back to the main point...I don't think I've overstepped the bounds of a single layer of interpretation? Correct me if I'm wrong or formed something inconclusively...

1. Marlowe claimed, Shakespeare has escaped Avon, and all the Gods are chasing him to recapture him.
2. Only Morrighan was known to chase Shakespeare - supplemented by her initial visions in G13, only Morrighan bringing in Grim Reaper, and Shakespeare specifying only Morrighan as the one he is fleeing from.
   • No new gods were introduced or mentioned in the recapturing of Shakespeare.
   • Gods already known to exist, such as Cichol and Neamhain, weren't even hinted at going after Shakespeare.
     • And before anyone says the Milletian shouldn't know about Cichol's revival or what Neamhain's been doing after her attack, the story has used third person anonymous view specifically for these hints, such as G12. Therefore, even if the Milletian remains unaware, the player can be informed.
3. So from this, we can say that no other god, beside Morrighan, has been chasing Shakespeare so far. This is significant, because it either:
   • Tells us that it's a gods' jobs to hunt down Shakespeare (which definitely should go into the known detail of a god), though "some of them are either purposely ignoring this or sleeping in".
   • Forms a contradiction ("hey, we accidentally told you before it's the gods' jobs to hunt down escapees, but we were, uh, kinda, wrong. Just thought you should know!") which is important to note here so that no one gets confused on which statement is true.
   • The game just haven't lived up to the claim yet, in which case it's still important to note so that no one gets confused on which statement is true.

So I think the only ways this statement can be false is if Grim Reaper or Bran themselves are gods. Which, while debatable and is definitely my intuition telling me this, I don't quite think so, and I don't think you do either.

Note that I'm saying we should put the statement and the observation in, and acknowledge them, not put in any of my three formed interpretations. That, the reader can do for his/her self.

As for Lugh, there's already a direct quote of Meven saying Lugh is a God of light, and he's the priest. Also, though this may be stretching a bit, but the very sheer fact that this is a game kinda limits the possibilities of Lugh getting mentioned - take Jeamiderark and Hymeriderark, for example (hope I spelled them right...). I believe they were only mentioned twice? Once by Meven and once by Endelyon? Yet there's no argument for them not being gods.

And...uh...I'm pretty sure that every god on this page is a derived conclusion, taken from words of NPCs or books. Unless we have a handbook that lists so, we can't exactly have concrete fact that any of them people listed here are gods. So...I don't think that argument stands? So long as [person] or [a book] said [being] is a god, it's going to have to be considered.

IRC...as for the comment thing, I'd think there's no problems if you only listed the comments relating to the article, not the comments relating to any person who's worked on this. And I'm not so much concerned about a penalty or shame for rewording something than the fact that by the time I do so, the specific topic may be several pages up and left behind, though I suppose that's only assuming if conversation goes as fast as I imagine. Maybe I'll drop by sometime and leave a window open just to accumulate the comments, though.

@Sledeau - Mmkay. Though, no offense, but you sound more like a commenter rather than a flamer; may I ask for your opinion on which parts need weeding, which conclusions are incorrectly formed, and which parts are just plain untrue, and why?

And, erm, I think they used a form of "deity" a few times in the game...but a distinction wasn't what I was aiming to achieve, it's just that the wikipedia page separated Gods and Deity into different definitions. I, myself, meant to use the term "deity" interchangeably with "gods" in context of Mabinogi - though it seems that wasn't implied strongly. Let me do a slight amendment, then...

“	A god is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.	„

Does this fit the context in Mabinogi better?

But they mention Lugh a lot more than the few contexts where the term god is ascribed. Many calling him Milletian. (And I don't think immortality makes him a god, as such, because all Milletians are immortal.) This is the major difference between him and Jeamiderark and Hymeriderark.

Were there any other mentions of Lugh being a Milletian outside of Tarlach's record? The person who argued against Lugh being a Milletian pointed out that multiple people in G3 refer to the player as "the Knight of Light" as opposed to just Lugh, whom never met Tarlach outside of Morgant form. Although, as I said, somebody calling something one thing and being contradicted later doesn't cancel it out, but earns both mentions a notation. Also, for perspective purposes: a Milletian/Mortal can still become a god... (Mari became a god, and Triona and the Player almost would've became one in G3 and G12.)

"Knight of Light" just means Paladin (in the real sense, as opposed to Emain's paladins). Lugh was simply the first Paladin, before your character even existed, so during G1-G2 that's the only person the NPCs know as the Knight of Light. It's not surprising that G3 would call you that, considering you're a Paladin, then.

And Tarlach's Record is from G3.

That would imply he wrote it before G3, in my mind, but I don't remember what he said about it. It's an irrelevant detail, anyway.

I totally misspelled Hymerark.

Eeh...for the frequency point...okay yeah, you got me there, I can't really draw that comparison between Lugh and Jeamiderark and Hymerark.

But I'm pretty sure I can draw a comparison between him and Nuadha. I think such instances where Lugh was mentioned was most frequently him as the Knight of Light. Assuming this is true, like Lugh, Nuadha had multiple accounts of people saying he is "King of the [humans]" and "fighting for the humans" in addition to being the "god-king". Of course, the difference between them is that Nuadha is also mentioned more frequently...so, I suppose, that's why I'm asking now whether three clear mentions of Lugh as a god is enough.

It's not so much the immortality, by itself, that may make Lugh the god - there's still the other parts of the definition of god to fulfill, which I think is mostly fulfilled. It's not like the label of Milletian means Lugh can't be a god, either - some Greek gods, for example, started as human, and in-game Mari was a human too before turning into a deity.

Its not necessary to define what a god is. This isn't wikipedia. The average person looking at the gods article is going to know what its about.

Er, I wasn't intending for that definition to be used in the article, either - just thought we would need a base definition of "god" to work with for this discussion.

Wiki ate my post so gonna keep this as brief as possible. Lugh shows no real signs of godhood. He displays no God-like powers, he appears no more preternatural or supernatural than the average player and it can even be argued that a lot of players are far more God-like than he is. It could be that he became a God but there's no indication that he did whereas we're explicitly told how Mari became Nao (nor is it even suggested as to what kind of difference there was before/after attaining godhood. The claims that he is a god don't seem to match up with the rest of the game and as Morgant in G3, calls himself a human when talking to Ruairi ("And one more thing. I'm not a Fomor…I'm human. Just like you.").
The game establishes that Nuadha is a god. Everyone says, recognises and accepts this including other gods (and if we're to believe Lennox, Nuadha's title as King of the Gods is out of respect, not his actual position). It's not questioned, it's not made dubious, there is no room for reasonable doubt. Lugh on the other hand is almost never referred to as a god and having people claim/believe he is one doesn't necessarily means it's true.
As said (many, many times now), "[person] said [being] is a god" isn't the same as "[being] is a god".

You're post isn't gone, you just have to go to the Talk Page to see the whole thing, not the New Messages page. As I said, one area of the game contradicting another doesn't justify removal of that information from the wiki, it only justifies the inclusion of even more information. I honestly don't see why there would be the need of more information for Lugh's case, although Cromm and Glas's standing is rather questionable.

Uh yes my post is gone and you don't even know what you're talking about (and for the record, "your post" not "you're post"). What happened was that the message that was being written disappeared before it could be saved. It's very clearly not on the talk page.
And you're confusing the issue. What was going on here was that people were saying that "lugh is a god" as fact. This is NOT a fact as I've said multiple times over. The fact is that some people called him a God and seemingly without any basis. If you can't even understand why this matters then you're not qualified to comment on the issue.

You're the one not seeing the basis after it being stated multiple times from multiple sources. You claim everyone's opinions "still counts and that should be recognised" yet you are trying to disqualify posts? (Also, I don't see the point in correcting grammar or spelling mid-debate, you yourself misspelled recognized.)

I am sorry if my or others responses aren't as quality as they can be, but that's the best you can do online and moving it to another form of conversation won't make a difference. Can we please skip the tangent on location of this conversation and hold it here for the meantime?

The importance of an NPC is irrelevant. If it says something somewhere in the game then it does say it in the game. You seem to be avoiding the subject of keeping at least a mention on the wiki.

You're the one not seeing the basis after it being stated multiple times from multiple sources.
I've addressed this before (multiple times in fact). Clear, solid proof. What you have produced is not that and I've explained why it's not yet it get parroted as if I haven't said anything.
You claim everyone's opinions "still counts and that should be recognised" yet you are trying to disqualify posts?
When I think the reasoning is faulty, yes. That's kinda how debating works. You make logical and well reasoned statements to further your point and discard statements you think aren't logical or well reasoned. As far as I can see many of the statements for your side are horrendous.
(Also, I don't see the point in correcting grammar or spelling mid-debate, you yourself misspelled recognized.)
1) Standards are always important and 2) British English says hi.
I am sorry if my or others responses aren't as quality as they can be, but that's the best you can do online and moving it to another form of conversation won't make a difference. Can we please skip the tangent on location of this conversation and hold it here for the meantime? We already dealt with this. Good job on picking it up again.
The importance of an NPC is irrelevant
That's basically what I just said.
You seem to be avoiding the subject of keeping at least a mention on the wiki.
I'd suggest you stop assuming because you're terrible at it. I'm not avoiding anything and if you ask me a mention on the wiki is warranted. Ever since the beginning what I said was that I don't want "[being] is a god" when it's questionable. Lugh's page itself has a mention of how he is referred to mostly as a knight and rarely as a god (which could probably use some fixing) and I'm fine with that because that's how it is. So yes, a mention is fine. How those "mentions" are constructed is my issue and always has been.

As far as I can see many of the statements for your side are horrendous. That is why I apologized, because that was not my intention and I'm trying the best I can.

How those "mentions" are constructed is my issue and always has been. So in your opinion, in terms of Lugh, this debate is about the value of the mention? (It being a note at the bottom of the page or it being in the list?)

@Mystickskye (since I couldn't resist the retort, sorry) - if British English can say hi, so can Internet English. (And besides which, I thought the policy said to use NA English? Though I'm not sure if that involves discussion pages as well.)

Mmkay, so it's been several days since the last post, so I'm going to try to summarize whatever consensus seems to have reached and prod forth the questions that doesn't look like they were addressed. Correct me if any of them are wrong.

For Glas Ghaibhleann and Cromm Cruaich, the sources listing their possible "god" status are weak, and so they should not be categorized as gods. Cromm still had one direct mention of being a god, however, so this can go into the trivia section?

Lugh is slightly more believable to be a God, but did not pass the "three sources" test. Accordingly, he too will not be listed as a god, though he may be mentioned in the trivia. This seemed to have been implied though, so I'll say it directly - will Lugh be qualified as a god if one more separate source calls him a god? (Using the three-source test here since no one seems to have rejected its use.)

Majority is either neutral or in favor of removing Corple permanently (which has already been done).

Elatha and the Falias Gatekeeper are, though not gods themselves, are closely related to gods, so they should be mentioned too. The question is, should they be in the trivia section or should they be mentioned along with their progenitors like Mystickskye suggested?

Out of the "original" trivia removed, only Shakespeare's bit had been debated for its restoration to the page. I made the last argument on that and it's been a few days, so I'm assuming it's a concession amongst us here? If that's the case, it should be placed back in the article, though under the trivia banner.

This is a new question, but should the mention that some gods can be killed - originally in the trivia - be put into the introduction section?

My proposed distinction - "known gods" and "mentioned gods" - as well as the note to indicate which god(s) has died and revived, as well as a brief summary of their powers, hasn't really been talked about. Are they worth using?

Does that sound about right?

Ya, I can't find a mention anymore mentions anywhere. Although, I never agreed to the use of the three sources rule. As I said, one source is just as important as 300 sources regardless of what the source is, assuming the source is from ingame.

Have we ruled out making a descendants subheading, as you suggested?

I agree, the Shakespeare comment should be reinstated, but there are other trivia that are in the purge. That link shows what trivia were on the page and which were rewritten and how. The "possibility" trivia was rewritten to say gods instead of the lower-tier classification. Also among them is the Nuadha trivia and the historical mention.

I don't really think we should move the god mortality trivia to the top of the page as it is trivial and we shouldn't assume a being is immortal until mentioned to be so. Otherwise, I agree with instating your proposals.

Glas/Cromm; Put the mention in Cromm's page rather than here. This is a page on Gods, if they're not a God then that's that. Fragmentation between sources is also undesirable. This page should function only as a brief primer especially as with those with more information have their own pages. Lugh; Again, unless you can solidly show that Lugh is a god then he doesn't go in. Make mentions of the disputed status in Lugh's page (which has mostly already been done). Corple; He's very clearly not a god Elatha and Falias Gatekeeper: Still not gods, don't mention them or only in passing with their progenitors. Shakespeare trivia: Against. Mortality: I'm somewhat against this because it still doesn't seem entirely clear. Has it actually been stated that only some of the Gods can suffer death and others can't? Do we truly know that any/all dead Gods can be revived? Otherwise state on a case by case basis, as an accurate summary or not at all. Distinction: Any distinction is an arbitrary decision made by the users and I'm against it.

I don't see why you continue to deny the evidence of Lugh's placement nor the mention of Cromm. We have already provided evidence...

In the case of Elatha and the Falias Gatekeeper, they are already mentioned with their parents.

On the subject of mortality, it is irrelevant whether we know all or only few gods are capable of death, all that should be said is that some gods have been known to die. Same with revival.

I don't see what's wrong with distinction if we clearly state that it is not official. Especially if all we're saying is that some gods are mentioned but not seen within the game.

@Pyro - I don't think there's been a complete ruling out of a "descendants" subsection, but I'm fine with either way and the only real weight on either side that's been put was Mystickskye suggesting it be put together with its progenitors, I think.

As for the trivia, good point. I don't think that "It is said that the Gods were originally mortal" can be stated, since that only seems to apply to some and it's never been explicitly stated (I think?), but other than that sentence, I'm for reinserting that trivia too.

@Mystickskye - Same argument as for the Shakespeare trivia, applied to Cromm (and Lugh) - if it's a discrepancy it's beneficial to note it and clarify it.

@General - okay, the Shakespeare point's been reopened. Anyone else wants to add anything else that's not been discussed? Mystickskye, Pyro and I cast our votes as well - currently 2-1 for putting the trivia back.

Pyro; Read my points again. And again. And again. And again. "[person] said Lugh is a God" isn't the issue. The issue is that "[person] said Lugh is a God" doesnt mean "Lugh is a God" and you can't enter Lugh in the "Gods" page on that basis. A mention of the fact that there was a source claiming Lugh was a God is fine but doesn't really belong on this page.
Actually it is relevant because previously the claim on the page was "these Gods are capable of death" with the implication that the others weren't. Otherwise, showing that certain Gods have died and have come back is okay.
Relevance, importance and notability.
I'm doubtful of the benefit of it, as it is I took a quick vote and Mugenia, Linkoln and Skitty all voted against.

You read what I said. I did not mean "[person] said Lugh is a God" means "Lugh is a God." Forget everything you know about Lugh. Don't assume he is mortal, god, or anything. It never specifically said Lugh was anything but god, therefore, we have to assume he is a god unless there is a contradiction. In a case like that, we still mention both on the gods page... In either case, he still belongs on the page.

Like I said, "all that should be said is that some gods have been known to die." Not all gods are this or that.

As we said multiple times, please leave this conversation here. If they wish to contribute please invite them here. This is a wiki matter.

Seems that DevCAT's plans are full of... plot holes and inconsistencies.

But I agree with putting back everything Akira and Pyro suggested. They do have their own place in here.

Shaky's supposed to be pursued by GODS, yet only Morrighan has taken action. We know that Chapter 4 takes place right after Chapter 3, considering G16 has Cichol AND Nuadha. Therefore, Morri, Cichol, and Neamhain are currently the active gods, yet the later two have yet to take any action.

Lugh and Cromm (and perhaps Glas?) are stated to be gods, but they're often labeled as something else. Still, if the game mentions that they are gods, then they might as well be classified as gods.

Gods originally mortal seems plausible, since G15 depicts Morri and Cichol as humans. Heck, Cichol is even referred to a HUMAN in G3.

Gods dying:

“	A god CAN die.	„
—Nuadha

@Pyro; It's because I read what you said that I made that statement. What you are doing IS making the former statement into the latter. And no, it's the opposite in fact. Again, the references of Lugh as a God are few and far between and he even calls himself a human.
That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Only state what we know. Again, the previous statement that was on the page made specific references that only some Gods can die.
And no, only you said this and without basis at that. You have no grounds on which to invalidate their views and they don't have to come here to say so. Wiki matters are discussed wherever is suitable. This can include the forums and the irc. In fact I've discussed "Wiki matters" with angevon over the irc a number of times now. This doesn't make it any less valid.
Infodude; You need grounds to put them back in on. This is what we've been debating the entire time.
This is only from what we know. We don't know how many Gods are active, we don't know how many Gods take specific stances (and Cichol does appear to be taking action against Shakespeare if G15 is any indication) and why they do.
And no, the purpose of the wiki is to present accurate, concise information. You don't do something on a whim like that especially when it's so disputed. We don't know for a fact that they're human simply because they lack wings. G3's reference apparently is a translation error and should be "person" rather than "human".

I'm restating what I am because it is correct and it is being seemingly overlooked or shrugged off.

“	the previous statement that was on the page made specific references that only some Gods can die.	„

We removed the part about Lower-tier/Higher-tier gods and are not considering it for reinstation. Besides that, all that was said was

“	Although Gods are naturally immortal, they still face death, evident when Cichol and Nuadha were killed.	„

which doesn't say only specific gods can die, but that these gods have been known to die.

“	And no, only you said this and without basis at that.	„

“	is not that the IRC members' opinions don't matter; rather, it's more like they're not going to be considered because they're don't appear to be interested enough to post here, where the discussion is taking place, with the sole exception of you. I'm kind of of the same mind; I'm not a regular member of the IRC, and I don't think Pyro or Infodude are either	„
—Akira

“	This is only from what we know. We don't know how many Gods are active, we don't know how many Gods take specific stances (and Cichol does appear to be taking action against Shakespeare if G15 is any indication) and why they do.	„

He isn't saying that only Morrighan is active, he is saying that it has only been observed that Morrighan is active. Also, good point on Cichol's case, but so far, only he and Morrighan have been seen to take any action. This is what this conversation should be heading, surfacing new information. Not continuing down this cycle.

“	You don't do something on a whim like that especially when it's so disputed.	„

I'd like to point out that you have also removed information from the page while it was still being discussed, before I readded anything.

And I'd also like to remind you:

“	And to be fair, you may have displayed why they may not be called gods yet, but you've not proven why they should stay in the category of "mortals".	„
—Akira

If anything, Cichol was after Bella, not Shakespeare. Heck, he didn't even try to capture him at all (even though he had his chance). Cichol was just trying to warn Shakespeare of Morrighan and told him to leave Erinn, and this was all before Morri decided to go against him (or vise versa).

@General - I'm fairly sure we're all just saying and rephrasing the same thing about the "death" issue here. In any case, the consensus appears to be, a mention that some gods can die and revive without implying others cannot, or point out specifically which gods have died and revived. Any preferences? I'm going to lean towards the latter.

EDIT: Uh, people, we aren't arguing about whether the "death" thing should or should not go on to the page anymore. That's already been decided a yes. The question now is just how.

@Mystickskye - You're referring to the Shakespeare thing, for the vote you took? And, were there any who happened to vote for (whatever the vote was for), and did anybody come up with a new reason for or against?

As for the Cichol comment, I'm very sure that Cichol hadn't been taking action against Shakespeare in the present day. If I remember right, the gods-going-after-Shakespeare statement had a clause in it that said it was because Shakespeare had escaped Avon, so it wouldn't make sense for Cichol's action to be judged when that was before Shakespeare's imprisonment. Though I'll have to look up the quote in question to verify, this might be a result of vague remembrances too.

And lastly, you said yourself "Only state what we know", and then after that in the same post you said "This is only from what we know", which implies we should consider what we might not know. Isn't that a contradiction? Why would, in a statement containing only facts displayed to date, unknown variables - speculation, even - need to be considered? If that statement was true, I could argue against the Morgant-said-he's-human point with a "But we don't know if he lied to get Ruairi to trust him!" and I could argue against the Lugh-wasn't-mentioned-as-a-god-frequently point with "But what about the NPCs that we can't make conversation with?" Yeah, that'd make defending a lot easier, but it's not proper.

@Pyrus - Err...I don't quite follow your assumption statement. Lugh wasn't only mentioned as a god, he was mentioned as a hero and a knight too...and I'd think it makes more sense to assume a named person is a mortal human first, if there is nothing else but the name known about the person.

A hero and a knight is a position, not a race or state of being. And that assumption example was for visualization, not actual interpretation.

which doesn't say only specific gods can die, but that these gods have been known to die.
Actually that statement implies that ALL gods can die. We don't know this.
“ And no, only you said this and without basis at that.

 	„

“ is not that the IRC members' opinions don't matter; rather, it's more like they're not going to be considered because they're don't appear to be interested enough to post here, where the discussion is taking place, with the sole exception of you. I'm kind of of the same mind; I'm not a regular member of the IRC, and I don't think Pyro or Infodude are either

 	„

—Akira
Right, you said it without any basis and I've already demonstrated why Akira's arguement against opinions from elsewhere is invalid. Again, context is important.
I'd like to point out that you have also removed information from the page while it was still being discussed, before I readded anything.
At that point I'd given two replies for consideration, the latter of which was a warning as well as a large window in which for further arguements to be added. Nothing was forthcoming and nothing still was added to the debate for some time afterwards. So it wasn't on a whim and at the time it evidently wasn't being discussed.
And I'd also like to remind you:

“ And to be fair, you may have displayed why they may not be called gods yet, but you've not proven why they should stay in the category of "mortals".

 	„

—Akira
Again, I've already dealt with this and no retort was made to my reply to it. I don't need to prove that they're mortals. All I have to do is show why they don't belong on this page. This is basic logic.
@Akira; Admittedly I could have worded that better but context lends different meanings to each circumstance. For the latter it's more that we lack a PoV on the actions/whereabouts of the other Gods. It's not as if all the Gods in the game have come forwards to say "We don't care about Shakespeare". The statement to be reinstated however explicitly states that the other Gods aren't making any action and then slightly contradicts itself by saying "any known actions". If it's really to be included then it should be more like "no Gods except Morrighan have been known to take any action" rather than "only Morrighan has done anything about Shakespeare's escape; none of the other gods have taken any known actions."
There were no votes for and the only thing expressed was the disgust for the page and that this debate is still ongoing. In fact some even believe this page should be deleted altogether (a sentiment I don't entirely disagree with).

Copy-paste really gets messed up when quotes are copied, huh...

For the "prove-they're-mortals" argument, I initially made that comment because I did think you wanting to remove them from this page meant you thought they were mortals. As you pointed out, that was wrong. I suppose that's where our opinions differ - if I'm right, you think an item shouldn't be put in a list unless it definitely falls under the list's criteria, while I think an item shouldn't be removed from a list unless it definitely doesn't fall under any of the list's criteria. Actually, screw that, if I thought that an item might be confused as being on the list, I'd add a footnote specifying the item and explaining why it doesn't belong in the list.

So from that point of view, a part of the intention of my argument still stands. Lugh and co has successfully been discredited from the gods' club, but in my view that is not synonymous to showing that they don't belong on the page. I said something similar before - "if it's a discrepancy it's beneficial to note it and clarify it", though you did point out that doesn't seem to be the majority view.

In that case, lemme try a different angle - isn't it slightly more clear to describe a set containing variables as a range, as opposed to a limit?

...Er, where exactly did you say my statement concerning opinions from elsewhere is invalid? Unless you mean that statement about how people don't want to deal with us?

Though, just to be clear, I do consider the "voting" thing you said you conducted valid. To me, asking for their opinion and then posting the results here is close enough to them actually posting here. On the other hand, anything larger than votes, like criticism of the article, please take my suggestion and quote them directly.

I was thinking about rephrasing the Shakespeare trivia myself, actually, with the same aim as you put it. I just didn't bring that up because I though we were still arguing whether the notion itself was valid or not. So, if we rephrase similarly to how you phrased it, you'd be fine with it being put back in?

Mystic, in the opinion of you and the IRC, under what criteria does one fall under to be considered a god?

"I suppose that's where our opinions differ - if I'm right, you think an item shouldn't be put in a list unless it definitely falls under the list's criteria, while I think an item shouldn't be removed from a list unless it definitely doesn't fall under any of the list's criteria." Your methodology is not a good one to go by. It is easier to show that something belongs from a number of sources than to show that something doesn't belong from all possible sources. Therefore the burden must be on the one who wants to include something to prove that it belongs.

Anyway, this conversation is ridiculously unwieldy and hard to read. I won't force anyone to, but it would probably be a lot easier to use the forums for this, where people can you know, actually use quote tags.

To me, keeping a list to stuff that qualifies beyond reasonable doubt is nice, crisp, and clean, but sometimes ends up too short for a distinct mention and doesn't usually allow for a quick peek at stuff that can be seen beyond the original point (which is the main issue I have).

The reverse would get really hard to manage when it gets long, but I find it interesting to see what goes on there and more importantly it can allow for interconnectivity with related facts. (And I thought that was a wiki's strength? The easy internal links?)

And I did kinda use the word "list" arbitrarily - it doesn't just have to be like shopping lists that require only the name, I did mean stuff more like a list that contains explanations/exposition, sublists, further readings. And from the title of "Gods", I'd think this page belongs more dominantly to the latter category.

Forums format probably is easier to read, though I still think that if we can communicate on the wiki it's better to use it.

The Greek pantheon article on Wikipedia has a "Close to the Olympians" section that has one sentence descriptions of the persons and links to other articles. The opening sentence under it is, "The following gods, goddesses, and demigods were not usually counted as Olympians, although they had close ties to them." Maybe we can have a section like that. Lugh would be included under this because of the "not usually counted as". Anyway, debate however you like, I'm not participating in this thread anymore. Just offering a last suggestion.

I agree with Saiyr's idea. We can probably also include Elatha and the Gatekeeper there.

Late but here. Quotes got messed up, my bad for not actually checking after posting.
At any rate, all of what I said I stick to. Accuracy is the most pertinent issue here. The original iteration was not accurate, nor were many suggestions people have made, if you can't say it accurately don't say it at all.

That's...kinda vague. You have changed positions a few times.

But if it's just eliminating uncertainties, that should be done easily enough. Then, permission to bring back the ideas we've discussed here, rephrased or presented differently to only tell what's known? And give us a call if it's unsatisfactory?

Not really though if you think so common sense suggests go with the last things I said.
And there's also the issue of relevance/notability. A beef I have with a LOT of what certain editors have been adding to the wiki lately is that it's simply pointless in the context of the wiki. This page is similar in that regard which is why I said I don't disagree with the idea that it should be deleted.

Deleting would be giving up, it would be, in essence, vandalization, even if it's a small page with little information.

Bit of a late reply, but...

Yeah, I agree with Pyro. Deleting this page goes against the reason for the wiki's existence in the first place - efficiently conveying wanted Mabinogi information to players.

As for notability...I did already say these tidbits are notable because they clear up any potential confusion from the inconsistencies. You did take a vote, but if I remember correctly, the only reason that so far against Shakespeare's trivia is that "it's of minor importance" (which sounds like an opinion to me), and the sole reason as of now against Lugh (and Cromm)'s re-entry is that they're not gods (which we've decided they're not, but that has no correlation with them being placed inside the trivia section to note they've been "called" gods). It's true that so far, community opinion is swayed against those two trivia points, but I have to admit I'd be hesitant to act on that without logical justification.

(Though, it doesn't have to be under "Trivia", I'm fine with Saiyr's solution as well.)

Accuracy is pretty important too. Being as accurate as possible can mean looking at both sides of a distinguishing barrier and/or specifying.

Don't want to leave this conversation dead without actually getting anything decided, so I'm going to summarize and finalize the changes.

"Shakespeare trivia" is to be put back in the page.
Reason: Avoid confusion that may arise from perceivable contradiction, demonstrate nature of gods.
Counterargument: Not relevant enough, not notable enough, community opinion against.

Lugh and Cromm will be listed as having being called gods (when they don't appear to be).
Reason: Clarify that they are not considered gods despite the statement.
Counterargument: Not relevant enough, not notable enough, not actually gods and thus shouldn't belong on this page.

It should be noted that it is my opinion that the reason for both outweighs the counterargument for both. That's not really an argument I want to start, though, so I'll just state here that I believe specific points help improve quality more than general ones (which was most of the counterarguments), and hope everyone just nods along.

I'm not sure if we're still discussing Lugh's Milletian-ship but here is proof Lugh is not a Milletian:
[1]
This doesn't prove he's a God but it does prove he isn't a Milletian.

Thread:User talk:Infodude575/Lugh Lavada

I thought Lugh was Milletian because Tarlach's Record says "Knight of Light", which really points to us...