Talk:Lich

4th coming lich

I have reverted the addition of this entry because it doesn't meet the very basic inclusion criteria. A wiki is not a reliable source nor is a forum post. If there's no coverage, there's no inclusion in the article. If, as is being claimed, it's notable because it's "one of the first" liches in an MMO, there would be a reliable source showing that this was notable. There are hundreds of instances of liches throughout games; just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. If an entry can't even be supported with a single reliable source showing that it's in some way worth mentioning, the article doesn't need to mention it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

a notable mention of it being one of the first mmos would be release date of 1999, the inclusion of it in advertisement, the "worth of mentioning" is not the case for everything, the game was played in 1999 to around 2002 and in very small communities to this day. it didn't grow like Ultima Online or WoW, but it does worth a mention as this predates almost everything on the list, Vircom went bankrupt and the other company Dialsoft that bought it doesn't care. proof of existence http://www.t4c.com/cms/realmud-server-rules.html, https://www.giantbomb.com/the-4th-coming/3030-32800/images/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Anthony Smith (talk • contribs)

It deserving a mention is up to reliable sources, not us as editors. We don't get to dictate what reliable sources show as noteworthy. You keep saying it's in "one of the first MMOs" but even that is lacking a source. It's not enough for it to have existed, it needs to be sourced and worth mentioning. Do you have any sources that support its inclusion in the article? I've looked for sources, it's just another run of the mill game that happened to have a lich, but no sources go out of their way to talk about the lich in this game. Not worth mentioning. - Aoidh (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing on In popular culture section

Hello JoePhin I'm just continuing our discussion on my talkpage here so that others can see and weigh in.

You point out WP:RSPRIMARY does permit some claims to be cited from primary sources. However more specifically to In popular culture sections WP:IPCV states:

If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.

Which is precisely the issue at hand here. I have no reservations that all the listed works do indeed have a lich in them, and have no issue with primary sourcing to be used to establish that fact if needed. However the issue is that they should be established relevant to be included at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The following RfC on sourcing in such sections lays it out even more clearly:

The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. [...] The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.

The goal here is for a reader to be able to look at the section and understand works that have shaped the collective imagination for what a lich is. I don't really think the current section does that, it requires some more work. But one thing that I think hampers this goal is turning this into a random collection of works that have a lich in them. It makes it difficult for a reader to tell which instances are influential or important, by burying them in a pile of noise. And so enforcing a requirement on reliable secondary sourcing at least helps filter out some of the noise.

Regardless of all this, thanks for your contributions to this page. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't strictly agree with your interpretation @AquitaneHungerForce:, I'd say if someone bothered to include the entry in the first place then that's evidence enough that it's notable (what can I say, I'm an inclusionist) BUT! (and it's a big but) I agree in general that it's good to have secondary sources for these things, and if other editors (you, whoever else) want secondary sources for something like this, that's fine with me really. The philosophical distinction isn't all that important, I suppose, when I'll happily agree it's better to have secondary sources too, and I don't mind leaving those entries out until we have some.

Cheers! Joe (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

While I do like to have secondary sources to confirm an addition to the "In Popular Culture" lists, in my opinion, it's more important for the entry's notability to be confirmed or discussed. I find it frustrating having to sift through these lists of 5-word blurbs, and find out that the whatever-in-question is so minor so as to be not even mentioned in either the parent article or the parent article's list of characters. And this well before having to deal with the yahoos who come to this article to state Jesus and Skeletor are liches.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

'Jesus is a lich.'

Anyway, yes, amid all the myriad tests of notability, ultimately what is and isn't notable is just decided by the editors, whether that's a single editor adding an entry he/she thinks is notable or a cadre of editors coming to a consensus. But I think we all probably agree it's good to have secondary sources for these things, whatever our philosophical differences on the source (aha) of notability. Joe (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Kuva Lich

Should the Kuva Lich be mentioned in the video game section? It appears to be an in-name-only mention, as neither the official source given or official art don't explain how it is supposed to be an undead magician. I mean, the IP who keeps putting this into the list does know that the official site doesn't even use the word "undead," right?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

By now I think it's clear that my edit is being held to a different standard that others, after all, I'm using an anonymous IP, and thus I must be a vandal, correct? For example the point about Baldur's Gate only references a mere game review while I have provided quite a lot more.

Objection #1: The official sources do not describe them as "undead". Whether they use the specific word "undead" is not relevant. It is also false that the official sources do not describe them as "undead", "resurrected", "reanimated" & so on. To me it is sufficient that the official sources (ie the creators) refer to them as "Kuva Lich", which implies that they are a certain type of lich. In case that is still not sufficient, the official source further elaborates: "Tenno [the player], you are not the only one with the gift of resurrection. The most worthy Grineer soldiers are receiving the power of Kuva [a mystical red substance of unknown origin or nature, like most magic in games or other works of fiction]. Strike these Kuva Larvlings down and they shall rise again as a Kuva Lich, stronger and more ruthless than before." The other source I provided also stated that they are immortal except for the correct sequence of weapon mods that the player must deduce. They also hold power over Kuva Thralls. That is a lich according to the description at the top of the page.

Objection #2: This is not a notable example of a lich, or that no lich is notable if it's in a video game. That's subjective, but since this page had an existing section for liches in video games, and Kuva Liches are clearly liches, it seemed appropriate to include them on the list. Warframe is also notable, as at this moment Warframe is the #22 most-played game on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ with 41,227 players currently in-game right now, and there are others on Nintendo Switch and PS4. If this is not appropriate for inclusion on the list, then I recall my comment in my original edit, that is if this is not appropriate for inclusion considering what I've provided then maybe there should not be a section for video games at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:D4DE:355B:4A0E:58D8 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A game review is a secondary source. The Warframe website & Steam are primary sources; your analysis falls under original research. Please review both Wikipedia:Reliable sources & Wikipedia:Notability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." - Since all I did was add another bullet point to provide another example this is very clearly not original research in Wikipedia's sense. I never made any "analysis" in the bullet point I added as you claim. Straw man.

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." - Once again, I only added a solitary bullet point. I never intended to create a whole new article on this, nor even to change the emphasis of this one, so I guess that's that. Another straw man.

Steam is independent of Digital Extremes, Warframe's developer, so I fail to see your issue with using their data concerning the number of people who play the game. If I used Digital Extreme's numbers I can see there could be potential for someone to question them, which is why I didn't use them. In any case I did not include this in the bullet point I added to the page, but to illustrate the number of people who played to someone who questioned whether this was a notable example. At the time I looked, Warframe was #22 out of more than 50,000 games on Steam. That's not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:D4DE:355B:4A0E:58D8 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

re: reliability "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I included a line stating that there were liches in Warframe and included links to the developer's website saying so. Do you mean to say that the sources I provided are unreliable on that subject and in that context, or that I misused them in some way? Would you also say that George Lucas is an unreliable source on the issue of whether Princess Leia has a PhD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:216A:3AE5:42D4:E8AE (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A game developer discussing its own game does not establish notability, in my opinion. See WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." A game developer talking about its own game is a primary source. If you want to include this material, i suggest you find an independent, secondary source that discusses Kuva Liches and establishes how knowledge of this video game item helps the reader understand the subject of liches generally. As it stands now, the only reason this material is included is that it contains the name "lich". Bonewah (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the issue of a game developer discussing whether people should buy their game and play it and tell their friends, then you would no doubt be correct to point out that the source of that claim could potentially be biased and unreliable. I also vaguely recall a real-life case of a chemist editing his own Wiki page and inflating the importance of his work. However I hope anyone can see that is obviously not the question here; the use of the developer as a source in this case could not be biased or unreliable as it is their own creation and does not imply any judgement, analysis, conclusion, etc on my part. Once again my use of the developer as a source is no different than asking George Lucas whether there is a gigantic planet-destroying space station is any of the Star Wars movies. Could there be a more authoritative source in that case? This is why I think game reviews are rather weak sources on the content of a game for the very reason that Wiki considers secondary sources to be preferable. Would you also please drop the notability complaint. The article I was directed to primarily discussed whether a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant creation of a brand-new article which I made no attempt to do. However the only applicable section of the Notability guide in fact states the opposite of what you seem to want it to say: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." Considering the "due weight" and "balance" principles, and that my edit was a single bullet point that barely added two lines to the article, and certainly did not change the its emphasis I really don't understand what the fuss is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'fuss', as far as im concerned, is that this article has become larded down with trivial nonsense that does nothing to help the reader understand the subject. As i said above, the mere fact that the video game character contains the word "lich" does not establish an important enough connection that it warrants mention in this article. The fact that the video game character isnt mentioned in reliable secondary sources is a strong indicator that it is no real significance. Frankly, most of the 'Popular Culture' items are trivial and should be removed for the same reason. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You have only to see the history of this discussion to discern that it is false to suggest that the only reason to include this on the page is that the game includes a lich. It is trivial to verify that Warframe is one of the most-played on Steam, using Steam's data (again, which is independent of Warframe's developers), & to verify that Warframe is one of the most highly-rated and most-played multiplayer games available right now. I'll leave you to do your own homework on that. See for example many of the sources on the Warframe page. Once again, your passage from the Wiki guide on sources does not say what you want it to say. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Can you explain why then, that means I MUST invariably provide reliable, published secondary sources and no others? As if to say that the developer is a biased & unreliable source on the issue of whether a certain character simply exists in the game they created. Not whether it's good/bad, offensive/inoffensive, etc which are issues that would clearly have potential for bias. Is George RR Martin also a biased & unreliable source on the factual issue of whether a certain character dies in Game of Thrones? "As far as I'm concerned... most of the 'Popular Culture' items are trivial and should be removed for the same reason" well thank you very much for revealing what I've suspected for a while now. As I've said previously, if a single line about an example of a certain type of lich from Warframe is not appropriate for inclusion on this page, which is accurate, does not misrepresent its sources & does not violate the "due weight" & "balance" principles, then perhaps the whole section on video games should be removed. Or maybe refer this to an editor who doesn't have an admitted bias against pop-culture topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The official source you gave does not mention anything about the Kuva lich being undead, let alone give any implication about it being an undead magician who stores its soul in a phylactery or other remote container, and the art style of the game does not suggest that it's undead, anyhow.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You have already attempted to claim that the sources do not characterize Kuva Liches as being undead, which once again I have already demonstrated is a false statement. In addition to the quotations I have already provided, I also found "The death of Grineer [the enemy faction that produces Kuva Liches] bathed in crimson [Kuva, the mystical substance] fuels an undying thirst for its creator: YOU." "Your Lich is immortal until you figure out the correct combination of Requiem Mods". Wikipedia's policies on sourcing do not oblige me to explain why I chose sources from the developer since there is no possibility of bias or unreliability in the way I used them, but I suppose I could humour you all anyway. I naturally did find secondary sources discussing these characters but they were all primarily guides on how the players could defeat them, and therefore would not not be appropriate to include as sources for the bullet point I added on this page. Thus, I went to the source since my edit concerned the lore, story, etc and not how to play the game. It is a much more authoritative source for the material I added anyway. Regarding whether Kuva Liches keep their spirit in a phylactery I might wonder when, since this discussion began, that became a concern and whether it was necessary for the other examples of liches given on the page to have a documented phylactery in order to be included? Why did you not mention it before? If it didn't matter then why would it matter now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules very much require you to demonstrate that what your attempting to add will improve the article, and i dont feel you have done that. And, yes, i have a bias against trivia which does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of the subject, this is why you must provide reliable, published secondary sources: to establish that some reliable independent source thinks the material in question is actually relevant to the topic. Bonewah (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You've also admitted to a bias against pop-culture topics, and that is quite relevant concerning an example here from a video game. We're not discussing chocolate-chip cookie recipes. Since you have admitted to this bias and continue to participate in this discussion someone could reasonably consider that to be evidence of bad-faith editing and could question your claim that you genuinely want to improve the page, or are equipped to do so. If it's not a topic you are interested in I think you are unlikely to be knowledgable about it. The right thing would be to essentially abstain or recuse yourself in this case. I have also found many errors in understanding & application of Wikipedia's editorial policies that you and others have committed, so that you do not seem to be knowledgable about that either. See for example the cases where I found that the Wikipedia policies do not say what you claim, or even say the opposite. You refer to "trivia"; I presume you mean Wikipedia & its editors' disapproval of trivia sections in Wikipedia articles? If that's the case then that is another falsehood as it will be plain to anyone who looks that the article in question does not have a trivia section. It had a existing section for examples of liches in video games, and I simply added one more which barely added two lines to the article. I was careful to keep it to barely two lines which surely did not violate the "due weight" and "balance" editorial principles. Perhaps by "trivia" you refer to the video game section itself? In that case it seems I've caught you red-handed again as that would be your bias talking, and further evidence that you are not editing in good faith and perhaps should refrain from further comment on this topic? The example I gave is indisputably an excellent example of a lich in video games, and I included a link to the Wiki article on Warframe to provide context for any reader who doesn't know what Warframe is and would like to know. Now that I think about it, that settles the "notability" complaint doesn't it? Warframe is sufficiently notable (as defined by Wikipedia's editorial policies) to justify creation of its own Wikipedia article. So it was unnecessary and only purely for your benefit on this talk page and for no other reason that I have provided player numbers from Steam which attest to the popularity of the game in this talk page. Steam is a digital distribution service with 75% market share and which is independent from Warframe's developer. It is in fact owned by Valve, which is a competing developer to Digital Extremes. It is a trivial matter to find other sources (such as reviews, etc) to see popularity of Warframe at the moment (particularily among multiplayer games) to convince yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:AC82:A649:8354:E207 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If you feel im acting improperly you are free to seek redress. As it stands now, I am unconvinced your edits are productive and you have done nothing to change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bottom line is nobody has been able to demonstrate that my edit has *violated any of Wikipedia's editorial policies*, as I said, in particular the use of a primary source, and due weight & balance. One might think "it would be nice" to have a secondary or tertiary sources indicating that it is not only an in-name-only situation but I would say that's their problem as the use of the developer as a source conforms to the standards given in this case, and I explained why I didn't use secondary sources. Is also incorrect to continue to imply that there is some doubt about this as I have given prolific examples that make it All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.clear that the source characterizes Kuva Liches as liches in the sense of Dungeons & Dragons, whether or not they use specific words like "undead", "reanimated" & so on. Why must there be consensus with people who object to this edit but are unable to explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:AC82:A649:8354:E207 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point, your arguments haven't convinced multiple editors. If you check out WP:TALKDONTREVERT, there are a bunch of options to solicit outside opinions if you'd like to get more editors involved. Otherwise, please do not violate the three-revert rule. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't convinced multiple editors. They are the very same editors who have not been able to produce anything in Wikipedia's editorial policies to support their objections, and one of which seems to have a general dislike of all pop-culture topics that he/she/they were not honest about from the beginning.

Ok ill play along. One of the three core content policies of Wikipedia is WP:V Verifiability. That policy states in part "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material." (emphasis mine). The content of an article must be verifiable, not just its subject but the contents as well. What makes something Verifiable? Further down in [[WP:V] we find in the section titled "What counts as a reliable source": "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ... " Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." The context here is an article on the concept and term 'Lich'. Not a video game. Not some character that appears in a video game, but the term and concept itself. The video game designer you keep pushing is in no way an expert on Liches and so is not an appropriate source for the concept of Liches. Moreover, WP:V further states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Your source is all of those things. As ive stated multiple times the only connection your edits have to the concept of liches is the name. At least with the other pop culture references its someone else besides the creator making the connect between the character and the concept of lich generally. You dont even do that. The only thing you have done is confirm that some element in a game is, in fact, an element in that game. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that my edit was a single bullet point in an existing list in an existing section on video games and that said little more than "Warframe has liches". *That* is the context, not the article as a whole. The in-line citation that I included applies to the claim "Warframe has liches" in *that* bullet point. The sources I provided directly support the material presented and are appropriate to the straightforward claim "Warframe has liches". You did not provide evidence that Digital Extremes has a poor reputation for checking facts. On the contrary, I found numerous quotations from my sources (see them above) to indicate that they accurately characterise Kuva Liches as liches in the Dungeons-&-Dragons sense given at the top of this Wiki article (and also Wiktionary by the way). I am becoming increasingly puzzled that this belief persists among other editors as nobody has deleted them and they are genuine, verbatim quotations (ie not original research) from the sources which can still be found in links through the history page. So it remains false to suggest that the only connection my edits have to the lich concept is the name, or that my edit said nothing more than an element in the game is an element in the game. That is not to say that the material in the sources is organized in a manner that makes it convenient for someone to find information about liches in general, or the lich concept, but it is nevertheless there to see for anyone who has an honest look. You have also not provided evidence that the source has poor editorial oversight. I must also wonder, concerning the claim "Warframe has liches", what is the apparent conflict of interest that the developer could have in that case, and what is the evidence for it? There is no reason to believe that my sources are questionable as they relate to the edit that I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:7076:A312:30E5:EA81 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I just read through the sources in question here and I don't find any compelling case for inclusion. These are primary sources that fail to establish that it is a notable example and arguably fail to establish that it is an example at all. I think some of our existing sourcing is pretty weak but this is incredibly weak sourcing. I think that in reference to WP:IPCV and this relevant RfC that the sourcing very clearly fails to meet the established criteria. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"my edit was a single bullet point in an existing list in an existing section on video games and that said little more than "Warframe has liches"." Yup, and that is the core problem. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong again, you have confused Kuva Lich as a significant example of a lich in the sense of Dungeons & Dragons (as I have amply demonstrated) with significance of my edit in the sense of violating the "due weight" principle. It is another error in understanding and application of the Wiki editorial guidelines. I was very careful to limit my addition to the page to one line if possible, as I did not want this article to become about video games, naturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:909C:388:2A34:7174 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that a Kuva Lich is a significant example of a lich. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You have not made an honest statement. What has all the stuff above been then? Considering the extraordinary quantity of opposition & constant fault-finding to my minuscule change to the page should I continue to believe that any of it has been honest & in good faith? If my source is an issue is there any reason nobody has proposed a tag? 2001:569:BEDD:2B00:41F0:53E1:50E1:BF33 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) into Lich

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.

To not merge as Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) is an independently notable type of Lich with readers best served by separate pages. Klbrain (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

In my opinion the split from the main Lich article was totally unnecessary given that the monster originated from D&D. There is pretty much nothing in the main article that cannot be incorporated into this one. I would suggest it be merged back, and the popular culture section mostly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

For background, I split the D&D lich into its own article back in 2006, at a time when it had no sources. [1] Your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) was closed as keep (no one supported deletion, but some supported merge) although the closer noted that a merge discussion could take place. Since then, its independent sources have grown, thanks in part to additions from users such as User:Daranios and User:Sariel Xilo and others. I'm not seeing that a merge is necessary here, but if so that would help the main Lich article at the expense of the D&D article. BOZ (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the merge since Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) pretty firmly stands on its own. Potentially, Lich could be merged into a section (Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)#In popular culture). I think it is important to keep Dungeons & Dragons in the article title especially when the focus of the article is Liches from that specific media. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Im opposed as both articles are reasonably extensive with only some overlap. I guess i could be convinced otherwise. Bonewah (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bonewah: The issue is that the main article directly states that the "lich" as a type of monster comes from D&D. The term was used before in relation to undead but not really as a clearly defined monster. The Historical background section is just a mass of WP:SYNTH while the rest is WP:OR and listcruft. In reality I think most of the current Lich article will need to be deleted, but perhaps a bit could be merged. Either way, it is clear that Liches originated from D&D in their widely used fantasy monster form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Separate Lich should be stubbified and the D&D and post-D&D popular culture content moved to the D&D creature article. Surely there are more pre-D&D uses? Of course, the real popularization of the Lich is actually Tomb of Horrors' (which made it into Ready Player One the book, if not the movie) demilich (Dungeons & Dragons) which is already redirected to the D&D lich, as it should be. (and we don't really deed a dab page for two entries, do we?) Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure that the pre-D&D uses are not just WP:SYNTH? If there was a conception of a lich monster even before D&D then I would support them staying separate but it seems to just be similar yet different undeads with slightly similar gimmicks, but would be better off in Undead than here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure how the inclusion of various fictional entities called "liches" could possibly be considered WP:SYNTH. Synthesis implies that two sources are being used together in a way to explicitly draw some kind of original conclusion or inference not supported by the individual sources themselves. Listing things which have been called "liches" draws no inferences or conclusions (it's literally just a bunch of 'and' statements strung together) and so cannot be synthetic by definition. WP:SYNTH is explicit, not implicit, and if the listing of liches (say that five times fast without lisping) can be thought of as 'implying' something about liches, that, too, is not WP:SYNTH by definition. If one thinks the various liches throughout fiction do not form a cohesive type of fictional entity, well, lots of fictional entities have lots of different interpretations (see the Cupid page for an example), but there's nothing wrong with listing them or calling them by the name they're called in the RS. Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Separate and keep both pages. It's fine if there's a little overlap between the two pages, they're (obviously) related, but the D&D page stands on its own and the main Lich page discusses the overarching topic. We don't need to merge every species page into it's corresponding genus page, even though species are subsets of genera; so too with this. Also, semi-related, there are many more liches in popular culture that we should be mentioning on the main Lich page - I've had it on my to-do list for a while. Joe (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Ainz Ooal Gown (Overlord)

I think he deserves a mention here, not only he might be the only one who's a protagonist but also one of the most powerful liches in fiction, being highly powerful in melee combat, even more powerful in magic and very powerful in politics as well. Jack mcslay (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable third-party sources that could be used to show that Ainz Ooal Gown would be an example of a Lich in popular culture (MOS:POPCULT)? - Aoidh (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)