This is Pluralpedia, an encyclopaedia and repository of information concerning plurality, systemhood and topics relating to this. Daemonism is not a plural practice and engaging in the practice does not make one a system. Neither is it a related practice or a related way of being. As it does not come under the umbrella of plurality, it therefore does not belong on Pluralpedia, and this and other pages on this topic are candidates for deletion. -- Lunarsys Lunarsys (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source? From what I'm hearing on the server, some people with daemons consider it plurality. (I don't know too much to add much more) -Ion, Forestwalk Forestwalk (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC):
Additionally this appears to have been undertaken without the consent of, consensus of, or input of the main part of the dæmonism community. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the information that was added to Pluralpedia was incorrect, conflating ideas, or long out of date, while a few more in-date terms and concepts were omitted. -- Lunarsys Lunarsys (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, admin here, looking into this term and hearing from others, it absolutely deserves its place here. I believe you may be confusing plurality with system-hood? These two things should not be confused. Plurality is simply being more than one in any way or form, daemonism easily falls into this for many people. The inclusion of this term on this wiki is not saying all people who practice daemonism are plural, but simply that some people who do consider their experience as such. If you wish to disagree, please leave actual sources and actual reasoning to why daemonism cannot fall under the plural umbrella for people. --Chowder SYS (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC):
- Hi, fair enough if you and others feel it deserves a place here as an adjacent experience. However plurality and dæmonism and systemhood and dæmonism should not be confused. And if you could point me to any reputable sources that describe it as a form of plurality or as a type of systemhood, that would be great! In any event if the concept is to be included on the wiki, the information on here about it should be correct. In reverting all of my edits about dæmonism just now wholesal, all of the incorrect information (not talking about whether or not it's plural or system-related here, but numerous other corrections and updates) has been restored. So just to make you aware that a lot of this information is incorrect and/or out of date unfortunately. Lunarsys (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you've seen the reply in the daemonling talk page, but you should probably look at it. -Kin, Forestwalk (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, fair enough if you and others feel it deserves a place here as an adjacent experience. However plurality and dæmonism and systemhood and dæmonism should not be confused. And if you could point me to any reputable sources that describe it as a form of plurality or as a type of systemhood, that would be great! In any event if the concept is to be included on the wiki, the information on here about it should be correct. In reverting all of my edits about dæmonism just now wholesal, all of the incorrect information (not talking about whether or not it's plural or system-related here, but numerous other corrections and updates) has been restored. So just to make you aware that a lot of this information is incorrect and/or out of date unfortunately. Lunarsys (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
