Just wondering, since "Bast" (or "Bastet") is a "real" goddess worshipped in Egypt, should the "real-life" template be applied to the article? Or (no disrespect to any Egyptians) is that not allowed? Where I live we aren't allowed referencing religious figures as "real" in case atheists or followers of other religions get offended. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:49, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, none of the pages in the category Deities employs the "real-life" template. I would understand the potential issues of calling deities of any kind real, but then again, the subject of their existence as a concept is real (as in, they are real subjects, even if they in themselves are arguably real/not real). For instance, in this sense, Bast would be a real-life subject whereas some sort of Harry Potter-specific in-universe deity that ancient Egyptian wizards worshipped would not be. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:48, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
So is it okay if I remove the template from "Jesus Christ"? In my opinion, it's just as debatable as having that template on any deity, but that's just me. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:44, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me. What I said is that we should put the "real-life" template on the articles referring to any deity that comes from real-world mythology and/or religion, to distinguish them from any potential in-universe deities (which we don't know of, at the moment, but still, I wouldn't find it odd if there were wizard-specific religions).
On the matter of Jesus, virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, so that wouldn't be an issue. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:11, November 22, 2014 (UTC)