Talk:List of works influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos/Archive 1

Army of Darkness
The link goes to the movie, and not the comics.

-Agent Tachyon.

Brian Lumley
There were quite a few references to Lovecraft's literary body in Brian Lumley's Necroscope series, I'll dump a few of them here, someone else can translate them into proper English if they feel like it.
 * The Dreams in the Witch-House - The protagonist of the Necroscope series, Harry Keogh, used a mathematic formula to "teleport" from A to B through another dimension - this was probably inspired by the Lovecraft short "Dreams in the Witch-House", where the concept was mentioned.
 * The Case of Charles Dexter Ward - #1 - Some guy from "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" studied some ancient texts in some abandoned castle in a strange country. The villain of book 4 of the Necroscope series, Janos, was present in the castle at the time. #2 - Remember how the bad guy from The Case of Charles Dexter Ward called people back to life in order to torture them to make them reveal various secrets and such? Janos did the same. He even chanted this wacky "Lovecraftian" line while doing it.

Dr. Who reference?
I read the section about the Cthulhu reference in Dr. Who. But just to check was the race based on the Cthulhu called the Ood? The guys with the Cthulhu like mouths and the orb attached to them? If so, would it be worth mentioning that they were called that? Or did I miss a detail? Or am I just getting confused and they aren't the Cthulhu reference? 68.196.48.186 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up?
People actually use this page for a reference you realise? I'm all for tidying up but I'm sick and tired of having to view the page history to see what some freelance editor has decided to omit for reasons that may have nothing to do with accuracy! Seriously you can link to other pages and you can tidy up parts of the article you think are too wordy, why the abhorrent laziness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.76.179 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Movie Reference
The Twilight Zone Movie.. Has a story "Grandma", by Stephen King.. maybe not so recognizable, but seems to be a Cthulu story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.212.178 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up
I humbly request that some one with some amount knowledge on the subject completely revise this list and carefully pare down some of the bloated parts that are stretching relevance, particularly the music section. By this I mean there are plenty of entries that include more information than is really necessary and are worded in a very fan page like style, also many of the references sited here (again particularly in the music section) seem to be a stretch into maintaining topical relevance, to what extent is a band that few have heard of belonging here because of a song title. Here is a short quick scan through list that i'd encourage someone more knowledgable to review as I feel woefully inadequate in my capabilities to handle this article: Many of Caitlin R. Kiernan's ... (Overly wordy and going beyond articles scope) In an episode of Quantum Leap ... (Irrelevant, reference to author not "Mythos") The Fog references ... (Seems to be stretching especially with misspellings) Alone in the Dark: ... (No description) Demonbane: A super robot adventure ... (wordy beyond the scope) Eternal Darkness: ... (wordy, too long) Final Fantasy Tactics: ... (stretching it, certainly if its the only reference in the game) Golden Sun: The Lost Age: ... (stretching it) Myth: A series of RTS games ... (Overly vague, fanpage style writing) Shin Megami Tensei: ... (Mesh with Persona 2) The Lurking Horror: ... (Vague, possibly a reference to author more than "Mythos") Thief: The Dark Project: ... (cut the last sentence) Tribe 8: ... (ISBN code standard?) Vampire: The Masquerade-Bloodlines ... (Vague poorly worded) World of Warcraft: ... (Clean up and compact) X-COM: Terror from the Deep: ... (Irrelevant reference to first game) Little Cthulhu ... (formatting, wordy, scope) Aarni ... ("pop culture"?) Bal-Sagoth ... ("Pop culture"?) Beatallica ... (Second hand reference at best) The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets ... (Wordy, too long) Drakkar ... ("Pop culture"?) Drunk Horse ... ("Pop Culture"?, Promotion material style) Insignium ... ("Pop culture"?, promotion styled) Metallica ... (Wordy, needs condensing) Immortal ... (stretching, "Pop Culture"?) Rage ... ("Pop Culture"?, Vague/Poorly Worded) Rudimentary Peni ... ("Pop Culture"?) Thergothon ... ("Pop Culture"?) Therion ... ("Pop Culture"?) Tri-Cornered Tent Show ... ("Pop Culture"?, promotional) Twin Obscenity ... ("Pop Culture"?) Electric Wizard ... ("Pop Culture"?, Vague) Terrence Chua's ... ("Pop Culture"?) The Axis of Perdition ... ("Pop Culture"?, fan style writing) Doom band Moss ... ("Pop Culture"?) Nile ... ("Pop Culture"?, Promotional style) Catacombs ...("Pop Culture"?) Explicitly Lovecraftian ...(fan style writing) GWAR ...(vague) Blue Oyster Cult ...(Vague) In general, and conclusion, I think the comics section should be split with comics and webcomics as they seem to contribute a large portion, also most of the bands that aren't popular or appeal to an extreme niche should be purged from the list (I'm looking at you generic european fill in the blank with dark sounding work metal bands). I didn't explicitly mark two bands because they seemed slightly more relevent than most above, but they should most likely be purged as well (Explicitly Lovecraftian, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets). To resolve this removal of non-popular culture content a sentence at the end of the section commenting on the popularity of Cthulhu Mythos in metal might be reasonable. Finally I stopped there because the list is riddled with such stuff and frankly I'm bored, best of luck to the brave person that actually edits it.--68.231.168.20 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should also mention the references in the 4400. Tess reading the mountain of madness and the abductors world being very like the story she was reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.62.23 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean
The Watcher in the Water in the first Lord of the Rings movie cleary looked like a monster directly taken from the Cthulu mythos.

Wrong. The watcher existed in Tolkien's fiction already.
 * You are wrong (and sign your posts, dammit). "The Call of Cthulhu" was published in 1928; Tolkien didn't start writing LotR until 1936. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Davy Jones looks a little like Cthulu himself...


 * These things shouldn't be based on speculation--but would it have been impossible for Tolkien to have read Lovecraft in Weird Tales? "Call of Cthulhu" appeared well before he wrote LOTR. I know he read Robert E. Howard, but I don't know if that was in Weird Tales or not. Nareek 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leviathans such as the watcher in the water appeared in the notes which became History of Middle Earth fairly early on, and are supposed to be a water version of a balrog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.228.82 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all baseless speculation, and there is no indication that Tolkien's Watcher was meant to be anything other than a tentacled monster of generic sort. You'll have to come up with a citation if you are going to claim that it was supposed to be a balrog. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
References to the Cthulhu mythos → References to the Cthulhu Mythos – Move to version most commonly used by authors, critics, and scholars. -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support: "Cthulhu Mythos" is the standard style in the field. Nareek 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Odds and ends
Can we leave items off until their reference is explained a little? I've removed two references for the time being:


 * The Illuminatus! Trilogy

(No explanation at all)

(The Dungeon Dimensions resemble some Lovecraftian themes, e.g. From Beyond, but including them in this page is like saying Pratchett copied them.)

Also, why are the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy cast suspected of being Mi-Go?

--Yath 22:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There was an episode of "South Park" where all of the boys and men in town became Metrosexuals. It was revealed to be a plot by the Queer Eye cast (who were really aliens from another world) to take over Earth.  RickK 22:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * [Pratchett's Discworld] In a number of the books, 'Things' from the Dungeon Dimensions leak into the magical universe and wreak havoc.


 * I'm going to put those two back; it's my fault for not explaining them better. In the Discworld, (which is magical) there are 'dungeon dimensions' which the wizards break into periodically. The creatures there are all tentacled monstrosities like the ones in Lovecraft's stories. In Moving Pictures, one of the characters actually uses a line from Lovecraft: ''That is not dead which may eternal lie."
 * As for The Illuminatus! Trilogy, I've never actually seen a more explicit series of references. The characters all read the Necronomicon, and a number of the Things appear in person. Or what passes for person, anyway. Can I put them back now? -Litefantastic 22:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Be my guest. I haven't read any Discworld novels and can't judge it myself; I just hope they aren't being included because of a strong resemblance. That would be like saying every story that has a beautiful, honorable elf race is a reference to LOTR. Yath 06:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the Dungeon Dimension things fit nicely in here... there's definitely some links between them and Lovecraft. By the way, I added a link to Good Omens in the specific Hastur section: it was mentioned at the top of the page, but not in that section alone. -RogueNine

Illuminatus
I feel there's something amiss on the "Illuminatus!" part of that article. I'm referring to the "(along with Hitler, Atlantis and many, many drugs)" part. I don't quite understand it myself, so it's hard for me to clarify it. First, you're really talking about Atlantis, the lost city, right? If so, I suppose you're just using those examples as references to other things you'd find in the books. The way it's worded, it sounds a little dubious, so I think you might want to disambiguate it, so that it'll sound a little better for people who don't know much about the subject.

Anyone else here has this feeling? &mdash; Mackeriv 04:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Me, but I might be able to explain. The plot of the books deals with every conspiracy theory, ever. There are aliens, there are monstors, there are Nazis there are secret agents, there are lost civilizations, there are secret societies and after a while you don't know how much is to blame on the drugs all the cahracters are doing. The whole trilogy is about 700 pages long; there's room for all sorts of stuff in there. But maybe, for everyone who hasn't read the books, a disambig would be in order. -Litefantastic 11:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I haven't read them, but that sounds pretty interesting. Maybe I should give it a look. And yes, the article sounds a little better now. &mdash; Mackeriv 13:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Tri-Cornered Tent Show
How can their music be "based on" the music of Erich Zann when Zann was a) fictional and b) his music was never written, only described, by Lovecraft in one story? -khaosworks 17:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clean up and combining
I propose to combine certain elements from Cthulhu_in_popular_culture with this page Cthulhu_Mythos_in_popular_culture and putting it under either one of those headings. Or, restrict Cthulhu_in_popular_culture to references that are specific to the Cthulhu character itself (as opposed to the mythos in general, which includes reference to some of the other beings and Elder Gods, etc). There are a few things that overlap or are redundant between these two pages, especially in the entertainment fields such as music and games. I'm just not sure which page gets more traffic at this point. GuardianZ 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Cthulhu in popular culture should contain only references to the character and Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture should contain everything else (minus direct references to Cthulhu). If you want to move these items yourself, I say go for it! BTW: I recommend being explicit about what you're doing in the edit summary (you may already know this, but other editors may benefit from this advice), otherwise other users may think you are blanking content. It is also a good idea to include a link to the destination article in the edit summary; for example, something like: Moved refs to Cthulhu in popular culture . This lets users know where the stuff went. -,-~  R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Added link to CoC movie
To the existing reference to the silent movie adaptation of Call of Cthulhu, I added a link to the wiki page for that movie.Hodgson 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A plan for compression
I think I share the feeling of a number of editors here that this article needs considerable shortening. I'd like to make three suggestions:

1. The Cthulhu Mythos is a body of fiction that shares a common sci-fi/horror background. Thus examples of fiction in the sci-fi/horror genre that contain Cthulhu Mythos elements are not examples of the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture--they are the Cthulhu Mythos. Not that every work of fiction that name-drops Cthulhu is part of the Cthulhu Mythos--but those works that are should be cut out of here and I guess put back in the Cthulhu Mythos article.

2. References to specific aspects of the Cthulhu Mythos could be cut from here and put in the pages that relate to those aspects. For example, the sections on Specific Gods could be taken wholesale and put in those gods' articles.

3. There's a number of not-all-that-notable references to Cthulhu and whatnot that could just be mentioned without description--if there's large number of webcomics that make Cthulhu jokes, maybe we could just list them instead of trying to give a plot summary for each one.

Any thoughts? Nareek 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger?
Sorry but I don't find any relation of Cthulhu Mythos and the world of Chrono Trigger. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Web meme
Cthulhu internet phenomena deserves to be described in the article. This is not only the web comics, it's wider, especially in Runet.

On July 2006 the question "What's your opinion on the awakening of Cthulhu?" was voted by web users as most popular for Vladimir Putin press conference. Mr president replied he's suspicious towards any supernatural power, and suggested askers to read some religious books instead. Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Oh
Listing Fields of the Nephilim as the 3rd last music reference citing one lyric..that is real baaad, since 2/3 of McCoy's work is obviously and the rest subtly worked around Cthulhu. The dreaming one will so not be pleased by this disregard for his prophet; editors, await your doom..."someones gonna suffer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.145.63 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables could work to clean up, maybe?
I don't know if this is possible, but could we (and by "we" I mean someone who knows how to use tables) create tables for each section (books, music, film) that are sorted alphabetically or by year. Maybe there's even some wiki thing that allows the reader to "sort by name" or by year, or by author, etc. That would make references really easy. Also, I notice a lot of external links within the article (I use this term loosely). I think those should be replaced (eventually) with footnotes or wikilinks, or nothing. If anyone knows of a table template that I could use, I'd be willing to learn it and give it a shot, at least for a section. I agree with the previous note about how music is presented, like a fan page. I think references should adhere more to the guidelines used for books, but for music it could be (artst/band, album title, song, year) and maybe a mention of the genre (rock, metal etc). No personal comments, but a super-short note about exactly how the band or song refers to the Cthulhu Mythos. (example: "band x refers to Dagon in this song" or something like that). Ebonyskye (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one has any objection, I have set up a test table on my talk page. It is sortable by date, title, author. I could do the same for music and film using different headings. Is anyone game to help fill in such a table? I don't really want to do it ALL :) Ebonyskye (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks good, though I think maybe the title of the work should go first. Also, next time you want to test something like that, I suggest using a user subpage (it makes it a lot easier to mess with ^_^). I went ahead and tested it on the film section since it's short. What do you think? I'm thinking now maybe I should have included a column for directors. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Thank you. I agree about title first, actually. But for books, wiki (and other standards) always list author first in bibliographies. I was afraid to do it any other way, then have to re-do it. But for films I think the title should be first. It really doesn't matter because you could always sort by title to search it that way. I also agree to adding director to the table for films. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm back after creating a table for the Lit section. Whew! Yep. I decided to stick with just title since more than half of the entries are webzines. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tables make this a list, not an article
The tables certainly improve the presentation of the content that was there, but it's a direction that precludes converting the article to prose. Under a table format, this article is necessarily a list: an indentification of a cultural reference, with a brief, one-line comment. I don't have a personal problem with this, but I think if we go ahead with tablification we should perhaps move the article to Cultural references to the Cthulhu Mythos or even "List of..." Skomorokh 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with calling/moving it to a list page. If you know how to do. I don't. I seriously doubt this will ever be an article. It's to much a list to begin with. I say go 4 it. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I share your doubts, so have moved the article. Moving is easy: you just press the "move" tab at the top of the page (next to "history") and follow the instructions. We should convert the rest to tables, I think. Skomorokh  07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there is no need for tables here, see WP:WTUT. It isn't tabular data and would be better in prose form. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

What about Demonbane?
It's Japanese video game/anime that heavily based on Cthulhu Mythos. L-Zwei (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Shadow Hearts?
The series takes alot from the Cthulhu Mythos and it features a NPC named Lovecraft in the third installment. The Codex of Lurie (as translated in the first game) is actually called the R'lyeh Text and "It tells how to summon the 'Other God' ... An omnipotent god from the far reaches of space ..." and there are many more connections to the Cthulhu Mythos in the series. If someone has enough time you can look this up on http://sh.megaten.net/ and see if it's enough to put this game series on this list. 83.24.2.210 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Created Web comics section
Since so many of the entries under literature are Web comics, what about creating a section just for Web comics in the chart? As it was mentioned earlier, Cthulhu is a bit of a Web meme. Giving the Web a whole section might be useful. Thoughts? AikiHawkeye (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a Web comics section. AikiHawkeye (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a page for that already...
Thats right, there's a page for pop culture references to the Necronomicon. More than a few things on this list ought to be moved over there since they're clogging this page up. Besides, the Necronomicon goes beyond the Cthulhu Mythos since a number of Lovecracft's contemporaries used it in their books as well. 75.187.37.108 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and cull
It is certainly time for a cull of this article's numerous sections and the nonnotable content found therein. I am going to start with the "around the web" section, since many of those are highly trivial, or have no article. There has to be some standard for inclusion here, and a brief, passing mention of Cthulhu isn't going to cut it. We need substantive material. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms
In the Forgotten Realms books, (and I assume the RPG games,) there is a race of monsters called the Absoloths who lay sleeping in their sunken city, waiting to be woken up and rule over the world in a reigns of madness and corruption. They have many subservant races serving their ends, even if those races worship other Gods. Races include the Mind Flayers, who look live Cthulhu is represented. How about adding it? Corrupt one (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add D&D which includes the Forgotten Realms. agree that the Dungeon and Dragons setting as a whole should be added. The Aboleths (not Absoloths) share many characteristics common to the Cthulhu Mythos. Additionally, I recall that the Aboleth Wikipedia article talked about Lovecraft. Found it. "They do have a certain respect and reverence for the ancient beings known as the "Elder Evils", based on the Cthulhu Mythos of H. P. Lovecraft." Occamsrazorwit (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Television
I just did a big cleanup of the television section, removing vague or irrelevant references. I think we need to take a harder line on references to the Necronomicon, which is much more widely known than other elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, and is often used without any mention of Lovecraft.

I removed the following because, though seemingly relevant, it is so poorly written it makes no sense:


 * Demonbane One of main characters is the original copy of the Necronomicon taken form of a young girl call Al Azif (derived from the Arabic name for the Necronomicon, "Kitab al-Azif"). The story take place in Arkham City and Nyarlathotep play role as major antagonist. The mech Demonbane also armed with pair of handguns called "Cthugha and "Ithaqua" and can summon sword called "Shining Trapezohedron" which can cut through dimensions and seal away gods.

If someone knowledgeable of the show can fix this, please do. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Demonbane actually has tons of Mythos's reference, those are just outright clear examples (the article actually provide a full list). Rephasing above entry can be seperate in four subjects.
 * The heroine is the original Necronomicon, taken form of a young girl call Al Azif (derived from the Arabic name for the Necronomicon, "Kitab al-Azif").
 * The story take place in Arkham City.
 * Nyarlathotep (in various forms) is major antagonist.
 * The titular mech Demonbane is armed with pair of handguns called "Cthugha" and "Ithaqua" and can summon sword called "Shining Trapezohedron" which can cut through dimensions and seal away gods. L-Zwei (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is really not any clearer, at least to me. Thank you for the effort, though. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that the most confusing part is about Al Azif. It's just that Necronomicon is sentient in Demonbane and it appear as a girl instead of a book. For the rest, Arkham City and Nyarlathotep pretty much come straight from Mythos. Finally, Demonbane's weapons are referrence to various elements. Cthugha and Ithaqua are two Great Old One created by August Derleth. Shining Trapezohedron is an artifact appear in The Haunter of the Dark, said to be a window on all space and time. L-Zwei (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand you now. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Max Payne?
If I'm not mistaken, in the end of the first act of the first Max Payne game, Jack Lupino makes a reference to Cthulhu in his prayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.253.30 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythos CCG?
don't see any mention of the mythos ccg, released by chaosium in the late 90's. the card game was entirely based on the works of hp lovecraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.210.34 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I think we should add "hidden note" in the article, on head of each section, so good-faith editor will avoid adding trivial stuff. L-Zwei (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reference in a Stephen King work
Yog-Sothoth is mentioned in Stephen King's 1991 novel "Needful Things" 174.51.198.212 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Steve Oelrich

About Haiyore Nyarko-san
I will try to explan why it should be keep around ^_^, lets discuss.
 * 1) It is parody to Cthulhu Mythos with various elements turn to comedy Anime stereotype. Important characters including Nodens, Cuko and, of cause, Nyarko. Few other elements including Nightgaunt (Nodens's goons) and Shanta-kun (Nyarko's pet) and R'lyehland theme park. Although they're very different from mythos, but that's what we should expect from parody.
 * 2) The part that is clearly direct referrence to mythos, is how the mythos beings (Nyarlathotep and Hastur) have met Lovecraft and Derleth in the past. End up being their inspiration of mythos.


 * No opinion? So I will put it back now. L-Zwei (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Venture Bros.
In the episode "The Better Man", the character at the beginning of the show is heavilly based on, if not intended to be, Cthulhu. This information should not be removed from the article for "irrelevance" or "vagueness", as it is neither. No, the creature did not have a nametag saying "Hi, my name is Cthulhu", and no, the show was not halted for the creators to come on screen and say "Oh, by the way, this is supposed to be Cthulhu." This is based on common sense. There is a screengrab at http://www.mantiseye.com/?ep44 ... but even that is a poor screenshot. The action/sequence from the show had a much better depiction.

So, I'm kindly requesting that this not be further reverted from the article. It is a very relevant reference to Cthulhu, and it is not vague in the slightest. Gpia7r (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are now three editors who disagree with you on this, and you are on the verge of a 3RR warning. The image provided, from a nonnotable and unreliable site, shows a monster with a vague resemblance to Chthulhu.  So what?  Vague is vague.  It is not relevant. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And one other tried to add the information. It's not a one-person opinion here.  Don't threaten me with 3RR, try actually discussing reasoning and logic before resorting to "guidelines" to help you. Just because you get three people to agree with you, doesn't make them (or you) right. You have taken ownership of this article 100%.  It feels like any content someone wants to add has to pass through your approval process first. I can't see any substance you've added, only removals.  Also, I would ask of you to quit speaking as though you are the authority on this article, as well.  Do you watch the show?  You should have seen the "official forums" and other places swimming in discussion over the inclusion of Cthulhu in the show.  You don't know the context, which means you do not have a 100% final opinion on this.
 * Also - For one editor to come along and revert it without reason or discussion holds no weight, as you could just as easy round up as many editor friends as you like to revert all day. The information is relevant and not vague. Was it vaguely written by the first person to include it?  Absolutely, I agree there. The fact remains the same - It is Cthulhu (or related to), and it is in a popular TV show.  You cannot deny this. You seem to be ignoring common sense and trying to fall-back on baseless opinions of vagueness and relevance, of which you haven't explained. It is very obvious that this is Cthulhu, or his brother, or cousin, or uncle, or mother, or son.  Either way, it is easily inspired by Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos.  Where am I wrong on this? Gpia7r (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not said a single thing here that indicates the information is relevant. All you have offered is invective and accusations with no basis in reality or fact.  The other two editors who reverted you did so on their own, with no prodding or encouragement from me.  Please confine your comments to the facts, not baseless accusations. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance: It's Cthulhu in Popular Culture. How does that not fit into the Cthulhu in popular culture article? Gpia7r (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not proven, nor even tried, that it is Cthulhu. You just keep saying that it's obvious.  Well, Wikipedia don't work that way. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously have no concept of common sense, and you're far too stubborn to budge. You rely on Wikipedia to assure your ownership of this article, and you have no opposition.  I give up, enjoy the article, I'll stop watching it.  All yours. Gpia7r (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I completely agree that's Cthulhu, Wikipedia isn't about common sense, it's about second hand sources. If any of the characters actually uttered the name "Cthulhu," then we could cite the script as a secondary source for the episode (I know that sounds crazy, but it prevents some really bad crap like Illuminati conspiracy theories from getting on here).  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I;d settle for a mention in a blog that even vaguely met WP:RS, to be honest. I;m googling for that and not finding it. 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User Friendly
An editor recently noted that the reference for this example does not support inclusion, so I brought this here for discussion:


 * User Friendly This webcomic includes Cthulhu, referred to as a "Squid God," sometimes as an employee of a parody of a Canadian ISP, as well as Hastur, who appears as a blob of very strong coffee, actually "distilled Usenet bitterness", created/summoned by another employee. He is friends with Cthulhu, and is often seen accompanying him, for example to Ry'leh.

Until a verifiable and reliable source is found that clearly indicates Lovecraft's influence, this has to be left out. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? There are bits and bites all over UF. Not sure what would cound as indication of influence, though.--Cyberman TM (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cthulhu Nation
Why is Cthulhu Nation irrelevant? The entire game is about interacting with various classic elements of the Mythos. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of justification, restoring item with notes and cite added. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this message previously. I removed the item because it had no article, no reference, and a very vague description.  I should have been clearer about my reasoning. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha. I should've given you a talkback note, actually; sorry about that. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Heroes
Twilight Heroes has sections ripped from the Cthulhu Mythos wholesale. Why on earth was it omitted? Also, how do you define "relevant"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.247.131 (talk • contribs) (21:49, 30 April 2010)
 * The information you provided offered vague references to the Mythos that might be seen by certain players of the game. This does not indicate that the game is based on the Mythos or has any relevant connection to it.  That is what is meant by relevant.  And the references provided were not adequate to show relevance. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is so, why not omit all other instances, since they are not based on the Mythos? Tibia is not based on Cthulhu. Neither is RuneScape. Moreover, I notice you tolerated an entry for Tibia using a reference to Wikia (which in my mind is of far more questionable authority than anywhere else). Also, your term "vague" doesn't make sense, especially if elements rip wholesale words and sentences from Cthulhu. you aren't making any sense. It's far from vague - it's as clear as day, and anyone who read both the amendments for Twilight Heroes AND the Azathoth article on wikipedia will note the similarities. If this is how you dictate things, consider omitting all references to games that are NOT based on Cthulhu. By your logic, all other items are NOT to be referenced here other than Cthulhu Nation and the card game, since they do NOT 100% rely on Lovecraft's work or that of his successors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.247.131 (talk • contribs) (00:07, 1 May 2010)
 * IMO, "Oldest and strongest emotion" is somewhat vague (I swear it is also catchphrase of an Eroge). But Azathoth's referrence is good enough, use exact name and the description, while not a direct quote, is pretty clear to be the same Azathoth. I'm going to re-add i, and remove Tibia as well. L-Zwei (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will defer to your opinion, L-Zwei, since I know that you know what you are talking about. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More Futurama tie ins
In the 4th Futurama movie, Into the Wild Green Yonder, many references are made to the Dark Ones. I feel like this is certainly a nod to Lovecraft's Cthulu Mythos. Can someone incoroprate it into the article? -Deathsythe (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, no. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Dark Ones" is too vague. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yog-Soggoth
Is it worth mentioning that in season 3 episode 4 of Sam and Max one of the primary characters is names Yog-Soggoth and is an obvious play on Yog-Sothoth. He is also blatantly Lovecraftean in appearance complete with extra eyes and mouth tentacles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.2.230 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I would like to see a source (for example, a review of the episode) mentioning that Yog-Soggoth is a Lovecraft reference. Without that, it's a very borderline case. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one would do fine for the purpose: . &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticing that the entry is already there, I added the cite to it. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk archival
Because this page is getting massive, I would like to configure archival for it using the same settings as at Talk:Talker. If anybody has any objections or other thoughts, please let me know. :) &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

✅ &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article restructure following afd
I'd like to re-stub this article, move present contents to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture/Sources, then to agree on some inclusion criteria, and then to start moving items back onto the page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * *crickets* and *tumbleweeds* is it? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just see this (my first reaction after the deletion was "removed red link from watchlist"). Go ahead. But I say we shall move all "in popular culture" section from various Mythos article to this one as well. Including Cthulhu's "legacy" section, except the science one. L-Zwei (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved it but the text is awful. Sick of copy/pasting in all the spaces. Will get back to it later tonight.-Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prod, ha! - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fable Series
An item called the Normanomicon is an obscure reference but one altogether ... http://fable.wikia.com/wiki/Normanomicon There are even quests linked to it raising the dead and such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.189.83 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need a reliable source verifying that that is intended to link to the Cthulhu Necronomicon. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed items
I've removed several items from the page, per the inclusion guideline discussion above. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also restored the Deletion template. Better still, if you would like to speedily delete, all the better. Straight away the focus was fannish trivia, which is just that and of course original research. I intend to tackle a merge of relevant information into one Mythos article, as opposed to several. This one simply isn't required. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've undone all of that. Moving the entire article to a sub-page is an attempt to delete the page out of process.  Second, putting a prod on an article that has already survived AfD is not allowed.   I assume that people meant well, but this was effectively stealth deletion--I only noticed because the prod happened to be in the expired prod categories when I checked.  If you want to make inclusion criteria, fine; but figure that out first, then remove entries that don't meet the inclusion criteria.  Or, again, feel free to take it back to AfD.  I don't have any particular feelings about this article (I like the Cthulhu mythos, but I don't like collections of pop culture information), but I really don't like the idea of an article being deleted via these means.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was really poor form. You could have taken part in the criteria discussion, proposed the move back on talk, suggested one source in particular, any number of non-combative edits.  Instead you choose the most hostile and "territorial" approach possible.  Are you willing to accept any deletions from this page? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note--I was completely unaware of this article's existence prior to when I saw it appear as an expired prod, thus I wasn't around to participate in the above discussion. WP:Prod says that you can't prod articles that were the subject of an AfD.  Good practice says that you can't blank an article as an indirect way of deleting it.  I am more than happy with the idea of cutting out a parts of the article.  I'd start by saying "No red links"; probably my next best inclusion criteria would be that there must be a substantial use or discussion of the Mythos, not just the use of a name.  You could even make the same inclusion criteria that's used for the pop culture section of Seven deadly sins--that is, nothing smaller than a TV show, movie, or album.  As to how much inclusion there must be in any given source, that could be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd say that one single phrase, like Foucault's Pendulum, isn't enough for me.  Heck, I don't even care if you want to take this back to AfD, and just say that any relevant content will be merged into Cthulhu Mythos.  But the idea of undeleting due to the second AfD merely to walk backwards into a quieter uncontested deletion isn't kosher. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was ongoing discussion, and rather than take part in it you used administrator's tools in a content dispute? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't just an ongoing discussion. First, there was a prod placed against policy. Second, there was a massive blanking of content--itself questionable while any deletion process is ongoing--done in a way that actually took me almost five minutes to even figure out what you did.  If there was just an ongoing discussion, I would not have interfered--heck I wouldn't even have known this existed.  If you believe I used my tools improperly, take me to WP:AN--I'm new at this, so Lord knows I could be wrong, and I'll take my lumps if I am.  But I will defend my actions, because I think that what you had done was not only out of process, it seemed to have been done to deliberately avoid scrutiny and produce a result inconsistent with the last AfD.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'd suggest you do then, as you're new at this, is first review the history more closely. Then think again about how an editor without the tools would have handled this content dispute.  Then consider if "running to AN" is an appropriate comment, as opposed to just talking about it here.  Then, when you're quite ready, comment again. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also consider what happens to the edits that you deleted? Do you plan do to a history merge? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were an editor without tools and I happened upon the situation, I would have first removed the prod, then gone to either AN because I would have needed to move the subpage back over the top of the main page, since it was falsely moved in the first place. In other words, I would have gotten asked an admin to do exactly the same thing I did. Again, you're missing my main point: this wasn't a content dispute, it was a misuse (I'm almost tempted to say flagrant misuse) of several processes in a row to overturn a legitimate deletion discussion outside of appropriate process.  I'm trying to not make this heated, which is why I haven't gone to AN myself to bring light to the bad faith PROD and blanking; since I had the tools, I thought I'd be nicer, handle it here, and try to keep this off the drama boards.   As for the history merge, I'll look into it tomorrow--I only remember seeing about 5 edits, 2 of which were the prod and removal; so I'll see if there's anything that actually needs to be merged in.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd have "gone to AN" and asked for this to be done, you'd probably have been told no. There was discussion above about inclusion criteria, which you didn't take part in.  There was discussion following my sub-paging that not only indicated assent, but suggested I'd not gone far enough.  As for the history merge, if you only remember five edits, two of which were the prod, than there are (by your recollection) that you've deleted out-of-process.  You should have considered that before you even thought about pushing the delete button.  You used administrator's tools in a content dispute.  You need to reverse yourself. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do but take this to WP:AN now. You can't use "content dispute" as a cover for an out-of-process deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked over the history again while preparing an AN comment, and realized that there were more editors working here than I thought, and that the timing was even stranger (I didn't realize until now that the prod had been restored with an old time stamp). I don't have a problem with the stubbing as long as it is not linked to an attempt to simultaneously prod or AfD the article. I will reverse my move, though now I'm worried about messing it up. Would you prefer that I move the current article back to the subpage, then attempt to restore the stubbed version?  The problem with that is going to be as we move information back from the subpage to the main page, we'll be losing attribution history (i.e., if I move over Movie X from the subpage, there won't be any attribution for who originally added Movie X to the page).  Can we keep the subpage indefinitely to provide attribution? Would it, instead, make more sense to, rather than building bottom up, just start removing things that don't meet the inclusion criteria (thus keeping the history fully intact)?
 * Also, I should apologize. I wasn't as careful as I should have been.  I saw what I thought was a clear attempt to get around the agreement to undelete, when in fact I see that if there was such an attempt it wasn't by you (Aaron Brenneman).  I acted too quickly--I read the discussion and history, but didn't fully identify the actors and the exact sequence, which I should have done.  Please advise how to fix this in the way that will best preserve the attribution history and allow forward progress on the article (where forward progress means a significant trimming). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the history merge, it's good practice and it doesn't matter too much if you break it in this case. GFDL says attribution must exist and it's preferred that the history is used, but worst case of a note in an edit summary that points to a sub-page would still satisfy.  I'd like to see the discussion on inclusion criteria proceed to conclusion without being distracted by what's on the page, so I'll not be removing or replacing any items until we get consensus. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored all of the deleted edits. Given the time frames (the fact that all of those were made while the info was at the subpage, and the subpage was not edited during that time, I think, though I am not at all certain, fixes the problem.  Please let me know if I haven't fixed it properly.  Also, I'll transfer my thoughts on inclusion criteria to the appropriate section. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that opened a can of worms! Moving forward, I'd like to start targeting those items that are mentioned but have no source to prove that they are directly linked to the Mythos. If there's no source, it becomes original research, conjecture and trivia. Several of the listed items fall into this category, as for something to be implied is simply not enough for Wikipedia. If a source is presented where a notable directly states "this is a tribute to the works of Lovecraft" then I'm all for it. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of me still thinks there must be an exception for obvious cases, but I'm not sure there is going to be an obvious enough case that isn't also referenced. I suppose that's a fine start. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In keeping with the need to ensure notability via sources, I've gone through the Games section and removed those that were just inference and added legitimate sources for those that remain. The other sections will also require a makeover. Regards PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  04:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)