Talk:List of works influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos

Let's compose "Inclusion Criteria"

Ok, we leave it too long. I propose following criteria to incuding entries on this list.

• The element must has signification impact in the work. Simply "having word Cthulhu as grafiti in one comic panel" doesn't noaable enough. Nor does "having Deep One as one of minor enemies in games". "A Necronomicon can be spot on main character's bookshelf" doesn't count either. As enemy in games, the thing must be at least a major boss. The necronomicon must has vital role (and it must be Lovecraft necronomicon, second-hand derived from Evil Dead doesn't count).
• If the names are different from mythos, citation need. Nope, similar name isn't enough. You may think it's obvious, but there is chance that the name actually derived from something else or the author simply want weird name. In fact, many of deities in Aztec mythology has name as weird as Cthulhu. Term like "Old Gods that create the elemental", as noted, was there since Greek Mythology. In other words, there is nothing obvious if they aren't identical.
• If it has exact name with mythos, it can't be just name droping. Has a village name Innsmouth isn't enough even if the village is center of story if there is no connection between this Innsmouth and Innsmouth. For video game example, Innsmouth village overrun by Orcs wonn't count even if it's RPG and story take place there for good portion. However, An isolated village infested by various Merman-type enemy, with sign say "Welcome to Innsmouth" can be seen at start will be fine even if this is action game and the scene is just single stage. In short, would it loss some meaning if you change the element's name? Of cause, parodic story will has somewhat lower standard.

How about that? L-Zwei (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those seem pretty good to me, and seem to reflect the rough consensus around the article. I support applying them systematically. They're actually exclusion criteria, not inclusion, though. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The first seems too subjective. Arguments predicted on how much is "significa[nt]." How about that a reliable source says is signifigant? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts: We're going to have to have some sort of subjectivity. Really, this is no different than any time we make an editorial judgment saying "X is important enough (DUE) for the article, but Y is not." However, we should limit it to only those cases where only the lightest of subjective decisions is needed--in other words, it must be pretty clear to all involved editors that the reference is actually significant and to the Mythos, not a similarly named or vaguely related entity/character/place/whatever. And I believe that it is fine to default to exclusion, rather than inclusion (less good material is better than excess questionable material). So, if I was going to write inclusion criteria, I think I'd say, "This list includes books, video games, movies, and other works that include significant references to some aspect of the Cthulhu mythos." I'd add in hidden text that we do not allow individual songs, tv show episodes, chapters of video games, etc.; and that only works that have their own Wikipedia page (i.e., have already been determined to be notable) may be listed. So, if I were looking at the list right now, I would say, for example, that A Study In Emerald, Army of Darkness vs. Re-Animator, and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened immediately jump out as good inclusions, while America: The Book (trivial mention), American Gods (not clearly connected to the Mythos), and Practical Demonkeeping (not significant enough inclusion) are all definite exclusions. I know this is a little ragged; I'll try to refine at a later point, but if there's immediate feedback, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that "The Prodigy" has a vague but plausible Lovecraft reference in their "Music for the Jilted Generation" track "Intro". With typewriters and everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-nmztotn7g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.117.95 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this criteria is that is is TOO restrictive and locks out movie adaptions that changed the name. But retained the other elements. Omega2064 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)