Talk:Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Etrian Odyssey 3

I believe this game should be included in the list, for it has many reference to Cthulhu's mythos (to be quite fair, I discovered Lovecraft after finding out all the references in the game). Since having the Deep Ones as the main antagonists in the game doesn't seem enough to stay on the games list, I hope this will help — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. If there were a game review by a reputable magazine, though, that said "This Lovecraft inspired game....", that would suffice. The key question, is whether Etrian actually meant "Lovecraft's Deep Ones" not "Some Deep Ones we made up, that happen to be similar to Lovecraft's Deep Ones"; we need a reliable source to answer that. In fact, when I think about it, this would be a case where an SPS would be acceptable: if the game company every pitched the game on their site as being Lovecraft-inspired, that would be acceptable. 02:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that EO is a pretty niche game, not many magazines actually review it. I'm not sure about all the possible references to Lovecraft (as I said I just started reading the Cthulhu Mythos myself, else I'd put a nice list here), but all the games of EO series have some relevant references to a myth or another (as the first game was actually related to the northern ragnarok myth), so it's very possible that there are some references to Lovecraft... I'm not sure if this counts as a SPS, but it's the only non-forum source but... link (just search for 'Lovecraft' within the page) (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
TVTropes is an open wiki, and thus also not an RS (for example, Wikipedia itself can never be used as a reliable source on an other WP article). If sources haven't talked about it, then we can't include it here. Remember, Wikipedia's goal isn't to collect every single bit of true (or possibly true) information; rather, we want verifiable, encyclopedic information. Where exactly the line is varies person to person, but we do all agree that verification is needed where a statement is challengable (as any interpretation of a creative work always is). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know that the AfD resulted in a keep (there's a notice at the top of the page). Is there something else you want to add? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Help from

Hi, I'm from and some times ago I've created Howard Phillips Lovecraft nella cultura popolare. Maybe you could use my work for your search of sources (I've put in "my page" a lot of references, most of them in english). Maybe I could be helpful :). Bye. --Narayan89 (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu References in Terraria

There are several references to Cthulhu in Terraria. The biggest reference is a boss called The Eye of Cthulhu, who summons Servants of Cthulhu. Also the game developers are currently implementing Cthulhu to appear as a boss as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbdriver (talkcontribs) 16:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • It's just name droping. People won't think about eye when they heard Cthulhu's name. The game developers can call it Eye of Obama and it still make as much sense. L-Zwei (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Question on Print

I have a question: what distinguishes a print work (novel, short story, etc.) from belonging on this list as opposed to belonging in, say, Category: Cthulhu Mythos novels or Category:Cthulhu Mythos short stories? In other words, what is our dividing line between being "in" the Mythos and "referring"/"paying homage" to the Mythos? I mean, I'm sure we all agree that The Shadow Over Innsmouth is obviously "in" the Mythos, but what about Neil Gaiman's Only the End of the World Again or A Colder War? Actually, the same question could be asked about the films, as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Under music, can we add deadmau5's song Cthulu?

i think its a simple enough edit. I would do it but I can't edit. "Cthulhu Sleeps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alown (talkcontribs) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to the relentless edit-warring to add this completely inconsequential reference here and at Cthulhu without any sourcing, you will probably find a couple people's patience with it to be somewhat short. However, that won't matter if you can track down a single reliable source reference that has discussed it. See WP:TRIVIA for more on why random artists making Lovecraft references in their work is not a suitable topic for encyclopedic documentation. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree 100%. I think our friend above would have tried to add it (or re-add it) but for the fact that the semi-protection has stopped the efforts. If there's a source, then there's no issue - just paste a link here. That said, I doubt it. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


So, this video will soon hit the 20mil views mark and I think it's pretty relevant:

"They stop Cthulu eating ye"

Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. No peripheral mentions and no Youtube. Take a look at the sourced entries on the article page. But then, I'm talking to myself, aren't I? The "fly by nighters" who don't even sign in... PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Venture Bros. appearance

I was watching a Venture Bros. episode about a year ago (then came across it again) and am amazed no one else mentioned this. It appears Cthulhu makes an appearance in Season 4 episode 46 - The Better Man. Referenced as the Hell Beast from Hell, he appears as he was described. I have included a link to the promo video that does have a clip in there. Niblade (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need an independent, reliable source that verifies that the intent was to mimic/copy/pay homage to Cthulhu, especially since the name is quite different. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Watch the clip. It couldn't be more obvious that that is Cthulhu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't go by "what's obvious"--we go by what sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu Sleeps

The Deadmau5 song does not need a reference, because the title itself includes the term "Cthulhu". WP:V does not require that everything sourced; it is clear that anyone, with or without specialized knowledge, can recognize the fact that this song is in some way about Cthulhu, even without a source. Note that I would not extend this type of "protection" to a song titled "The Necronomicon" (as that term has multiple meanings) or to a song with the line "Cthulhu lives," (because including just a single line is not important enough to meet WP:DUE). But having the word "Cthulhu" in the title is, itself, sufficient to indicate that that song is a part of the Mythos in popular culture. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need a reference to demonstrate that it's Mythos-related; it needs a reference, per the general line of thinking in WP:TRIVIA, to demonstrate that anybody gives a shit. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Except that this is specifically an article collecting pop culture references, all of which is normally called "trivia". If you really want, we could add this article which verifies that the song was one of the highlight tracks from a UCSB concert. This article from FOK! is borderline reliable, though may fall under WP:SPS. Many record reviews of 4X4=12, like [1] appear to mention it as well. So, sure, the song isn't some major cultural artifact, but that's never been a requirement to include information in a WP article. The main reason I would recommend adding such a reference is that it wouldn't actually verify anything in the article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I don't know if it would go under this one, but in Wrath of the Lich King there is an Old god (outer god) named Yogg-Soron, the old god of death,(Yog-Sothoth) who lived in the Titan city of Ulduar (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant. A very vague, at best, allusion to Lovecraft. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Relevant. How many more attributes and similar syllables does an allusion need to qualify as a reference to Lovecraft? See AusJeb (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Relevant. Warcraft makes plenty of Cthulhu references, such as "C'thun", one of the godline bosses of AQ. Gpia7r (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This is just another of many examples of something "inspired by" Lovecraft. We cannot add all of it. Unless it is specifically based-on Lovecraft, it is not relevant. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well what are you looking for? Cthulhu reference/inspiration in popular culture is just that. Why would any reference/inspiration to Cthulhu be rejected from this article for any reason? The page, alone, is ridiculous in it's encyclopedic impact... but must it have standards? A reference is a reference, simple as that. Gpia7r (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If there is a character's official page or concept art, complete with Blizzard's or the artist's comment like The Old Gods are based on Lovecraftian horror, will be more than enough. L-Zwei (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Very relevant... The ancient lore of WOW is based on titans vs old gods, and old gods are tottaly related to cthultu, since the old gods create the elemental planes and lords on azeroth and that guy that idolizes lovecraft and continued his work classified his gods in the 4 elements. Not only that but old gods are beings that heavily ressemble the gods in Cthultu mythos. The faceless ones in warcraft 3, and also in wow,(a race created by or from the old gods) is also a direct reference because they ressemble the monsters with octopus heads. Since the big baddies in wow are either the burning legion, the titans, or the old gods(and their elemental lords), You can say a good third of all the Bosses in wow are heavily inspired by lovecraft, its not a little reference. List of instances(dungeons) that include old gods(or elemental lord) bosses that comes to mind right now: Old kingdom, Maraudon, Molten Core, Ahn Quiraj. Titans also waged war against the old gods... Old gods are a pillar of WOW lore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah... All you've offered is your opinion and nothing that indicates how or in what way this is relevant to Lovecraft. Clear, reliable, verifiable references of the game designer's debt to Lovecraft and his writings are necessary, not more of your opinion and interpretation. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Shall I note that concept of Old God that create the elemental was exist since Greek Mythology? See Greek primordial gods and Protogenoi (as well as Titans, which happen to be enemies of few Protogenoi). I known it sound silly, but we need source to pin which mythos is inspiration of WoW (thing like tentacles and octopus head can be artist's interpretion). L-Zwei (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"The names and overall nature of the Old Gods are an homage to the various group of deities from the Cthulhu Mythos in the works of H.P. Lovecraft (first stage), Brian Lumley (third stage), and the Call of Cthulhu RPG. C'Thun appears to be based on chthonians and Yogg-Saron appears to be based on the Outer God Yog-Sothoth. " From wowwiki. Sure you can still say it's interpretation but when you call something in a rpg a halfling, everyone refers to LOTR hobbits as the inspiration and there's no debate on that. We don't have a dnd reference from the artists that say they were directly inspired by lovecraft either. Republican, you just seem to not see WOW worthy of being there, when the inspiration of lovecraft on Old gods is OBVIOUS(the lack of reference in DND section is explained by saying that the race has obvious reference to whatnot in lovecraft mythos)
Appear to mean maybe, yet maybe not, there is no such thing as obvious here. You're right on D&D though, so I replace it with detail from Deities & Demigods instead. L-Zwei (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
C'thun and Yogg-Saron are very obvious references to the Chtulhu mythos, not only because of their name but also their actions in the game and their place in Warcraft lore. See referenced article for explanation. Saying it is vague is unacceptable, it suggests that no reasearch was made and WoW is just unwanted here for some reason. This is my impression though, as Quake is there for simple visual resemblance, so provide a real explanation why you keep removing WoW please. Kisdead (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I check the referrence article, it's Wikia and cite no source on being Lovecraft inspired. In other words, total OR. No, it isn't obvious, names may be similar but still not the same, nor that they share visual appearance. Oce again, if you can find citable official words from Blizzard (or even the official artist or story author) that they are based on mythos, it will remain. But not now. L-Zwei (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So, World of Warcraft is not here, because it's not officially verified - yet obvious - that it's based on the Cthulhu Mythos. But then, what about "Alone in the Dark" (features many Lovecraft-inspired elements), "Amnesia" (seems to be, at least in part, inspired by the short story The Outsider (...) makes sense when considering the frequent homages Frictional Games make to the author H.P. Lovecraft and his works) or TES:Oblivion (a play on The Shadow Over Innsmouth (...) bear striking resemblances). All of the above - and that's just a few of the list - lack a direct quotation to a dev statement saying "THIS IS BASED ON LOVECRAFTS WORKS", instead it's all "seems to be" and "like". The Old Gods and Faceless Ones in WoW even share the same kind of unpronounciable language (e. g. "Shgla'yos plahf mh'naus."). What more does it need, to make it obvious, that it's a reference to Lovecrafts works? "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thun Ahn'qiraj wgah'nagl fhtagn!" as a /say from the Twilight Cultists? -- (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Relevant. Here are my reasons for the inclusion of WoW to this article:

1. The names (obviously). I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS VAGUE but it is undeniably a reference, vague or not vague. 2. As the anon who tried adding this earlier pointed out, a glance at either Yogg or C'thun can tell you that they are influenced by Lovecraftian creatures. a) Lots of tentacles. Lovecraft loved tentacles on his monsters. b) Lots of eyes. Again, like the tentacles, prominent in some Lovecraft creatures (i.e. shoggoths). c) Utterly unhuman shape. Almost all of Lovecraft's creatures (excluding, perhaps, Cthulhu, bear absolutely no biological resemblance to humans. He in fact makes a point of this in At the Mountains of Madness when describing the Elder Things. 3. Based of of the evidence given in Point #2, you don't need an official statement from Blizzard to deduce that the Old Gods of WoW are not based off of Greek mythology. One could argue that they still could be based off of some Greek mythological concepts, but if you look at other instances in which Blizzard alludes to mythology, you will find the allusions much more literal, and based off of that, determine that the Old Gods simply ARE NOT BASED OFF GREEK MYTHOLOGY. If they were, they would be humanoid and have Greek-sounding names. That's how Blizzard tends to do things. Look at their referencing Norse mythology with the "Titans". The gods all have names, like Freya, Thorim, and Loken, which sound almost exactly the same as certain Norse gods (Freyja, Thor, and Loki). Furthermore, they just happen to be HUMANOIDS, like Norse gods, and they wear viking helmets and crap. But does Freya look the same as Freyja? Is she dressed like Freyja? Does she represent the same things as Freyja? No, no, and no. Is she inspired by Norse mythology AS A WHOLE including Freyja? Absolutely. 4. I realize I am making an even bigger deal about this than you all have already, but honestly, one can see through common sense that there is undeniable connections between Yogg and C'thun and the Lovecraft Mythos, and it is rather silly to nitpick details about this particular topic when there are so many other topics on this page which could be nitpicked just as much. This page will not lose some of its worth or be damaged in any way with the addition of something minor that a few people find debatable, and if anything, the exclusion of it will just mean less content on the page, if anything. ProudlyAnon (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree with you, it's common sense and obvious that these are intended as a reference. There is another word on Wikipedia for what you know by looking at two things and knowing by obvious common sense that one is a reference to the other: WP:SYNTHESIS. Until somebody produces a reliable source documenting the relationship (WoWWiki is an open wiki and blatantly not a reliable source), making that connection is a form of original research, which is excluded from Wikipedia by core policy. This is why you can argue the fact that they are a reference forever and it will make no difference; Wikipedia is driven by verifiability, not truth. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Blarg. You've got a point there. On the other hand, I do have tentatively reliable sources. The WoWWiki ref is simply there to provide images of the in-game bosses (topical), and one lore guide from which clearly underscores the actual background of the Old Ones. That's also about as close to a statement from Blizzard as you're gonna get, since it is the official website. I do understand your point though. I'll concede to the point that having some better sources would be for the best. ProudlyAnon (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being reasonable, it really helps. :) The "statement from Blizzard" thing is actually a higher bar than I personally believe is necessary; a statement supporting the reference from any clearly reliable source (check out WP:VG/RS!) would be fine, IMO. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


This seems like a simple edit, but as I cannot edit protected pages, I thought I would suggest it here. The entry already mentions two Metallica tracks that reference C'thulhu Mythos, but leaves out the track "The Thing That Should Not Be" from the album Master Of Puppets. The lyrics, which you can find easily with a Google search, reveal that the song is clearly about C'thulhu; describing an immortal being of chaos and death dwelling in a sunken city in the bottom of the ocean, whom is associated with madness, and is referred to as a Great Old One. It even contains a direct reference to C'thulu with the line, "Not dead which eternal lie; stranger eons Death may die". I found a source, from the same webpage source as another mention in the entry- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to add the same point, but since I am a wiki-n00b I have no idea how to add a row to a table like that. It seems really silly that we haven't added one of Metallica's most obvious references to the Cthulhu-Mythos yet, so I hope someone adds it soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the same unsigned wiki-n00b here. In case someone needs proof:

Here are the lyrics to Metallica's song:\

Here is the wiki-entry for Lovecraft's 'Necronomicon':

Compare the lyrics:

"That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die."

There you go. Good luck editing! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "comparing lyrics" crosses over into the boundary of original research, which is not allowed per WP:OR. The only way this can be included is if you find a reliable source which verifies this connection. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding's edits

Please read the guidelines that were provided over and over and over. Sites which get their content from user submissions, like Darklyrics, are not considered reliable. Refusal to get the point is a hallmark of disruptive and pointless editors who tend to get banned. The only thing that begins to work was the spirit-of-metal website, and it would fail to establish notability (the guidelines for which can be read here). You clearly know how to click links and read, so why don't you do that?

You complain about the guidelines meaningless, and yet you have not read them at all. What do you think of a child who says that a food is nasty without tasting it? What do you think of people who boycott movies without seeing them? You're in their group.

Past discussion concluded that this page is not to simply be any mention of any song which mentions Cthulhu. The only thing that would be more ridiculous would be songs which mention Jesus, and at least 90% of those aren't in a position to seek advertising here the way most songs about Cthulhu are.

As for what is "clearly a direct reference," even if this page was about all mentions of Cthulhu, we don't take original research, ever. As an English major who incorporates postmodernism into his lesson plans, it's pretty clear to me that King Arthur ripped off Beowulf and that Romeo and Juliet was a comedy. That doesn't mean my views are verified for everyone else or that my views are noteworthy. Verifiability and notability are important aspects of this site, WP:V is actually a cornerstone of it. Thus, no original research -- ever. If you don't like it, you don't have to edit here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITECoffeepusher (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
While I understand your frustration, Ian.thomson, Coffeepusher is correct that your approach is wrong. You have to understand--Wikipedia really is different from both every other website out there (where you can usually say whatever you want) as well as from academic papers (where this type of original research would be not only welcome, but in fact required). If we want new editors to learn about Wikipedia, we have to do so politely and gently, even though this will cause us (regular editors) more work.
I did request semi-protection of this page 2 days ago, but it was declined as not having enough recent disruption. However, if the problem persists, I'm sure protection will be granted soon enough. I'm to involved to protect the page myself, but I do think the page may need it soon. Alternatively, if this is just one person on a static IP address, the editor can be blocked for edit-warring (I see that Coffeepusher warned the user). There are solutions we can undertake, and even though it's difficult, we have to pursue the nicely, even when it seems pointless. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This article's primary purpose is to reference the impact HP Lovecraft's mythology had on other aspects of media; Hence it's name "Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture". Look at the rest of the article. It is nothing but this. Everything on internet can ultimately fall into the category of "user submitted". In the case of song lyrics, despite being submitted potentially by external users, they can ultimately be verified via other sites. Does this make them incorrect due to being user submitted? No. Overzealous protection of this page does not allow it to become as complete as it could be. I'm sure every link/reference on here could be dissected for "validity". Case in point : the song "All Nightmare Long" which lists as it's reference. This is considered more reliable than a link to lyrics with clearly ostensible references? I think the idea of what's reliable needs a bit of reconsideration here, otherwise the entire page is of dubious reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NOTECoffeepusher (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I was sick yesterday and should not have been on. However, what you are pointing out for the IP editor has been pointed out to him over and over and over and over. While I acknowledge I could have been kinder in my phrasing (and have retitled the section), I believe WP:BITE is more under the intention that editors provide and point out guidelines (as I have done) rather than punish new editors for (naturally) being ignorant of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the concern IP74 expressed about, CANOE is an online newspaper, published by Quebecor Media, one of Canadian's major news agencies. As for the lyrics sites, Coffeepusher has pointed you in the right direction with those links to our policies and guidelines. But the quick summary is this: our goal on Wikipedia is not to collect every piece of information that has ever been said on some site somewhere. On this particular page, we're not trying to find every single use of the word "Cthulhu", "Yoggoth", "Nyarlathotep", or whatever, in any piece of media. We're trying to provide an encyclopedic overview of the subject; the way we decide what to include is to look and see what reliable sources have already deigned to comment on. Thus, your claim, "Overzealous protection of this page does not allow it to become as complete as it could be" is both true and desirable, though perhaps "overzealous protection" should be replaced with "protection according to Wikipedia's rules". If you want a place to list every single reference, you may want to try either the Cthulhu Wiki or [ TV Tropes]. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I believe the clincher is Qwyrxian's comment "We're trying to provide an encyclopedic overview of the subject". It is a struggle at times but it does ensure quality.

PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In reply to "our goal on Wikipedia is not to collect every piece of information that has ever been said on some site somewhere". Right, I understand that this is wikipedia's purpose in the most general sense, but in the case of impact on external popular culture, I believe this needs reconsideration. Adding information listed on a website somewhere is not what linking to references in this context is. Though it ends up appearing that way, which is why I think references here adds little, if any, value. But to employ a definition "The content of popular culture is determined in large part by industries that disseminate cultural material, for example the film, television, and publishing industries, as well as the news media." ( Thus, I believe it's in the best interest of this particular page to reconsider reliability requirements to bring this page to it full culmination; that being referencing the influence Chtulhu mythos have had on external sources of media.

In addition, despite any claim to the credibility of a news site or it's ownership (which were not in question) the point is these stories are all also user-submitted. (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia should make an exception to its general rules about including only important, verified information for popular culture issues, apologies, but you're going to need to take that to a much wider forum (I recommend probably the WP:Village pump (policy) page). As for the claim of credibility, I don't understand what you are saying. Which sources are "user-submitted"? You mean the ones you want to include, or the ones already in the article. If there are currently references in the article which are based on user-submitted sources, then they should probably (though not certainly, as WP:RS isn't quite black and white) be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cthulhu

I just reverted the addition of Hello Cthulhu! (an internet web comic combining Sanrio and the Mythos). I checked around, and found two brief mentions of it: one in this review in the Telegraph of a Lovecraft biography and this one in Salon in a general article on Lovecraft's work. Both are reliable sources; together they're not enough to support notability, but I'm inclined to say that they're just enough to establish "importance", i.e., enough to be on this list. Other opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On other lists that I monitor the consensus is that entries have to have a stand alone wikipedia article to merit inclusion. after looking through this list last night I was tempted to delete several entries but realized that the editors here may feel differently. Should we require that entries have a stand alone wikipedia article?Coffeepusher (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
On this list, I would not agree with such a requirement. Short stories and individual songs rarely have individual articles, and I don't think we need to blanket eliminate those. I also monitor lists with such a requirement, and I think that it is reasonable to draw different inclusion rules in different cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this article has never been defined as a notable-entries-only list. There has been some random-slash-and-burn-style enforcement of WP:TRIVIA lately, which is a higher standard than I personally care for tbh, but conforming to it at least helps keep the anti-pop-culture snobs at bay. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I support Hello Cthulhu! being included in this article on that basis -- on the basis of either mention separately, really. Passing WP:TRIVIA is a much lower bar than WP:N. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Conan and Cthulhu

Am new here so forgive me if I made any faus pax. Works pertaining to Conan the Barbarian have many Lovecraftian influences such as Old Ones, Cthulhu, and so on. You can find information and biblographies at this link . Furthermore, I grew up reading Savage Sword of Conan (SSOC) and several stories had Conan fighting dark cults trying to bring Old Ones to the planet as well as one story which spanned at least two issues of SSOC. Toward the end, a being named Yog-Sothoth actually began to descend upon the planet via a rip in the reality opened by a cult. Conan found himself nearly overwhelmed by the sheer insanity of seeing this Old One but managed to close the rip. Unfortunately I cannot recollect exact issues but Dark Horse are reprinting those issues so further investigation may yield results. One other Lovecraftian character would be from Robert E Howard's short story "The Tower of the Elephant" ( This being had an head of elephant and was named Yag-Kosha ( and fit a description of a race of beings who could fly in the space and lost their wings when they came to Earth. Anyway thought I'd bring this up and let wiser ones decide if those are worthy of being added or not. (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's me again - I found the issue... it's in Savage Sword of Conan #152 in the story "Valley Beyond The Stars" ( ALso this link describes Dagon in Conan stories - There's list of references on the bottom. (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to check out our site's definition of reliable sources. Tripod sites are not included. Also, I think part of the reason Conan isn't mentioned here is because Robert Howard was friends with H.P. Lovecraft, and the Conan sagas are actually part of the original Cthulhu mythos. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Decomissioning two-column tables

If the table consists of only two columns, it should be converted into list format. --JBrown23 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Haiyore! Nyaruko-san

This 12 episode long anime features characters based on the Cthulhu mythos. To say where exactly the fit is , I'm not familiar enough with Lovecraft's work to say.

Btw.. anidb links are blacklisted... the guy that came up with that idea is petty to say the least. There's not even ads on there , and the users are paramount about the integrity of the content.

For more info about the anime , look on -> anidb dot info (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • We already include that, in Print section, because it start as Light Novel.L-Zwei (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

cthulu dice

first off i apologise for typos english is not my natural language so i have to guess alot of spellings/grammer when i am unsure. a semi new pop culture game is from sjgames called cthulu dice. it is played to delibertly steal the sanity of other players known as cultists. while not as major or complex as other dice games like D&D it has alot of fame in the board game realm.

also not sure what the newest scoby doo series is called (one where they are investigating disaperance of the mystery inc before them) but in one episode they visit a college with a professor HP Hatecraft and the monster of the episode while under a diffrent name is is a repersentation of cthulu. (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We would need evidence from reliable sources for these in order to be added. For the game, the key is that we need to establish that its important, for the Scooby Doo series, we need independent evidence clearly asserting it's a Lovecraft allusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


I was just wondering if Quake should be added for video games? The game's art style is heavily influenced by H.P. Lovecraft stuff and the final boss is Shub-Niggurath. -- (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic qualification is a reliable source discussing it as a Cthulhu Mythos reference, per WP:TRIVIA. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Self-evidently true"

Serious, are we really going to list this kind? Well, fine for me, I will add the many "self-evidently true" works later. L-Zwei (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's self-evidently true because the title of the work is "Cthulhu", it's an expansion to an established game that's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and contains characters and other elements named exactly off of Lovecraft items. Not every single thing has to have a reference. However, a song that happens to contain a single line that might be Mythos related isn't acceptable, nor would a television show with a appearance of a monster that may or may not be from the Mythos. We have to draw a line, but it needs to be one that is fairly conservative. Is there anyone that would deny that Gloom is notable, or that the expansion is not about the Mythos? If yes, I'll self-revert and re-remove the item while discussion continues. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not so convinced but it seem fine. At least make proper link instead of red one. L-Zwei (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Cthulhu was also referenced in Ducktales, when Scrooge et al went on a quest to find the mask of Cthulhu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone want to add this to the graph? Belongs in the list, it's even in the intro to the article. Robin.lemstra (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Just posted "unreliable" and "linkrot" templates because a disgusting number of "references" are raw urls to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Not sure who posted the hidden comments within the page, but if these are actual rules they are not being followed. The hidden comment on the first table is "PLEASE DON'T PUT ADAPTATIONS HERE--THEY GO IN THE MAIN H. P. LOVECRAFT ARTICLE," yet six of the seven entries in that table are adaptations. Grammar is poor in some of the table items, one of the items looks like a copypaste vio, style and punctuation are being used inadvisably. This "article" (really just an example farm as far as I'm concerned) needs a serious overhaul, and any rules should be stated here, not hidden within the wikicode on the page. (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Crouch End - Film

There is a film version of the Stephen King short story "Crouch End". . Should the "Crouch End (film)".  also be listed on this page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012‎ (UTC)

The Dunwich Horror

Ok so I notice The Dunwich Horror listed on another page, link given, and quite extensively, but not here even in the slightest. Just wondering? (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)