Jump to content

Talk:Cthulhu Mythos/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removed seven tales section

This part, as with most attempts to create a "central" list of Mythos stories, didn't make much sense. Why is direct encounter with the forces of the Mythos seen as making a tale more crucial to the Mythos? Aren't the sly allusions and deferral of revelation Lovecraft's trademarks? If encountering the Old Ones is crucial, shouldn't "Dagon" be on this list? What does it mean that these stories are the "main fundament" of Lovecraft's work, or that they follow the "classical elements and pattern"? What is "dark fantasy," and why is this an important defining element for three of the tales? Couldn't we put "The Colour out of Space" here just as easily? What about "The Dreams in the Witch-House," which effectively bridges the magic of "Dunwich" and the alien science of "Whisperer" and "Mountains"? Too much is assumed here. Danharms (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased Article

It seems to me that this entry reads a great deal more like an essay attempting to convince the reader why Derleth was wrong and enforce personal standards of how one SHOULD regard the Cthulhu Mythos than an article simply reporting what the Mythos is and how it came to be. Perhaps you ought to set aside your personal feelings regarding Derleth's contributions and simply report the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.39.157 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that Lovecraft never developed or intended to develop anything in the way of an organized mythology in his stories. Try reading any of his stuff next to Derleth's, and the differences are undeniable. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of today's Mythos fiction (not to mention the CoC RPG) is based upon Derleth's systematized pantheon and good/evil dichotomy. Many people still wrongly attribute things such as the elemental system, for example, to Lovecraft, and this article dispels such misconceptions. Long story short, what most people think of when they hear "Cthulhu Mythos" in reality has little or nothing to do with Lovecraft. --71.60.131.108 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While that fact may be true, it isn't the point of the article which should be a general overview of the ideas commonly known as the Cthulhu Mythos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The criticism appears relevent. I have recast the Derleth material into more neutral language so that his work is portrayed as a development rather than a perversion of the pre-existing material. The contrast between the Lovecraft and Derleth concepts of course remains, but judgment on their relative merits, if such should be made, is now left to the reader. BPK (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Elemental Theory section is still very biased. The person who wrote it makes the assumption that the Greek elemental system (as opposed to the Chinese or Indian) is the "correct" one, and outright states that Derleth is messing it up. 130.212.42.205 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Novels

Someone commented that this wiki was written with the assumption that the reader has prior knowledge of the works of HP Lovecraft, and that those who are new to the subject would be confused. I agree with this point absolutely, as I cannot grasp the idea of what the Dream Cycle is, and how it relates to the Cthulhu Mythos. Moreover, exactly which novels of his takes place in the Cthulhu Mythos universe? As a reference case, the wiki of Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series is very clearly written, despite the convoluted nature of the series itself. Apart from Asimov, other writers contributed to the universe, and the plot spans tens of thousands of years, with the plot being developed in a non-linear fashion. If such a clear and concise list could be done for the Cthulhu Mythos, it would make the situation crystal clear. As it is, I want to read all the major books set in the Cthulhu Mythos universe in the "right" order, but cannot find any such information on the web. It is frustrating when simple information is not included, simply because it is "common knowledge" to fans of Lovecraft. 210.176.70.2 (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. I came here looking for just that. It should be here.--Matt D (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

German master's thesis

There is no restriction on language in Wikipedia, save that preference should be given to English-language sources with comparable content. That argument needs to be made if such material is removed. Also, section 7 of this thesis is on Mythos merchandising and does not constitute advertising in and of itself. Danharms (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion??

It would seem to me that there is no reason to have a section entitled "conclusion" in an encyclopedia article. I note that previous editors noted that this article looked like an essay, and I assume that this "conclusion" is a remnant of that. I think it should be removed.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Stage Development?

How come there is Third Stage when section heading say "Robert M. Price, in his essay "H. P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos", sees two stages in the development of the Cthulhu Mythos."? L-Zwei (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?????

OH GOD THAT PICTURE AT THE TOP HURTS MY MIND. WHAT PERSON IN GOOD CONCIENCE COULD EVER SHOW A PERSON THAT??? THINK IM GOING MAD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.46 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC). I haven't read any of these stories, btu what I have heard seems to indicate that's the point Library Seraph (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Haiyore! Nyar-Ko san

I move it to popolar culture page, it at least sound interesting enough. L-Zwei (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Cthulhu Mythos Section

Is this notable? Should it be here? If Makai Suikoden is a popular Japanese work that has introduced a large number of people in Japan to the Cthulhu Mythos, then it should probably remain. If it's just one Mythos story that has not really attained prominence, it should probably be removed. For what it's worth, a Google search for "Makai Suikoden" (with quotes) currently returns this Wikipedia article as the sixth result, which does not bode well. 0x539 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • When searching Japanese content, please search with Japanese. As you see, there are 17200 result there. Consider that the series first publish in 1981, running 20 volumes plus 4 side-stories (not counting spin-off and sequel) and got reprint twice by other companies (click at that ja link, please). I actually think we need the full article here...L-Zwei (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, there are many search result links there, provided by L-Zwei. I can't read Japanese, though, so I really don't know what Makai Suikoden is about. It appears (from other Googling) that Makai Suikoden is related to the Cthulhu Mythos, but I'm still not convinced that it belongs in this article. Why have a section on "Japanese Cthulhu Mythos," but none on "Spanish Cthulhu Mythos" or "Russian Cthulhu Mythos?" I'm leaning toward agreement with L-Zwei that Makai Suikoden should have its own article rather than being lumped in here. 0x539 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to removing this section? If no one objects, I'm going to remove it, and let someone qualified create a new article for Makai Suikoden, apart from this article, if they are so inclined. 0x539 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, at this point this section is two sentences, and, having looked at them again, I see no reason why they should be included. Makai Suikoden is certainly not as significant to the development of the Cthulhu Mythos as the Lovecraft, Derleth, or even Howard stories mentioned by this article. This is not a directory of Cthulhu Mythos stories, even successful or widely published ones. (For example, we do not include "In the Mouth of Madness.") L-Zwei, if you want to start a "Mythos in non-English" article, that is one thing, but it really doesn't belong here. Please see WP:DIRECTORY for details. 0x539 (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've put the {{worldwide}} template on this page, as it doesn't discuss non-English versions of the mythos. For anyone who wishes to improve the article to make it more worldwide, the section that was deleted is here, and could be used to expand a section on the mythos in non-Anglophone countries. --Malkinann (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeat request for list of Lovecraft works defining/referencing Cthulhu mythos

"we ought to say when and in which stories Lovecraft started inventing his elements and combining them" - Nareek, 2006, this talk page

I second this motion. As an example, the Wikipedia article on Lovecraft's Dream Cycle (not included on the Lovecraft template) neatly lists the applicable Lovecraft Dream_Cycle#Stories_and_novels.

Is there a reason we can't do that here? I came here as a random web user to find out which original Lovecraft stories to read about Cthulhu. I found too many Cthulhu articles, but could not locate a list. Determined, I tried to hunt one down on the web. The website "The Cthulhu Mythos: An Annotated Bibliography" ( http://cthulhufiles.com/biblio/cthabib_lovecraft.htm#history ) lists his stories only by indexed words. I combed them, but it needs review because I lack the background to ensure that the list is 100% correct:

  • The Call of Cthulhu
  • The Dunwich Horror
  • The Electric Executioner
  • Through the Gates of the Silver Key
  • History of the Necronomicon
  • The Shadow Over Innsmouth
  • Medusa's Coil (with Zealia Bishop)
  • The Mound (with Zealia Bishop)
  • At the Mountains of Madness
  • The Horror in the Museum
  • The Whisperer in Darkness

I can't argue that authors who expanded the mythos shouldn't be included here. But surely, as the originator, a list of Lovecraft's initial defining stories (which present his own concepts) deserve a section? Tkech (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. please note that existing Wikipedia articles seem to lack such a list. Cthulhu Mythos anthology#Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos includes only 2 stories by Lovecraft - most are by other authors; the H. P. Lovecraft bibliography lists all stories, with no subjects identified; Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography seems to list every story he wrote, as does one source for it, http://necrolibro.dreamers.com/hache-pe-ele/cthubib.txt . Category:Cthulhu_Mythos_short_stories and The_Call_of_Cthulhu_and_Other_Weird_Stories do the same. Lovecraft Mythos has no list of works at all; the Category:Cthulhu Mythos novels includes works by other authors ... hopefully you can see the problem. Tkech (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment - I found too many Cthulhu articles - encapsulates the problem perfectly. I am going to try and create a blended version of the Cthulhu and Lovecraft articles. They repeat some of the same information and it can all be abbreviated into a sourced article. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works

So I just reverted my game additions, and also removed some possibly dubious film adaptation entries, and I'll post them here for a discussion so you can tell me what do you think about addition of the following (considering them separately):

Another possiblity is to just make a new template for just inspired works and not works "based on". --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hastur created by Derleth?

Why does the article say Hastur was created by Derleth? According to Hastur's own article, he was created by Ambrose Bierce and added into the Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovecraft in The Whisperer in Darkness, based on his portrayal in Robert W. Chambers's The King in Yellow. Derleth merely expanded upon Hastur's role in the Mythos. 174.4.45.248 (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Howdy!

I will be working on this article.
I anticipate:

  • editing and revising sentences to make them clearer
  • correcting some citation, hyperlink, and ISBN formatting/placement
  • making small grammatical changes.
  • adding some clarifications and definitions (such as who Tierney is in respect to the Cthulhu Mythos and possibly defining myth-cycle)
  • adding some hyperlinks, such as for Yog-Sothoth in the 'History: First Stage' section.

I plan on keeping a list of potential edits on my personal page in case anyone is curious about specific changes. Once I have a comprehensive list, I plan on publishing it on this talk page. Thanks, Txmormon97 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI I editted my own comment so it would be clearer than what I previously had Txmormon97 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential Sentence Revisions

  • Original: The term was first coined by August Derleth, a contemporary correspondent of Lovecraft, who used the name of the creature Cthulhu — a central figure in Lovecraft literature[1][full citation needed] and the focus of Lovecraft's short story "The Call of Cthulhu" (first published in pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928) — to identify the system of lore employed by Lovecraft and his literary successors. (Introduction)
  • Revision: The term was first coined by August Derleth, a contemporary correspondent of Lovecraft, who used the name of the creature Cthulhu — a central figure in Lovecraft literature and the focus of Lovecraft's short story "The Call of Cthulhu" (first published in pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928) — to identify the system of lore employed by Lovecraft and his literary successors.
  • Original: In his essay "H. P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos", Robert M. Price described two stages in the development of the Cthulhu Mythos. Price called the first stage the "Cthulhu Mythos proper." This stage was formulated during Lovecraft's lifetime and was subject to his guidance. The second stage was guided by August Derleth who, in addition to publishing Lovecraft's stories after his death, attempted to categorize and expand the Mythos. (Introduction)
  • Revision: In his essay "H. P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos", Robert M. Price described two stages in the development of the Cthulhu Mythos. During his lifetime, Lovecraft guided and formulated “Cthulhu Mythos Proper,” as Price calls the first stage. After his death, August Derleth published Lovecraft’s stories which guided the second stage in attempt to expand and categorize the Mythos.

Txmormon97 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential Clarity Changes

  • "...in the face of cosmic horrors that apparently exist in the universe." (History: First Stage: First ¶)
  • "...when faced with the cosmic horrors that exist in the universe."
  • "...in 'The Call of Cthulhu,' in which the minds of human characters deteriorated when afforded a glimpse of what exists outside their perceived reality." (History: First Stage: First ¶)
  • "...in 'The Call of Cthulhu' where the minds of human characters deteriorate when glimpsing what exists outside their perceived reality."
  • "Lovecraft emphasized the point by stating in the opening sentence of the story that..."(History: First Stage: First ¶)
  • "In the opening sentence of 'The Call of Cthulhu,' Lovecraft emphasized this point by stating that..."
  • "Writer Dirk W. Mosig notes that Lovecraft was a 'mechanistic materialist' who embraced the philosophy of cosmic indifferentism." (History: First Stage: Second ¶)
  • "Writer Dirk W. Mosig notes that Lovecraft, as a 'mechanistic materialist,' embraces the philosophy of cosmic indifferentism.
  • "Human beings, with their limited faculties, could never fully understand this universe, and the cognitive dissonance caused by limitation leads to insanity."(History: First Stage: Second ¶)
  • With their limited faculties and cognitive dissonance, human beings could never fully understand this universe without resulting in insanity."
ProfessorEditor commented to me earlier today: "I see what you did but I think this edit reduces the meaning of the original sentence too much."
  • "Lovecraft's viewpoint made no allowance for religious belief which could not be supported scientifically, ..." (History: First Stage: Second ¶)
  • "Lovecraft's viewpoint made no allowance for religious belief which could not be supported scientifically."
  • "...scientifically, with the incomprehensible, cosmic forces of his tales having as little regard for humanity as humans have for insects." (History: First Stage: Second ¶)
  • "scientifically. With regards to the incomprehensible in his stories, the cosmic forces of his tales have as little regard for humanity as humans have for insects."
  • "...this fictional group of beings." (History: First Stage: Third ¶)
  • "...this fictional group of cosmic beings."
  • "The view that there was no rigid structure is reinforced by S. T. Joshi who stated..." (History: First Stage: Fifth ¶)
  • "S. T. Joshi reinforced the view that there was no rigid structure stating that ..."
  • "Price, however, believed that Lovecraft's writings could at least be divided into categories and identified three distinct themes..." (History: First Stage: Sixth ¶)


  • "...latter's use of hope Derleth and that believed the Cthulhu..." (History: Second Stage: First ¶)
  • "...latter's use of hope. Derleth believed the Cthulhu..."
  • "Derleth is credited with creating the Elder Gods." (History: Second Stage: First ¶)
  • "He is credited with creating the Elder Gods."
  • "Derleth expanded the boundaries of the Mythos by including any passing reference to another author's story elements by Lovecraft as part of the genre: just as Lovecraft made passing reference to Clark Ashton Smith's Book of Eibon, Derleth in turn added Smith's Ubbo-Sathla to the Mythos."(History: Second Stage: Second ¶)
  • "Derleth expanded the boundaries of the Mythos by including references to other authors' story elements by Lovecraft as part of the genre: just as Lovecraft made references to Clark Ashton Smith's Book of Eibon. Derleth in turn added Smith's Ubbo-Sathla to the Mythos."

Txmormon97 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential Grammar and Punctuation Changes

  • Deleted comma in History: Second Stage: Third ¶
  • Deleted ", being" and replace with a semicolon in "Lovecraft" Mythos.

Txmormon97 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Integration of Quotes

  • Joshi's quote in the "History: First Stage section" should be integrated (and explained) into the paragraph to help bring about clarity and understanding.
  • Derleth's quote in the 'History: Second Stage' section should be integrated (and explained) into the paragraph to help bring about clarity and understanding.

I feel like quotes should be used in the same way in the rest of the article: small quotes with lots of explanation. Txmormon97 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Clarification of Sections

  • "Lovecraft" mythos -- I personally do not understand why this section is pertinent. If it is, can someone explain it to me?

Txmormon97 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Lovecraft" mythos
A lesser known term employed by the scholar S. T. Joshi to describe the works of Lovecraft.[b] Joshi identified four key elements in Lovecraft's mythos (that Price would later condense to three themes);, being the fundamental principle of cosmicism (which once again highlighted the irrelevance of mankind), the imaginary New England setting, a pantheon of recurring "pseudomythological" entities, and a collection of arcane books that supposedly yield insights into the mythology.[b]
I am taking it out for now. This is I will part I remove by the end of the week. Txmormon97 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Public Domain?

Is the Cthulhu Mythos in the public domain? 173.180.89.129 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which aspect? Some of this dates back to Lovecraft's own stuff, whose copyright status is kinda odd (see the Lovecraft article). Some of the rest comes from stories and essays by Derleth and others which are still under copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I did some digging and Arkham House is the copyright holder of the Cthulhu Mythos. That hasn't stopped things like the Necronomicon and Cthulhu himself appearing without credit in 3rd party works. 173.180.66.225 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Only Arkham House, and probably not everybody there, pretends to think that they have any special rights in the Mythos as a whole. Otherwise, see my note above. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Lovecraft's own drawing

I'm not a Lovecraftian, but I read several of his writings in adolescence. I recently heard a BBC documentary about him and in the broadcast, it is mentioned that Lovecraft made a drawing of Cthulhu which survives. So, I did some Google-age and found http://www.saubertech.com/necronomicon_files/cthulhu.gif

I think that the author's own conception is of greater historical interest than the many drawings that follow, including the one that now leads the article. How is the current drawing that leads the article of special merit? It's certainly a fine visualization, but surely the author's own sketch (however less polished!) is of greater historical interest.

Somebody has removed the entire Necronomicon folder from the Saubertech website. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If we find another source with the image, will that solve the problem? Txmormon97 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the debate was no consensus; however, I've moved it anyway, per the large number of sources cited. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cthulhu mythos → Cthulhu Mythos – Move to version most commonly used by authors, critics, and scholars.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: It does seem to be pretty standard among Lovecraftian scholars to use "Cthulhu Mythos". Nareek 23:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leave as is; not proper name. And, yes, I;ve read almost all of Eich-Pee-Ell, Septentrionalis 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's good that you've read HPL, but I should point out that Lovecraft never used the term Cthulhu Mythos — it was coined by August Derleth (depending upon who you believe) about six months after Lovecraft's death. As for whether or not the term is a proper noun, who can say? Nonetheless, most writers certainly treat the term as if it were a proper noun. So, bearing that in mind, allow me to attach some names and faces to the authors, critics, and scholars cited above, and perhaps you will understand why I (now) believe that the uppercase form is more appropriate:
      • August Derleth, the originator of the term, seems to have always used "Cthulhu Mythos" as in his essay "The Cthulhu Mythos" from Arkham House's 1969 anthology Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos. He also used Cthulhu Mythos in numerous cover blurbs for Arkham House titles.
      • Daniel Harms (1998), The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, ISBN 1-56882-119-0, "A Brief History of the Cthulhu Mythos", pp. vii–xiv. Example: "For those of you who are just starting your Mythos readings, an explanation is in order. The Cthulhu Mythos is a series of allusions spanning three quarters of a century and the works of hundreds of authors." (pp. vii)
      • S. T. Joshi and David E. Schultz (2001), An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia, ISBN 0-3133-1578-7, "The Cthulhu Mythos", pp. 50–4. Example: "[August Derleth took] plot germs from HPL's commonplace book [and made] 'Cthulhu Mythos' tales of them... He also wrote 'Cthulhu Mythos' tales of his own..." (p. 54)
      • Donald R. Burleson (1979), Magill's Survey of Science Fiction Literature III, ISBN 0-8935-6197-5, "The Lovecraft Mythos", pp. 1284–88. Example: "It was probably because of ["The Call of Cthulhu"] that August Derleth coined the term "Cthulhu Mythos"..." (p. 1284).
      • Steven J. Mariconda (1995), On the Emergence of "Cthulhu" & Other Observations, ISBN 0-9408-8481-X, "Toward a Reader-Response Approach to the Lovecraft Mythos", pp. 29–39. Example: "After Lovecraft's death, Derleth used 'Cthulhu Mythology' and, more widely, 'Cthulhu Mythos.' ...Lovecraft himself refused to give it a name. [Scholars] have not interpreted this fact to mean that whatever the Mythos is, it is not something of a nature which can or should be named." (p. 31)
      • Dirk Mosig refers to the "Cthulhu Mythos" in his essay "H. P. Lovecraft: Myth-Maker" (pp. 21–29, Mosig at Last, ISBN 0-940-88490-9)—though in truth he would prefer the term be abandoned in favor of the "Yog-Sothoth Cycle of Myth".
      • Richard L. Tierney, "The Derleth Mythos", Discovering H. P. Lovecraft, ISBN 1-58715-470-6, pp. 52–3. Example: "Most writers continuing the 'Cthulhu Mythos' in fiction or documenting in scholarly articles are merely perpetuating the misconceptions begun by Derleth... To sum up, The Cthulhu Mythos as it now stands is at least as much Derleth's invention as it is HPL's." (p. 53)
      • Others who use "Cthulhu Mythos": Robert M. Price (numerous essays); Will Murray (various essays).
This is primarily why I've weakened my position on using "Cthulhu mythos". The more I read, the more convinced I am that "Cthulhu Mythos" is the proper form to use. It is also worth pointing out that the lone example I cited below, in which a writer uses "Cthulhu mythos", is one the few exceptions (and this was only borne out after considerable digging). The upshot of this is: if "Cthulhu Mythos" is the commonly used term, why shouldn't Wikipedia reflect the predominant view?
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To redirect Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos to Cthulhu Mythos; unwarranted split and no useful content to merge. Klbrain (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos is... ugh. What is this mess? It's a List of Cthulthu Mythos topics that don't belong anywhere else? We have an overview article for Cthulhu Mythos, and its the description of the universe. This is effectively a WP:CONTENTFORK of it. I am not sure there is much to salvage here, but maybe merging those tables here will be better than outright deletion? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"...topics that don't belong anywhere else"? I would rather say, Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos is a list of everything in the Cthulhu Mythos universe, which makes it useful for navigation purposes. It also means it is in part a list of lists. Elements which are not featured in a separate list are listed here. It also can be a collection of elements which should be treated somewhere on Wikipedia but are not notable enough for a stand-alone article.
So in scope it is the same as Cthulhu Mythos. But in structure it is quite different. I am not sure that a merge is beneficial. If the problems Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos currently has were dealt with, it might be a good supplemental list to Cthulhu Mythos. Having a notable topic and a list corresponding to it in separate articles side by side is a valid way to go according to policy after all.
One problem is that currently Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos has some lists which are treated in separate lists, too. These contentforks should be cleaned-up and merged one way or the other. But that's a solvable problem. I don't have a good overview, however, how much would remain after such a clean-up. If it became solely a list of lists in the end, then I think a merge might make sense after all, with a navigation template at the bottom serving the navigation purpose.
The other thing is if we want to have a list which is somewhat disparate in purpose and style, combining a list of lists on the one hand and listing other elements individually. And in the other sense, combining a navigation purpose to elements that have their own articles with a collection purpose of listing elements which have a place at Wikipedia but are not notable in their own right. I personally don't have a problem with that, but want to throw it out there. Daranios (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Why merge? It's a perfectly good indexing of the elements of the mythos. Granted there some duplications that probably need to be addressed, but on the whole it should remain a separate article. --Auric talk 20:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Auric, Why merge? Because "elements of Foo" is bad style, we only split articles if a subtopic like this is just too large for the main article. Right now I am not seeing why this would be too large after merge, although it may be argued that some lists should be stand-alone if they meet WP:LISTN. We could even consider splitting some lists out of the 'elements' into stand-alone lists before merging. But 'Elements of Foo' is a bad-style mess that needs to go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: So shouldn't the first step perhaps be done before the second? - First clean up our Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos list by merging stuff that's duplicated elsewhere, splitting out lists that merit a stand-alone article, then see what remains? And based on that continue the discussion, if what remains should be merged, or might be useful stand-alone. Daranios (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Daranios Fair enough except I doubt that an article 'elements of Foo' will ever be useful, it's just a badly titled fork or compilation of forks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, any useful content should be brought over to the main article and this one made into a redirect. It just doesn't appear that there is any useful content. Hekerui (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cthulhu Mythos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cthulhu_Mythos/Archive_2&oldid=1136643992"