Template talk:H. P. Lovecraft

Applicable Pages?

Which pages is this Template applicable to? I started adding it to the individual work pages, but now I wonder whether or not that is correct. -ankØku- (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing Lovecraftian creations

Currently this template lists a few Lovecratian creations under the category of "Cthulhu Mythos deities" and subcategories of "Great Old Ones" and "Outer Gods". I suggest removing these subcategories, which are now dismissed by many scholars. GCL (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, but note that we do have separate articles for Great Old One and Outer God. If what you say is correct, you may want to take up the issue on those talk pages. —tktktk 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and provide the appropriate link, as there is currently far too much information in the nav box that simply doesn't belong. We can't provide a link to Lovecraft's works and then decide to list anything and everything on other aspects of his work, as it creates a double standard. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail

I think a few users have missed the point here. The nav box provides links to articles with more detail and removes the need for listing everything - something we try to avoid at Wikipedia as lists are often ponderous and with greater length, become subjective. All the film material is covered, with sources, at Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. The entire Lovecraft effort on Wikipedia needs rationalising as there is at present a great deal of repetition. If still in doubt, consider this: just as we don't list all Lovecraft's literary works in the nav box (there is an appropriate link), nor should we list the cultural works which in fact were never written or even endorsed by the author. Hence a link: otherwise it creates a double standard. The same applies to the Lovecraft creations - there is a page for this, and a link is sufficient. The focus here is the core themes. Thank you. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No-one's missed the point here at all, there's just a dispute about your edits. Of course repetition of wikilinks need to be addressed -- there's no point having the same link twice on a template, obviously. What I am disputing is the removal of links to well known (at least in sci-fi/fantasy circles) creatures like Cthulhu, Byakhee or Yog-Sothoth, or well known film adaptations like Re-Animator. The fundamental job of a navigation template is to facilitate navigation between relevant articles for interested readers. As such, removing direct links to specific articles and replacing them with more general links to categories like "Cthulhu Mythos species" is, I would contend, making the template less useful and robbing readers of the chance to go directly to the article they want.

If I was a Lovecraftian neophyte and wondered what the hell a Cthulu was, hiding the article in question behind a link to a category list, which I then have to trawl through, is not helpful and not what navigational templates are supposed to be there for.

In addition, I really must say that I think it is extremely poor form of you to have continued to edit this template when there is a clear dispute about your doing so. Therefore, I have reverted your recent edits (despite some of them being ones we can perhaps all agree on) and would ask you to refrain from editing the template until this dispute is resolved and consensus has been reached as to how the template should be tidied up. Thank you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

PHE, I continue to hold (and agree with Kohoutek1138) that the edits you're repeatedly attempting to make here damage the utility of the nav template to no useful purpose. "Rationalizing" the HPL content because of "repetition" is something you have decided on your own is a useful purpose; others disagree. Avoidance of repetition and whatever kind of abstract concept of efficiency is reflected by this paring-down are not core goals of Wikipedia. As to double standards, one editor's double standard is another editor's care for contextual appropriateness. Again, we are not trying to formulate the perfect set of rules for building an encyclopedia and then apply them in lockstep; we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Last and least important, I really disrecommend the tone of your "something we try to avoid at Wikipedia" line; it sounds like a transparent rhetorical attempt to position oneself as the "knowledgeable insider" in a dispute and imply that anyone disagreeing is an "inexperienced outsider", and all things considered, I'm sure you don't want to come off like that. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, no one thinks anyone is a buffoon. There's no offence to be had here. A tinkering of the template is fine as this is far from a heated debate. —chaos5023 and I have differed before but the end result is always a better article, which is something that can be achieved here. As I indicated above, the problem here is the logic needs to be consistent. Just we don't list all the works, nor should we list all the later efforts. It is a subjective judgement to decide which are the most "popular" and as such we avoid this by providing one link which also avoids repetition. In this instance, this is simple common sense and contexually appropriate. It has nothing to do with building a set of rules: here we are helping to build a better template which helps make for a better encyclopedia. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The logic you refer to is purely subjective and in this case, simply your own opinion. Myself and Chaos5023 feel that the template should include all of the links it currently does, in order to better facilitate navigation between Lovecraft-related articles. There is no consensus whatsoever to remove a whole lists of species or creatures (for example) and replace them with a category link, as in the case of "Cthulhu Mythos species"...in fact, there is direct opposition to it. With this in mind, I would ask you once again to refrain from editing the template in this manner, since there is no consensus that your edits are an improvement. Thank you.

As an aside, the word deities shouldn't have a capital "D", just as the word gods shouldn't have a capital "G", as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's no great ask and easily done. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the logic, I ask again: is there a complete list or a link for Lovecraft's works? This is the key to the template and the same thinking should be applied to the other sub-sections. It makes no sense to have one master link for one genre (literature) and yet not have the same apply to the other genres (e.g. film).

What you also could have done is rather than implement a knee-jerk revert actually retain the legitimate changes (e.g. one of the apparent Elders Gods is linked but there is no mention of Lovecraft, the band belong in CM in PC, the SNec. has no connection to Lovecraft and the actor in question has yet to appear in anything Lovecraft related as such is still trivia and crystal balling). If you could take the time to do this, it would be appreciated. The remainder can continue to be discussed. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about the discrepancy of having one general link to literary works but individual links to film adaptations, but this discrepancy is borne from simple necessity: currently there are 21 film adaptations listed on the template, but many, many more literary works listed at H. P. Lovecraft bibliography -- to include all of these fiction titles individually would clutter up the template considerably and therefore a link to a master list is unfortunately the only workable option.

For me, the deciding factor here is the sheer volume of literary works, and as -chaos5023 says above, the efficiency that you hope to achieve with this culling of links is not a core goal of Wikipedia or of navigational templates. Simply put, I believe that if we can realistically include individual links to articles in the template then we should do, with links to a master list only being employed when the number of individual links in a sub-section would be prohibitive or unwieldy.

As for your request to retain some of your "legitimate changes", I'm sorry to sound like a scratched record here, but I actually disagree with some of these too: The band definitely belong on this template (much of their music was directly inspired by the writings of HPL, including their best known song "The White Ship", as noted in the article with supporting refs), and the Simon Necronomicon article has enough relevance to the works of HPL to justify its inclusion on the template I feel. However, I would agree that Guillermo del Toro's presence on the template is extremely tenuous and as such, I shall remove him now. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• (In order to keep all of this debate in the same place, the following post by PurpleHeartEditor is transcluded from Kohoutek1138's talk page)

Greetings. I think you mean well but have misinterpreted what we are trying to achieve with some of the edits for the H.P. Lovecraft template.

Breaking it down:

• The Cthulhu Mythos belongs in Legacy/Influence, as it is clearly stated and proven it came after Lovecraft. Cause and effect.
• The band deserve mention with all other cultural aspects at Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, not as an individual listing here. Other more notable additions from art and science are not listed in the template, but grouped with the others. Why this one? Because of your interest in music?
• The Simon Necronomicon. Unless you can find a source that links it specifically to Lovecraft - and it has to be specific and not implied - it is out.

Finally, please avoid silly assumptions and statements about edit warring in summaries. It is not true and all that is required is a quick think about the logic involved in the placement of these articles. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to ask you to cease the misleading use of the word "we" in your responses. Chaos5023 has already warned you about this and I must concur with their assertion that the use of such language "sounds like a transparent rhetorical attempt to position oneself as the 'knowledgeable insider' in a dispute and imply that anyone disagreeing is an 'inexperienced outsider'." Please refrain from this -- there is no "we", just a lone editor (you) attempting to implement edits for which there is no consensus.

In response to the specific points you make, I accept that CM should be located in Legacy/Influence and that is why I did not revert the last edit of yours that placed it there. However, I believe that the articles on the band and Simon Necronomicon should remain on the template, under the heading of "Related articles" because that is precisely what they are...related to HPL and of interest to readers concerned with his writings, but not directly linked to the man himself.

In the case of the band H. P. Lovecraft, a number of their songs are directly inspired by the author's writings -- in particular the songs "At The Mountains of Madness" and "The White Ship" -- and as such, the band are clearly related in a very obvious way with the subject of H. P. Lovecraft the author, which is, after all, who the template is concerned with. Likewise, the Simon Necronomicon article is related to HPL and therefore belongs on the template under the heading of "related articles".

Also, I must say that I dislike the tone you have adopted in connection with Simon Necronomicon, stating that "Unless you can find a source that links it specifically to Lovecraft - and it has to be specific and not implied - it is out." It is not up to you to decide what is in or out, this is not your own website or your own personal blog...this is Wikipedia and things here are decided upon by editor consensus, not by PurpleHeartEditor. Statements like this are in contravention of one of Wikipedia's core policies, specifically ownership of articles, which states "No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." I would ask you to remember that.

In closing, I really have said all I have to say on this matter now; please do not attempt to implement your proposed edits to the HPL template again, as there is a clear lack of consensus that they are beneficial to the functionality of the template. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you've left the CM in the correct place. Thanks - that's a start. As to the other changes, there is someone else I can speak to for another opinion. I'll try and encourage him to offer his view here. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, PHE asked me here earlier, presumably because of my work on Cthulhu Mythos in Popular culture. With regards to this template, Kohoutek138, you're actually wrong that Wikipedia articles/pages are based only on consensus. That's true to some degree, but consensus cannot override policies and guidelines (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is a part of WP:CONSENSUS). So, specifically in the case of the Simon Necronomicon, PHE is correct to say that unless it can actually be verified by independent, reliable sources that said document is connected directly to HP Lovecraft, it can't be included here. Yes, it appears that "Simon" claimed a link, but unless others have commented that such a link is relevant and meaningful, that doesn't make it closely enough connected to Lovecraft to belong here. As an example, if I (not a famous writer) self-publish a book and say it's part of the Cthulhu Mythos or an homage to Lovecraft, that doesn't necessarily make it so. It certainly doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on this template.

So, unless some sort of independent verification can be found, our core principles require it to be removed. As for other details of the template, there is a degree of editorial consensus required. A quick glance at templates like Template:Shakespeare and Template:Ernest Hemingway indicate to me that this one is much too long; the Shakespeare template is shorter than this; the Hemingway is longer, but contains a lot fewer elements than this one. I, for one, would argue very strongly that the "Associated people" section should be removed entirely, and we should consider removing all of the strictly Mythos related info ("Cthulhu Mythos deities", "Cthulhu Mythos species" and "Related articles"). In fact, I think it would make much more sense to have 2 different templates, one for the Mythos and one for Lovecraft himself. For example, it seems patently wrong that August Derleth has this template on his page, given that he is, you know, a different person. But putting a hypothetical Template:Cthulhu Mythos on his page would make sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful input. I agree with everything said, and it is proof positive that more work needs to done on the Lovecraft articles. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I'm dismayed to see that the template has yet again been edited to remove the Simon Necronomicon article, without allowing myself or any other interested party the time to respond to recent posts. That's just poor form! To my mind this is further evidence that PurpleHeartEditor is a poor wikipedian and would do well to read the ownership of articles policy -- H. P. Lovercraft template is not your template to do with as you see fit. I will not revert this edit again because I have done that enough times already, but in the interests of collegiality and civility (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia) I think it would be a nice gesture if you reverted it yourself.

As for Qwyrxian's dismissive comments regarding my suggestion that there was no consensus for PHE's proposed edits, these comments are misleading and only serve to cloud the discussion; the article on LOCAL CONSENSUS that is linked to is largely irrelevant in this case because nobody here is looking to go against wider Wikipedia consensus with regards navigation templates. Including the Simon Necronomicon article on the HPL template, under the heading of "related articles", is no different to listing geostationary orbit as a related article on the Arthur C. Clarke template or listing The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer: My Life at Rose Red on the Stephen King template -- these are subjects not directly connected with each author but nonetheless, they could certainly be of interest to those browsing their respective templates.

Likewise, I also disagree with Qwyrxian's claim that "unless it can actually be verified by independent, reliable sources that said document is connected directly to HP Lovecraft" the Simon Necronomicon should be removed from the template. As I have stated previously, the book is clearly not directly connected with HPL, which is why it is listed on the template as a "related article" -- the key word here being related. The purpose of navigation templates is to facilitate navigation to other Wikipedia articles that may be of interest to the reader. As such, including the SN is entirely in keeping with this, because anyone interested in HPL could equally be interested in reading about the SN, due to its connection to the Cthulhu mythos.

As an aside, it is also perfectly proper that August Derleth's article display the HPL template...he is listed on it, after all. As for whether there should be two templates, I think that would just be over complicating things and will have the result of making each proposed template less able to fulfill its purpose as a useful navigational aid...but that's probably a discussion for another time. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but on the Simon Necronomicon, I'm arguing it actually has no connection to Lovecraft at all, other than the "author"'s own claims, which are suspect at best. That's why I'm arguing it shouldn't be here at all.

In any event, I'm willing to start an RfC on this, because some of these issues seem to be really pushing the boundaries for what is acceptable in a template. I've got a few other big projects to work up, so it won't be for a bit (days/weeks), but I'll come back to this; PHE, feel free to bump me a note in a few weeks if I forget. In the meanwhile, though, you shouldn't edit war to put the info in the way you prefer; even if we go just by a headcount and include me, the current version is either even or preferred. Of course, the point behind the RfC will be to show that policy and good editing implies the current version is wrong, but that will be up to the RfC to decide. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Amount of information in the template and possible splitting

Myself and PurpleHeartEditor have expressed concerns that this template currently contains material it shouldn't. There are two specific concerns, and comments about either or both will be helpful:

1. Inclusion of two specific links: editors have disagreed on whether or not Simon Necronomicon (previously included though out right now) and H.P. Lovecraft (band) should be included. The question is whether or not they are sufficiently connected to the author to merit inclusion. I and PHE have argued that there need to be reliable sources showing a clear connection in all cases, while others have argued that editorial consensus is enough to determine what belongs in that section
2. The "Cthulhu Mythos deities", "Cthulhu Mythos species", the other two entries in "Related articles", and possibly the "Associated people" sections: I have raised the issue that these sections, especially the first two, aren't actually directly connected enough with Lovecraft enough to belong in this template. Yes, it's certainly the case that some of the information in the subject articles was created by Lovecraft, although not all of it was (much was created or supplemented by later authors). More importantly, it's simply a level of detail not found in other author templates. Template: Stephen King and Template:Shakespeare, for instance, include a list of their works, a list of articles concerned with the person or their overall themes, with adaptations of their work in King's case, but they do not contain links to the articles about the individual characters or other parts of the authors' works. So, do these sections belong in this template? If removed, should they possibly be split into a separate template (e.g., Template:Cthulhu Mythos, for example).

As I said, any input, even if on only one of the issues, will be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Details of objections to these proposed changes from myself and Chaos5023 can be found in the original discussion (see the "Excessive detail" section above). To my mind, the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Simon Necronomicon and H. P. Lovecraft (band) is of less overall importance to the proposed template split (although I do strongly feel that both articles do belong on the template, for reasons I've gone into above). As noted earlier by chaos5023 and I, splitting the template will undermine its fundamental propose—to facilitate navigation between relevant articles that may be of interest to readers who are interested in HPL—and ultimately damage the utility of the template to no useful purpose. The reasons why I and chaos5023 feel like this are amply detailed above.

As an aside, I am a little concerned that there is hint of article ownership behind PurpleHeartEditor's attempts to orgainise this template in his own way (something I have already drawn attention to in the above discussion). However, I will assume good faith and hope that I am wrong on that score. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think that specific derivative works or authors should be included in the Lovecraft template, there are too many of them. I think the current template sections 'Books about Lovecraft', 'Film adaptations' and 'Other adaptations' should be removed. There is no simple way to judge what to include in those sections. Simon Necronomicon and H.P. Lovecraft (band) shouldn't be in the template. 'Associated people' shouldn't be included unless they were close associates or collaborators of Lovecraft himself. As for "Cthulhu Mythos deities" and "Cthulhu Mythos species", that is acceptable but can be collapsed into a single section. It should be based exclusively on what Lovecraft wrote, not derivative works, and there should also be a simple rule for what to include. The template is too large and includes to much extraneous material. As a rule of thumb, there shouldn't be anything in the template that isn't in the H. P. Lovecraft article. I think it's a good idea to remove much of the material into a separate 'Cthulu mythos' template, but again, there should be a simple rule about what should be in such a template. FurrySings (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FurrySings has encapsulated our concerns in one concise paragraph. There are far too many peripheral subjects mentioned, and a great deal of overlap across the Lovecraft articles in general (e.g. a simple example is the mention of the Lovecraft band, which is obviously an example of popular culture and should be on said page). I have started a "tidy up" by placing all the deities one page (Cthulhu Mythos deities) and there is no reason why more than one concise link is required in the template for this entire section. Likewise the species. It should all be streamlined into a simple, concise template. All the information would still be accessible: it simply needs to be ordered into a more concise, less muddled form. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thirded. I'd be more verbose but there's not a whole lot much more to add that hasn't been said. Recon Etc (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  1. Templatology is not content in the same way as article content, while we should avoid egregious errors and occasionally even footnote possibly surprising inclusions (as we do with transcontinental countries for example) the primary aim is to aid navigation. For this reason the objectors are right about the principle for inclusion being consensus rather than citable connectedness, although I have reservations as to whether the links in question are actually appropriate.
  2. Associated people should be renamed to something less vague such as "key collaborators" if it is not to be a catch-all.
  3. I support the notion of a separate Cthulu Mythos navbox, and indeed a "Works of..."

Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

• Comment re: band H. P. Lovecraft (band) have risen to notability by their honoring H. P. Lovecraft. I see a direct connection; from the band to him. The template should help WP readers by including the band. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re: Simon Necronomicon I don't see a clear citable connection between Simon Necronomicon and H. P. Lovecraft.

1. Did Lovecraft make the connection? No.
2. Did the author of Simon Necronomicon make the connection? No.
3. Has a citable author made the connection? Not that I can tell. If some author, some where, authenticates the connection between Lovecraft and Necronomicon even on a theoretical level, then perhaps a connection can be demonstrated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Compare the two issues. The band is notable enough to have their own WP article. Their chosen name makes a clear connection and a clear honoring of Lovecraft. Simon Necronomicon's connection to Lovecraft seems vague. If the article included quotes from the book that mention Lovecraft, maybe that would establish the connection??? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

While working on Simon Necronomicon, I found info about the alleged followup volume; in the Google Books page about it, the Publisher's Weekly review summarizes "Simon" as saying, "Now in this "history," memoir and answer to his critics, the author tries to have it both ways: his was not the Lovecraftian Necronomicon , but another work of blasphemous elder lore with the same title. Possibly Lovecraft had heard of it, Simon suggests." That sounds like it's not nearly connected enough for inclusion in this template. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with FurrySings's comment of "As a rule of thumb, there shouldn't be anything in the template that isn't in the H. P. Lovecraft article." Tidy up this template, put the relavent links worth keeping into a separate template with a link between the templates. SD (talk contribs) 01:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC summary

It looks to me like there is a consensus (though not particularly a strong one), to split off the Mythos stuff from this template. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no experience in making templates. I know I could learn how, but that might take quite a while. Anyone here comfortable doing that? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the 2011 RfC after boldly recombining the two templates

Here is what a recombination looks like. It is not overly large. If the two templates are not combined then readers and researchers only get some of the Wikipedia map to Lovecraft pages when they look up a particular article and click on the template. It seems the decision to separate the topic into two templates was close, with good points by both "sides". Maybe it's time to revisit this, taking the link to the recombined template and the usefulness of a full template for readers and researchers into mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)