Cthulhu is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Horror B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Returned the note on non-universality of Derleth's interpretation, and supplied it with printed source that has ISBN --User:AlexeyTOD 20:55 Jun 28, 2007 (UTC)

Cthulu has appeared in the recently released game Scribblenauts, for the Nintendo D.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.20.118 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although visually not based exactly on Lovecraft's description, the Old God C'thun in World of Warcraft is an obvious reference to Cthulhu. Kisdead (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About as obvious as Azeroth is a reference to Astoreth (and no, it isn't, I am pulling that out of my ass by making a False Cognate). Unless there is something from the Blizzard saying "yes, we did intend it as a reference to Cthulhu despite having it look absolutely nothing like Cthulhu," we have to assume otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-->There are five 'old gods' are they are called in World of Warcraft, each based on one of the five senses. This is why C'thun is an eyeball and other old gods in the game are shows as giant mouths, etc. It's pretty silly to miss the C'thun:Cthulhu reference when the other 'old gods' in the name ALSO have Lovecraft names. WoW's other described 'old god' is the giant maw knows as known as Yogg Sarron. This in itself is as obvious a reference to Yog-Sothoth. So even if you think its just a coincidence that C'thun and Cthulhu have similar spelling, its immensely clear that this connection was intended when you see that all the 'old gods' so far shown in WoW have names highly resembling works of Lovecraft. As stated before, the only reason C'Thun is shown as a eye is because they wish to have bosses of all five senses. This minor detail does not detract from the fact that they are references Lovecraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.86.220 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue personal interpretation all day long and it isn't going to help. Sources, please. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that new recently name old god coming in the expansion Cataclysm is named N'Zoth. Taken from http://www.wowpedia.org/N%27Zoth "N'Zoth's name is most likely derived from Zoth-Ommog of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. Just as Zoth-Ommog was imprisoned by the Elder Gods beneath the seabed; N'Zoth was imprisoned by the Titans under what is now the Great Sea. Zoth-Ommog is the third son of Cthulhu; and coincidentally N'Zoth is the third Old God to be added to the Warcraft universe." 21:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)97.116.123.17 (talk)

Wowpedia does not meet the reliable source guidelines, it's a user-generated (i.e. monkeys at type-writers) site that is not officially connected with Blizzard. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was official. I just didn't want to put the quote without citing it. I'm just pointing out that here is just another in a long line of "coincidences" that shows the old gods are indeed inspired by Lovecraft. I do realize that this still isn't evidence. I just thought people should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.123.17 (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree that that's obviously what Blizzard was going for, but when the serial numbers are filed off as hard as they are with C'thun, where we get a giant eyeball that shares no physical characteristics with its "inspiration", we really have to have reliable source substantiation to include it, or we're lowering the inclusion threshold of the whole section to the point where we're inviting an inundation of vague, trivial, free-association-based "references". —chaos5023 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulu is also parodied in the new Sam and Max game, The Penal Zone. He is described as Yog Soggoth, an elder god and his representation as part of a symbiotic partnership with Dr Papierwaite is very reminiscent of the drawing on the main page of this article. Here are 2 links so you can see what I mean... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drw01aJAEdI http://www.samandmax.net/wiki/Yog_Soggoth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penfold1969 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a parody at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Grim_Adventures_of_Billy_&_Mandy_episodes

51 ""Prank Call of Cthulhu (Spelt "Cthulu" in the title card)"" October 21, 2005 (2005-10-21) Billy and Irwin make a prank call on the Phone of Cthulhu, resulting in the two become Cthulhu's official prank callers. However, their pranks calls only bring all of Endsville under Cthulhu's control. Mandy and Grim enter Cthulhu's realm to stop him.

68.110.169.4 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)hix1050[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture is where the pop culture references go (and this one is already there). --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be mass deleted without discussion; thanks. I understand that Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture exists, but that is not the same topic; this article's section is scoped specifically to Cthulhu and does not have the dozens of references to other Mythos elements that article features. Also note that the IPC section in this article contains material, the Visual Arts section, that was elsewhere in this article prior to the IPC section being re-created, though clearly actually IPC content, and it in particular shouldn't be indiscriminately blown away because somebody gets angry about the section. We've also mostly managed to keep the section to prose rather than the laundry-list tables of Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, which is valuable. Lastly, I re-created the section to try to make it so that there was a valid place in this article for the relentless re-additions of arguably valid content that people kept making, instead of petulantly hammering on this attempted banishment to the general Cthulhu Mythos article that clearly wasn't working. All these factors should be taken into account in dealing with the section. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having a pop culture article is to avoid overwhelming other articles with trivia. The pop culture article exists, put it there. If you feel it is inappropriate create a Cthulhu in pop culture article and organize the two. An article is not a dumping ground for every piece of useless trivia. Ekwos (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension that popular culture sections have to be factored into a separate article. This is not correct, and while Cthulhu in popular culture is an idea, I don't really see that it's necessary, and it's definitely not obligatory the way you imply. And no, articles are not dumping grounds for every piece of useless trivia; this is an argument for spending your time cleaning up the IPC section, not edit warring to indiscriminately blow it away, sourced content included. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply of the opinion that there is a more appropriate place for the material, namely the existing popular culture article. And I did clean it up in the way most appropriate to the article. See you in 24 hours. Ekwos (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu is popular culture, so the latter article is tautological and hence redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an article about Cthulhu as a pop cultural phenomenon and a list of trivia. Ekwos (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about article definitions and not the subsequent article quality. Shifting deckchairs by creating "in popular article" daughter articles solely for the removal of laundry lists of trivia has been a colossal timesink and headache. I'd much rather the material was just removed and then noted on the talkpage so it can be readded if sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience moving to the talk page usually results in it being returned to the article whereas creating a new page does not have that result. Lists are too easy to add to and invite increasingly marginal material. In addition there seem to be people trying to produce the ultimate "complete" list for a given topic, even though there can never be a complete list. Paragraphs restricted to what might generally be agreed to be the more important and notable examples don't bother me, and are actually interesting. Ekwos (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree in avoiding lists. This is why some secondary material discussing pop culture influence is good to encapsulate and frame it all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this, and really, the spectacular success of Cthulhu as a memetic virus is much more interesting from an encyclopedic perspective than plot details from the primary sources, which makes excising popular culture influence as a subject for the article highly ridiculous. The sort of framing material you mention is somewhat lacking, though, and listing the individual cases of influence doesn't necessarily communicate the pervasiveness of Cthulhu as a pop culture phenomenon. I don't suppose anybody knows of any particular sources that specifically discuss Cthulhu's pop culture ubiquity, that we could draw on for a better framing discussion without committing SYN? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some books around. I have one, but have been a bit busy IRL. Luckily that should end today or tomorrow and will see what I can dig up...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat similar to the problem the "ninja" article had for a while (and I followed with amusement). There was a definite conflict between people who wanted to look at ninjas as a historical phenomenon, and those who only cared about them as a pop cultural phenomenon. The article went back and forth and looked like crap until it was agreed that these were essentially entirely different topics and merited different articles. Ekwos (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which for mine is a really concrete way to look at things. part of the fascination I have with pop culture is how an entity evolves over time from reality/folklore to fiction. We covered alot in the vampire article in its evolution from folkloric being through 19thC literature and into stage and film. This can be done with ninja, ghost, werewolf and many other notable topics (discussing how misconceptions come about etc.). Hiving them off completely stonkers opportunities for this and is completely arbitrary. The trouble is the lack of sources online. As I said, I will try and get to this soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds nice until people start fighting over the lead image with one group wanting a historical print out of Japan, and another group wanting the cover art of the latest video game involving ninjas, and insisting that it captures the true 'spirit' of the ninja. Ekwos (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Yeah, that's a bad scene. I think we're safe from that particular problem on this page, though. Not that we don't get people trying to insert assertions about the historical Cthulhu, but we just revert them. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No contest for mine. I would have gone with historical there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sort of jerk. So as my addition was removed because unreferrence (hmmm...guess I need to take a screenshot), the same rule must applies to all of them. L-Zwei (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... isn't that textbook WP:POINT? —chaos5023 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I were partly joking ^_^ . Alright, it's my silly move. They do use direct name and not just name droping either. Sorry. L-Zwei (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Sall good. I was just very confused. :) I poked through the history a little looking for a removed reference you might be talking about, but couldn't find one; what was it? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points of requiring secondary references is to establish notability. That is to say, it establishes that someone else outside of wikipedia thought it was something that merited being noted. Just because something is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an article here. Ekwos (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation appears to only involve three editors, two of which have strong opinions about the proposal. I am hesitant to move forward without any additional input to gauge the correct course of action.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture ok, I hate to beat a dead horse, but the popular culture section is a laundry list of random appearances with no real reference on the larger scope or impact of any of the entries. Personally I believe a merge with Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture and then mass delete would not hurt this article at all. Additionally many of the entries in this popular culture section don't even qualify for Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which has demonstrated that this has become a dumping ground for every useless fan mention. If a medium doesn't qualify for its own wikipedia article it probably isn't "popular" enough to qualify for "popular culture"Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here, or merge with Cthulhu Mythos? Just place a {{merge to}} tag at the top of the article. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. Lets see what the consensus is.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. This section is a quagmire of non-notable original research. Best to have it on its own dedicated page rather than have it contaminate this one. Leave this page for material relating directly to Cthulhu, not silly pop culture references. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I of course am proposing to move the notable entries and delete the others. I have no intention of making our problem someone else's problem, I just believe that the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture page is better equipped at dealing with the onslaught of popular culture references and this page should be dedicated to Cthulhu itself. I would not be opposed to this section if the entries demonstrated how these references have shaped the image of Cthulhu, but sadly none of them have even attempted to move beyond the bullet point model of references. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point exactly (though more kindly worded). As is, these pop-culture references contribute nothing of value to this article and are thus best suited elsewhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a point of interest to this discussion, the editors of Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture are working on inclusion criteria for the article which I believe looks good.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for reasons you'll find me going into at the top of the enclosing section. Using the notability guideline to evaluate this section's content is a misapplication of the guideline; notability is not a content guideline. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. so I will amend the argument that there is no inclusion guidelines for the popular culture section of this article and the entire thing violates WP:WEIGHT, while there are inclusion guidelines for the other article and those editors specifically look at WEIGHT in their process.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no formalized inclusion rules, but there certainly are informal ones; there are a number of editors who watch this article and revert poor additions to the IPC section. One rule I enforce is that if you cannot write at least one complete sentence about the entry, then it is too trivial to be included. (If nothing else, this helps keep the section in prose form rather than devolving into a pure laundry list.) Others apply various standards of triviality, and having an actual citation provided always helps. I would be perfectly happy to apply the same inclusion criteria as L-Zwei proposed over at the Mythos article. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me reiterate a point from previous discussion above: what I think the IPC section most needs is sourced framing material that discusses Cthulhu's pop culture influence as such, as opposed to asking the reader to infer this pervasive influence from a number of individual instances. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But that is not what we have. What you are proposing would be a wholescale deletion of what we have and a fundamental refocus/rewrite, which I am not opposed to. What we have is a list of sources, which while written in prose form is formated as a list with no connection between one entry to the other.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also lets point out that your inclusion rules have allowed in the music section one song which is completely instrumental and spells Cthulhu differently, two more that don't mention Cthulhu at all but rather belongs in the mythos page, another that only has Cthulhu in the title and deals with a bad relationship...by my rough count only Matalica has actually gained any familiarity with Lovecraft and the others use Cthulhu as synonymous with either Apocalypse or doom with little to no reference to "Cthulhu the being as created by lovecraft" itself (it gets worse when we start tackling the other sections). this section has literally degraded into cataloging every time someone of note says the word Cthulhu.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between novae and supernovae didn't come into vogue even among astronomers until the 1930's, so it is anachronistic (and probably OR) to apply the term to something written by Lovecraft. Even using "novae" might be OR given the wording of the passage in Lovecraft as well. Ekwos (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed. The phrasing is kinda fascinating. I wonder what these "temporary stars" were understood to be at the time. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} In Popular Culture / Music

An early pop music reference to Cthulhu is "C'thlu Thlu" on 1973 album "For Girls Who Grow Plump In The Night" by british band Caravan.

86.156.102.30 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable reference to support this? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you have provided a source, feel free to re-add the template and an editor will adjust as necessary. elektrikSHOOS 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Cthulhu can be found in the nintendo DS games Scribblenaughts and Super Scribblenaughts

Winglessbuzzard (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's already in the article: "Cthulhu can be summoned in the Nintendo DS game Super Scribblenauts as a humorous element." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done