Loading editor
  • I've noticed that you've been removing the "in mythos" category from a number of pages. Don't have a problem with that, but if you're doing that shouldn't sub-categories be created for the Adjacent Works section then. So that everything is consistent in the wiki. For example, the most recent edit you did was for "Midnight Sons". It is no longer in the "In Mythos" category, but still is in the "Adjacent" category. It is also an organization, and therefore in the organizations category (which currently includes both "In Mythos" and "Adjacent" organizations). The organization category says "In Mythos", not Adjaccent. The same applies to the "Great Old Ones", the "Outer Gods", the "Species", and so on. All of which have characters / races that are from either "In Mythos" or "Adjacent", due to the edits you made, both those categories all say "In Mythos". 

      Loading editor
    • View all 9 replies
    • Also, while you're about Esparza do you have any thoughts on the Use of Language/Perspective thing?

        Loading editor
    • We can create sub-categories such as ones for the Many-Angled Ones and one for the Dark Giants in the Great Old Ones. Didn't create them originally, because I've gotten used to making them only if there are a certain number of items in that category. Lots of wikis require, that there be a minimum number of pages in a category (e.g. Marvel Wiki and Heroes Wiki, each have the rule that you cannot create a category unless it's going to have 20 articles or more). Guess the idea is not to a mess of it with too many categories and sub-categories.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Nice to see you back,

    I noticed that you are putting parenthesis before a point or comma in article pages.


    executing their will on Earth and in Dreamland. (HPL: The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath)


    executing their will on Earth and in Dreamland (HPL: The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath).

    But much like references, it is custom in English wikis to use the former and I would prefer to be aligned with such wikis as some of FANDOM's staff directly participate and administrate them. For examples of this, you can check the doctor who or the star trek wikis.


      Loading editor
    • Well it's good to be back,

      Thanks for letting me know about this. I thought it looked a bit odd but if that's how it's supposed to be I'll bear it in mind.

        Loading editor
    • I updated the Manual of Styles to be clear on it now. I know it's not an obvious stylistic choice and I am not an expert but it appears to be the most frequent in English.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hello, I have an idea for the wiki but since there was not many contributors on the wiki I kept it for myself for a long time.

    Basically, I would like to adopt a prefix system like they on some wikis with volatile concepts of canon (e.g

    Thus instead of only trying to put pages on one of the mythos era categories we have (lovecraft, weird tales, lovecraft circle, derleth, adjacent and expanded mythos) we could mix statements by put something like they do on those site instead of the usual <ref>.

    e.g Cthulhu is a Great Old One (HPL: "The Call of Cthulhu") from the planet Xoth (EXP: "The Xothic Cycle")

    This way, a reader can more easily tell what would count or not for his headcanon.

    I think it could be workable since we don't have that much references tag in the current state of the wiki anyway and since it is still pretty barebones. (It would get more difficult the longer we wait).

    Do you have any thoughts about the matter ?

      Loading editor
    • Since I started on here I've considered the canon system to be fairly clunky so anything that makes it more effective would be a blessing. Even though I've never edited it I've spent a fair amount of time on the tardis wikia and did find the system to be very helpful. One minor thing is that it will probably break up the "real-world" perspective of the wiki more than the small numbered references do. When I send this I'll mock up the Friedrich von Junzt page as an example (It's pretty short, has varied sources and needs references anyway) to see what you think. Either way we need some clear canon marks and even though the Tardis model might need some altering it seems like a good place to start.

      Speaking of the Tardis wiki I was wondering if we could add their "Appearances" option for info boxes to go alongside "First appearances" ?

        Loading editor
    • Yes I guess we could add that. I avoided doing so since there must hundreds of published stories about them. But as they do on tardis wiki, I'll just create a list of appearance page when needed.

      Your handling of the von Jutzt page is what I had in mind.

      For the "canon" matter, I also believe that since some of Lovecraft and Smith's correspondances are generally considered canon, we should not make the distinction between stories and authors statements. (no need for a REF/DOC prefix I believe). Same with people writing occult books while believing Lovecraft stories are occult. Also the same with RPG scripts given their big influence on the fandom even though they have a fluid narrative.

      I think we'll refine the rules as we go, but I'm not too bothered by showing more clearly that the articles are about fiction.

      For now, I'll suggest this system as first draft (mostly based on the definition from the canon article):

      ADJ - Stories that inspired lovecraft without being part of the mythos. (Ld Dunsany, Machen, Poe and so on)

      HPL - Letters of Lovecraft and any Stories with his involvement (he rarely cared about stories being in continuity so not much of a point selecting what is in the mythos or not). But excluding posthumous collaborations.

      WT - Weird tales stories directly referenced by Lovecraft in his works. (I think the list on the canon page is exhaustive)

      CIRCLE - Stories by Lovecraft's known friends and correspondants which are connected to the mythos, even if long after his death (like wandrei and blish did). That's excluding Derleth's stories that HPL never knew about. For now, that's including posthumous collaborations

      AWD - August W Derleth stories he wrote or edited (as head of Arkham House) after HPL's death since they fit with his view of the mythos.

      EXP - Anything else in the mythos, including RPG scripts and occults writings like Kenneth Grant or the Church of the SubGenius.

      Things that only reference the mythos should go to cthulhu mythos in popular culture page.

      I also believe that we should only use professional or published writing to avoid random people writing a fan-fiction and putting their new concepts on the wiki to promote themselves. (the mythos are public domain so we can't rely on the legality of a story)

      so that took longer to write than expected. I would like your opinion on the system before implementing it into the wiki's manual of style at some point in the future.

        Loading editor
    • If ADJ also includes stories that were inspired by Lovecraft without being part of the mythos then I'm pretty sure those categories cover everything. A second small thing, if an article is entirely based on one story should the tag go at the end or is the "first appearance" section enough? Thirdly I really think that this system needs the appearance list to make their place in the wiki clear. Aside from that I think we can get started and as you say refine the rules and style as we go. For the moment I'll assume that ADJ does include, the first appearance is enough, there will be an appearance list and I'll start making changes to:

      'Umr At-Tawil

      to Green God

      If any of that changes it shouldn't be too much trouble to fix. Edit: If HPL is going to include any Stories with his involvement we'll have to make that clear on the canon page.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, I fixed the appearances list part of the infobox, I messed up doing it yesterday.

      I'd say to put a tag at the end even if there is only one appearance (I recon they do so on But it is not high priority.

      Let's assume so for adjacent works. (I have diffculty making a clear disctinction between adjacent and inspired works but we'll settle this at a later point)

      I'll work on the manual of style and canon pages.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hello, thank you for all your contributions.

    I just wanted to point out a small tip to you: if you put a mythos era template, like {{expandedmythos}}, then you don't need to add the respective category (e.g. "Articles including information from the Expanded Cthulhu Mythos") since these templates are conceived so that to add it automaticaly.

      Loading editor
    • Good to know, should save some time in the future. Completely unrelated but is it worth removing full character descriptions on story pages when they already have their own page. Using The Dreams in the Witch-House as an example it makes sense that a small character like Frank Elwood has all his info on the story page but given that Keziah Mason has her own page is it worth shortening her section on the story page?

        Loading editor
    • Many pages are still mostly copy-pasted from wikipedia and should be reworked so, yes, I do believe the more detailed info should go to their own page when they exist. Like you did with Curwen, IIRC.

      I would advise putting a {{main}} template to link to pages with more data on the subject. I did it for the sussex manuscript section on the Necronomicon page for example.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the tips and encouragement, no doubt I'll be bothering you with more questions soon but for the moment I'll get to work on some of those carbon copy pages. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.