• So there are three things I'm wondering:

    1. I wanted to add some more options to the Infobox but to keep it clean meant breaking it up with headers. Do people reckon that clashes with the wikis current style and if so, should it be removed or added to other infoboxes.
    2. The Manual of Style specifies that each article should be introduced from a real world perspective but this is very rarely done in practice. I would argue that the In Mythos tag and similar top bars do the job without needing to alter the text however if that's not what we want then I'll do some trawling.
    3. Speaking of tags I would argue that Marvel's Many-Angled Ones and the connected pages should considered to be a part of the Adjacent Mythos rather than the Extended Mythos. Despite referencing things like the Necronomicon Marvel intentionally split certain stories off from the mythos by rebranding the Old Ones as the Many-Angled ones. In addition the Marvel wiki also seems to separate the Cthulhu Mythos from Marvel's characters etc. Again this doesn't apply to all Marvel comics.

    Anyhow I look forward to hearing your thoughts and if any of these need sorting I'll probably be able to go more than two days without having to bother the forums.

      Loading editor
    • The Many-Angled Ones were created by Grant Morrison and as far as I know most consider them to be part of the expanded Mythos, but I could be wrong.

      Yes, they retconned the Old Ones into Many-Angled Ones and vice versa. It's in one of Marvel's official sourcebooks (Marvel Fact Files) where its explicitly stated that the Old Ones and Many-angled Ones are the same.

      Isn't Shuma-Gorath a Many-angled One and isn't he part of the Mythos. If so doesn't that also make the other Many-angled  Ones the same? What about the Many-angled Ones of Zenith or the Laundry Files?

      If what you are saying is true about Marvel's Many-angled Ones, should we also move the Dark Giants of DC, Elder Gods of IDW, and Old Ones of Doctor Who? The same argument to varying degrees can be made about them.

      I am familiar with the Old Ones article in Marvel wiki. Right now the Old Ones and Many-angled Ones are the same but that can change in the future. Marvel can retcon them again and as you can see, the lore is not consistent and contradicts. Marvel is so vast, that it has the same problemWarhammer 40K has, this or that contradicts the other thing and sometimes it's not consistent. Anyways my opinion is that it should stay in the Expanded Mythos category.

        Loading editor
    • 1. I would suggesting making such an infobox on your sandbox (if you know how to do it) because i am not sure what precisely you want to do.

      2. That seems to be an inconsistency in the Manual of Style. This section dates from before I arrived. I put the inmythos template as depreciated. I want all pges to be written as in-narrative except when there is the real world template. I will do the change soon if I don't see an objection. I believe putting the inmythos header on most article was unnecessary and not very pretty either.

      3. I am not an expert so I can not honestly voice any opinion on it.

        Loading editor
    • Also, Mythos characters (e.g. Shub-Niggurath) are part of yhe lore of Earth-616 (Prime Reality), the mainstream universe. Starring in the Conan books, where they were called Old Ones (none were called Outer Gods). Marvel hasn't retconned them out nor have they retconned the Conan stories out of Earth-616. Therefore in Marvel they too would  be Many-angled Ones until Marvel states otherwise. 

        Loading editor
    • So responding in order, Ringo the Venusian page has a good example with the infobox being broken up into "Sociocultural Characteristics", "Physical Characteristics" and "General Information". As for the manual of style I agree with changing the wording but to be clear will the new system be to scrap the In mythos banner and only keep the real world one where needed?

      As for the canon debate Esparza I'd say that the inclusion of Shub-Niggurath in Earth-616's Conan stories is a pretty good example of why it's an adjacent work. Although they contain references to the Cthulhu Mythos the original Hyborian Tales are already considered adjacent by the current canon policy. As you say Marvel's full works can be very contradictory so we'd need to be careful but at the end of the day it's all about intent. The inclusion of the Old Ones in Marvel's comics was intended to expand Marvel's universes not the Cthulhu Mythos.

      As for the other properties you've mentioned I definitely think they should be looked at. For example I would argue that the Dark Giants fall into the same area of bringing an enormous catalogue of material into the extended canon solely because it mentions M'nagalah (which is itself an extended canon creature). In essence DC,

      Admittedly I am something of a purist but I don't want you to think I'm belittling these stories. I'm not saying they should be demoted in any way just that we have an existing category that I feel would suit them better.

        Loading editor
    • Ok. Where do we draw the line amd ho makes the determination. Pathfinder would fall into adjacent in your view then. What about Call of Cthulhu RPG? With its magic heavy lore, including Outer Gods & Great Old Ones using magic. Not to mention Call of Cthulhu bringing in vampires, werewolves, space vampires (Lifeforce), the Thing, H.G. Wells' Martians, kitsune, dragons, Yokai, etc.

        Loading editor
    • I suppose the real question is what is the difference between the Extended Mythos and the Adjacent Mythos. The way I see it the Extended Mythos is for works that seek to expand on the story cycle created by Lovecraft and his circle whereas whereas the Adjacent mythos is for things that Lovecraft borrowed from or for things that borrow things from Lovecraft's cycle to add to their own. 

      For example Ramsey Campbell's The Inhabitant of the Lake and Less Welcome Tenants was written to expand the original Mythos.

      Pathfinder (A game close to my heart) on the other hand borrows Cthulhu and the rest but its barely even a minor footnote in Pathfinder as a whole.

      As it stands the Expanded Mythos encompasses all of the huge properties we've talked about and is in danger of losing focus. Blade is here under the Expanded Mythos tag because he fights Vampires and the vampires were created by the Darkhold and the Darkhold was created by Cthon who was inspired by Cthulhu. That line can be stretched out to encompass not only the entirety of the Marvel canon but that of all the properties we've discussed so far. A line will have to be drawn.

      As for who draws it this is a community wiki so I imagine other people will join this conversation and with any luck we can find a reasonable solution.

      Edit: Having refreshed my memory Blade's possession by Cthon removes several steps but the vampires themselves (like Varnae) are still fairly out of the way and Cthon remains a stand-in for Cthulhu rather than an addition to his mythos.

        Loading editor
    • Varnae is tied to the history of the Darkhold, the source of the Necronomicon in the Marvel multiverse. It's true though that so many Marvel characters have appeared in stories in which Shuma-Gorath, Chthon, N'Garai, Slorioth, the Darkhold, etc have appeared that we are talking about at least 100 more pages. I just did a few Marvel characters, primary ones with their own Mythos stories and/or background.

        Loading editor
    • That being said, I'm fine with whatever the community decides on this issue. Moving those from DC, Marvel, Doctor Who, etc to the Adjacent Works or keeping them where they are. What I am hoping for is consistency. It's annoying when one puts in a lot of work, months later because of a new admin or a few loud voices, things abruptly change. Dozens or hundreds of pages get deleted, often with little to no notice. Alien Species Wiki did that recently. Originally they were going to give people time to export their pages elsewhere. When the vote was over, admin went through like a scythe within 24 hours.

        Loading editor
    • Absolutely, I hope I've made it clear that I'm not proposing that we delete these things. I realise that a lot of the pages concerned are your hard work and they are just as valid as the seemingly endless page for the Necronomicon itself. It's all Lovecraftian and it illustrates what how far the influence of the Mythos has spread through media for decades.

      That being the case what I want is a clear and consistent definition for each section to follow and I'd hope that rather than just having to be fine with it people feel that the decision made is the one that works best.

        Loading editor
    • On the case of the infobox, what i see on your page example is ok with me.

      I just want to say that i do not intend to delete these pages.

      I know that the disctinction between Expanded and Adjacent is difficult to define precisely, for Dr Who i know that characters were retconned as being Lovecraftian in the EU and some stories dealt with Lovecratian beings directly. Some of the auhtors even wrote straight Mythos Stories without Dr Who elements afterwards.

      I have no idea what Morrison's idea could be when he frist wrote Many Angled-Ones stories. I am not even sure what robert howard's intentions was with most of his Conan stories.

        Loading editor
    • On that topic I feel that those Dr Who writers are a good example. The stories they wrote for Doctor Who took Mythos and slotted them into the existing narrative of the Whoniverse. It didn't matter to them that it wouldn't mesh with the DC comics continuity (for example) and vice versa. At the same time their independent stories aren't tied to any other larger stories and so can be woven into the Expanded mythos without clashing. Essentially the Dr Who stories were published primarily for Dr Who not the Cthulhu Mythos and that being said they are part of an Adjacent story cycle.

      Admittedly the Call of Cthulhu RPG muddies the water here but from what little I've read, inclusions such as the Xenomorph are specified as not being part of the mythos.

        Loading editor
    • You all know my arguments about this, but the only problem with the pages discussed I have is that there’s nothing in them which specifically tells a reader how they are linked to the Mythos. I realise that it’s harder to do so with Adjacent pages, but every page should be identifiable as one relating to the Cthulhu Mythos after reading the first sentence or two, and that’s not something I see too often here. An example of this is the Auton page. It tells you everything you need to know about Autons, but it could be a page on many wikis.


      1) I’m not so good with infoboxes, so I’m unable to comments.

      2) I always introduce my articles from a real-world perspective.

      3) Yes. I agree, although Esparza is the one to make this point.

        Loading editor
    • I would propose the following as a first draft test for published Lovecraftian media:

      Does it contain characters, items, creatures etc taken from the mythos?

      If so was it published under Lovecraft's name during his lifetime?

      If not, was it intended to be published as part a separate story cycle?

      If not, was it published by August Derleth?

      If not, was it published by a member of the Lovecraft Circle?

      If not, it belongs under EXP.

        Loading editor
    • Trying your proposal with some difficult cases: (it probably could become a rule of thumb instead of a hard line one, in the worst case, i guess)

      • What would be your reasoning on how to classify the "King in Yellow" and other Hastur stories?
      • And Conan cycle of stories?

      In any case, i think we would need update the diagram in the canon page since i believe Ajacent and Influenced stories should overlap up to Lovecraft himself and not just the Expanded ones.

        Loading editor
    • What about the Army of Darkness comics, Evil Dead movies, and the Ash vs Evil Dead series? Though they have little in common with the Mythos (nothing of it appears in them), they all revolve around the Necronomicon?

        Loading editor
    • By the time you read this I'll have edited my post to take intention into account. As we've discussed nailing down intention is tricky but as the King in Yellow and other influences on Lovecraft were written before his career placing them solidly within its own cycle making it ADJ.

      When you read this I'll have also moved the ADJ section upwards to keep Conan and similar stories out of the Circle section. On a side note it seems to be common knowledge that the Conan stories were agreed to be kept separate but is there a source for that?

      The Evil Dead raises an interesting question. To be pedantic the Necronomicon Ex Mortis of Abdul Azeez is supposedly distinct from the Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred. In this example there's undeniably a reference but it's questionably direct. I'm unsure of the best way to word the question but if the Necronomicon Ex Mortis is indeed Lovecraft's then it's ADJ. If not it's Inspired.

      Of course nothing I write is set in stone I'm hoping that this sort of stress testing will make it more robust so thanks to both of you.

        Loading editor
    • What's difficult with the army of darkness franchise is that according to one some comics Abdul exists in this universe but according to the TV show it was written by Ruby (an original character).

      Thinking about it, I believ it would make sense to use both the Adjacent along with another category. Hastur was mentionned by Lovecraft himself so I think it would be weird not to have it in both for instance. The same logic would apply to Howard stories I'd imagine. Maybe it would be the same for Influenced in some case, like the HR Geiger artstyle or Dr Who?

      I'm no expert but I guess it would help with some comic characters.


        Loading editor
    • Not sure how that would work RingoRoadagain. So for example say Shuma-Gorath would be in both the Expanded (Hyborian Tales) and Adjacent (Marvel), but the Old Ones created by Marvel Comics, Paizo Inc, and DC Comics would be in the Adjacent? Likewise characters like Set (Modiphius' Conan RPG) and the Jabberwocky (Grimm Fairy Tales Comics) who have been turned into Old Ones would be in the Adjacent category?

        Loading editor
    • So I think it's fair to say that it's the stories rather than the characters that are classified by the Canon. It's far from uncommon for pages here to carry information from across the Greater Mythos. 

      Also the current definitions seem to be based on the work of Robert Price which I have not read but if anyone had a copy of his writing on the subject that would be really handy.

        Loading editor
    • @Esparaza, actually i would say yes to all your questions (but we don't need to implement it this way). I believe a debate can occur for each distinct case when some want to challenge the way a story or character is classified.

      @Tiberius, Sadly that was put there before my arrival so i am not sure which book it would actually be.

      Maybe Price touched upon it in an episode of his "Lovecraft Geek" podcast? (here)

      We do not necessarily Need to mimic his take but that could obviously be an interesting idea to work upon. I mostly expanded the phrasing of the Canon page via my own original research on own to refine it but I never touched the diagram itself and I would certainly not say that I am representative of the Lovecraft fan community at large.

      I agree that we could put the classification on the story articles themselves, complementing the "realworld" one, considering the use of the prefixes.

        Loading editor
    • So let me see if I get this straight. An entry for an Old One like Shuma-Gorath (Conan / Marvel) would be added to the following categories:

      Great Old Ones, Expanded Mythos

      But stories involving Shuma-Gorath belong to the Adjacent category as Marvel comic books starring the character are not within the Cthulhu Mythos.

      Same applies to Old Ones created for Doctor Who (e.g. Animus), Pathfinder, and so on. They go on the category for Great Old Ones and Expanded, but their stories belong in Adjacent.

      Stories that have Cthulhu, the Necronomicon, etc as the antagonist or center of the story but which take place outside the Cthulhu Mythos end up in Adjacent?

        Loading editor
    • By this weekend I will be adding to this wiki the Lovecraftian universe from Zenescope Entertainment's Grimm Fairy Tales: Wonderland. In which they reimaged the tales of Alice in Wonderland, putting a Lovecraftian spin (Lovecraft, Great Old Ones, R'lyeh).

      The stories of course would be in the Adjacent Category as it has been agreed upon. But what about the Jabberwocky which they reimagined as an Old One (the youngest of them all), would it be added to the following categories:

      1. Great Old Ones, Characters, Expanded


      2. Great Old Ones, Characters, Adjacent

      Another example would be the "Mirror to Wonderland" which is an eldritch object powered by Old One. Would it go to:

      1. Objects, Expanded


      2. Objects, Adjacent

        Loading editor
    • On this subject, I’ve recently removed a redlink to Alice in Wonderland. Does this mean that I should have let it be, as a retro reference point to the pages Esparza is adding? It would make sense, in a convoluted way.

      This is getting very complicated. I think I’ll just stick to Expanded universe pages.

        Loading editor
    • @TheSmoog78 - There's a number of fictional worlds which have incorporated parts of the Cthulhu Mythos. The Wonderland series by Zenescope is one of them, a spin-off of the Grimm Fariy Tales, with over 100 issues and a dozen comic book series and mini-series. This year another comic book company has started a Zorro comic book with the Cthulhu Mythos. That's not including various video games (e.g. Quake), Japanese animation series, and even Hentai.(e.g. Mystery of the Necronommicon).

        Loading editor
    • Hey, finger off the trigger. I was just saying that it might have been bad timing for me deleting that link, with you adding that specific part of Lovecraftia. My message wasn’t well worded, but it wasn’t supposed to be an attack. It just got me thinking about things, like when you add Zenescope, will that mean that Alice in Wonderland should be too, as an inspirational thing, and should I have left that link.

        Loading editor
    • That's cool. I wasn't taking it as an attack or anything like that. Just explaining that there is a lot out there that has incorporated elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. For example, I just learned about that Zorror comic last week. Haven't read it but it does have the Mythos. It's why I'm putting those questions to the admin and moderator, so I can know how to add any future pages that aren't in the Cthulhu Mythos itself but incorporate elements. Trying to be consistent here.

        Loading editor
    • It's a little late but I should stress before I go to bed, this is all the Cthulhu Mythos. Though it's quicker to call it the ADJ or the Adjacent Mythos but the full title is the Adjacent Cthulhu Mythos. These stories and characters aren't being degraded they're just being reclassified. 

      As for categories they're only relevant to what's in the article. The article for Shuma-Gorath contains references to CIRCLE: "The Curse of the Golden Skull" and EXP (or as I would still argue ADJ): "Marvel Premiere Vol 1 #5" which means it falls into both categories. However this connection does not apply to the stories themselves. The article for the Curse of the Golden Skull (if there were one) would likely only reference itself which means it only contains information written by a member of the Lovecraft Circle in line with the Mythos and so goes in that category.

      The tag HPL, EXP, etc only refers to where a story fits into the mythos, the categories tell you which tags an article uses. If the Jabberwocky article references an Expanded Mythos story then it goes in the Expanded Mythos Category, if it references an Adjacent Mythos story then it goes in the Adjacent Mythos category and if it references separate stories from the Expanded and Adjacent Mythoses then it goes into both categories.

        Loading editor
    • @Tiberius II - No problem. I'll simply continue doing what I have been doing. If you need to me to edit / fix the categories or the tag let me know. I know you are going through the wiki and correcting things, but no need for me to make any extra work for you. Just let me know, and I can fix anything I've added.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks mate, as the name of the thread suggests this was supposed to be something to keep me out of the way with licence to bumble around making minor edits. While I've genuinely enjoyed the conversation I don't want to take up any more of people's time so I'll try to wrap it up with this. If the canon test is ready to be added to the manual of style which tags would apply to the following:

      My vote for all three (and other similar works) would be ADJ but I won't change a thing without a consensus.

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine for those stories and those like them being moved to ADJ.

        Loading editor
    • About redlinks; frequently I hesitated to remove some of them due to basicaly everything being linked to the Mythos one way or another. (eg World War II, Nikola Tesla, Shakespeare's plays, or as pointed above Alice in Wonderland) Sadly, I don't think it is possible to create a wiki action on this matter.

      I don't think i could convey my thoguts clearly so here are examples:

      • From Doctor Who I would put the TV serials "The Web Planet" or The Curse of Fenric as Adjacent stories. (they originate as non Mythos stories). Thus having the ADJ prefix when mentionned in articles.
        • But I would put the novel "All Consuming Fire" as Expanded. Having EXP as prefix.
        • Consequently, I would suggest putting the Animus and Fenric as Adjacent AND Expanded both. Their pages would then have the two logo templates at the top. (and a redirect link to their mainstream Cthulhu mythos entiy equivalent obviously)
      • In the same vein, I would put most Conan stories as Adjacent but those mentions the Greta Old Ones or obviously Lovecraftian concept as part of the Circle Mythos. Thus, Conan himself would be Adjacent and Circle.
      • King in Yellow would use the ADJ prefix when mentionned in articles. But Hastur would have both the Adjacent and Lovecraft logos on its article page.
      • For comics, I would say the story arcs / issues written before a direct link with the Mythos should have an ADJ prefix, those written after the retcon should use the Expanded abbreviation. Characters that appeared/were mentioned only in the ADJ stories should only have the Adjacent logo, those that appear only after the retcon should have the expanded one and those that appeared in both should use both.

      I am undecided if we should make it possible to have Influenced alongside and Adjacent story or only have the Adjacent one once an explicit connection has been made. My gut feeling would be to use the latter.


      • i realise that we don't have an Influenced Prefix created, so i will create one ASAP. The Oxford Dictionnary uses "Infl." for both Influence and Influenced so I would vote to use INFL with a magenta colour.
      • I also am not a fan of using Red for ADJ since it's the same tone as red links, an unused tone would probably be better. (too dark would not go well with the dark display of this wiki)
        Loading editor
    • I agree that we need an INFL Mythos tag and magenta works for me. I'd lean towards orange for ADJ but again I second the need for a change.

      However with the Conan stories as an example I still feel that all the stories in a Cycle should carry the same prefix. The current canon definition of ADJ mythos stories can “include elements lifted in part or in total from the Mythos, but were not by their creators intended to be a part of the Cthulhu Mythos”. Otherwise those Conan stories are separated in the canon from their intended storylines. I would also reckon that the Marvel retcon (Calling them Many-Angled Ones) puts them further into ADJ than before.

        Loading editor
    • I made the prefix changes, I kept a tone of red only to stay consistent with the Canon diagram and the template picture we use for Adjacent stories/concepts.

      I am not the specialist about Howard but I believe that some of his Conan stories explicitely are part the Mythos. Am i mistaken?

        Loading editor
    • @RingoRoadagain. Good question. I have been holding off on adding more Conan stuff to this wiki as I am not sure if they belong or not. Can the Hyborian Tales be considered part of the Mythos (expanded or adjacent)? Or is it only certain specific stories that are part of the Mythos (expanded or adjacent)?

        Loading editor
    • That's why I was wondering about Price's research. Our canon page seems to be the only place I can find that splits the two but it's so detailed that it had to come from somewhere. As it stands we clearly need to improve the canon page but putting Conan in the Circle Mythos would be a big shift. Given it's size (big enough to have its own expansive wiki) I'd almost wonder if they deserve their own prefix but I'm also hesitant to start a path to everything having its own.

      Also on a side note on the Canon page each Circle author has a number of stories by their names that are included in the mythos but doesn't say which stories they are. I assume they come from Price but does anyone know what any of them would be?

        Loading editor
    • @Tiberius II - True, the Conan mythos has dozens of novels, over a 100 comics, and many characters / locations / objects, etc. I was planning on only adding a dozen or so important characters (such as Conan himself which I've already done) as in his primary companions and the main antagonists. In addition to 1-2 dozens races (e.g. Man-Serpents, Ape-Men, Winged Ones, Demon from the Outer Dark, etc), several Lovecraftian-like eldritch gods (like the newly created one in the new Conan series), a few story arcs involving those Lovecraftian-like beings, and several eldritch monsters. 

        Loading editor
    • I put the number of "canon" stories by author from an essay (not by Price) which did not expand on it. I can not find it sadly, but I have no doubt in my mind that it would not help us anyway.

      At the very least, I think everything written by one the Circle can be covered one way or another so Conan stories by Howard and their content would not get deleted.

      But as for the rest of this franchise, when it's not related to the Mythos, it would probably be best to put it on the Conan wiki instead?

        Loading editor
    • @RingoRoadagain. Sure.

        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.