Jump to content


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

Mad Arab terrified[edit]

The bolded portion of this sentence was added a couple of years ago: "The character of the Mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred, found the mere idea of their existence on Earth terrifying as many characters from Lovecraft's stories do." I'm not that familiar with HPL's mythos, but it seems reasonably clear to me that the Mad Arab being terrified is significant considering his knowledge of terrible, elder things. Other characters being terrified of a monster is not worthy of mention. Plus the phrasing was very difficult to read! I decided to be bold and removed that portion of the sentence. (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This page was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shoggoth. Joyous 18:29, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Edit-locked from adding this vote, which I'll place here in case it illuminates anything...

  • Keep. CfD seems entirely filled with non sequiturs. Only conceivable reason for deletion would be notability, if the focus on genre items is deemed too great. (But this is by far from the 'worst' such example, and isn't the focus in any event self-defining by WP's users?) Alai 18:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Shoggoth.jpg[edit]

Image:Shoggoth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification and source is required here on almost everything - especially when dealing with a subject as nebulous as this: which books/authors/games/films/comics describe the material in Origin and History section? There is no point writing about a fictional entity as though factual and citing evidence only on the Talk page - every property that is described should be ascribed to a particular author and story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Could we have some clarification/proof that Shoggoths can reproduce via binary fission, as I would imagine that an immortal, self-reproducing creature such as a Shoggoth would quickly produce so many 'offspring' they would cover the planet !!

Also, since the first Elder Thing cities were made on land by Shoggoths [before the Elder Things later moved to underwater cities], they would not need to develop "an ability to survive on land" !!

Also, as there's nothing written about Shoggoths and an imitation of "Elder Things' society", can that be clarified. 11:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter two are correct. Lovecraft does write that they needed to develop/be adapted to survive on land. (Maybe they built the land cities with other creatures- they are described as using stone-lifting pterodactyls to build towers.) He also describes that they have replaced the art with a degraded copy of Elder Thing art. The fission I'm not sure about. 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still have my doubts about Shoggoths and being adapted for land, so I'll have to re-read some of the relevant material and then quote it.

As for the Elder Things Society, poorly imitating their art is not the same as copying their society - which would infer ideas, concepts, behaviour, tools, etc. (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the binary fission bit from At The Mountains of Madness, specifically this: "On land the great reptiles proved highly tractable; but the Shoggoths of the sea, reproducing by fission and acquiring a dangerous degree of accidental intelligence, presented for a time a formidable problem." CABAL (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a stretch that Shoggoths are the inspiration for black puddings in D&D or many of the other things mentioned in this section. What about the movie The Blog? Is there any evidence that the makers of the Blob were inspired by Lovecraft? Where is evidence of the connection? Are the creatures in these games actually called "shoggoths" or are people making inferences? If it is in fact that players are inferring that they are shoggoths, isn't that original research (and thus should be left out)? I have decided not to edit this and will leave it to you dedicated wiki editors to sort out. Anonymous Reader/Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean The Blob. I agree in one sense: did Lovecraft originate the amorphous monster idea, or were they in a tradition? Did they originate with the discovery of amoebas? JöG (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious article[edit]

A load of ripe fancruft! I love shoggoths but the article talks about the Cthulhu Mythos as if it's a coherent canon, or even real.

The "later appearances" list on this page is just a bunch of things that some user thinks resemble the shoggoth. In many cases there's little similarity, or it's just a very casual allusion that is hardly notable.

Does the shoggoth merit its own article? The creature essentially begins and ends in one book. The sources cited for the page (Joshi, Chaosium etc) are accurate, but they don't establish any notability for shoggoths beyond the notability of At The Mountains Of Madness itself.

I'm gonna clean up the fancruft and OR, but in the long term it might be better to relegate the article's contents to a section in the AtMoM article.

twl_corinthian (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by saying that the Cthulhu Mythos isn't real? It's real enough to have an article. I do agree that the later appearances section needs pruning.--Auric talk 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the Mythos is a group of fictional things. The article said stuff like "The Old Ones may have done such-and-such, or it may have been due to..." etc, which (presumably inadvertantly) implies that it's a matter of fact rather than fiction. For fictional events it's better to say "The Old Ones are described as X, or in some sources as Y" etc. twl_corinthian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is their calling notable? Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]