Talk:Fungi from Yuggoth

Image copyright problem with File:Dreams and fancies.jpg

The image File:Dreams and fancies.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good faith use since the image is on Wiki Commons and illustrates the fungus theme of this article. It is my understanding that fair use images should not appear there but on national versions. I suggest that adminstrators take it up with the original uploader. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fungi from Yuggoth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050718080221/http://www.themodernword.com:80/scriptorium/lovecraft.html to http://www.themodernword.com/SCRIPTorium/lovecraft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

vary his matter according to the artistic need of the moment

Perhaps this phrase was directly lifted from David Szolloskei in Creating Real Fiction: Analysis of the Lovecraftian Prose-Fiction, VDM Verlag 2008 (presently cite-ref 9) It seems to me overly flowery, and a bit pompous. What is called "artistic need," could just as well be a random whim, or just being entirely uncaring about consistency. I don't find the quote from Star Winds, "Yet for each dream these winds to us convey, A dozen more of ours they sweep away!" as compelling, or even just convincing, that Lovecraft was self-conscious of this particular dream-like quality of pieces when put together in the collection. It's a nice poetic idea, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary, so am leaving as is. But future contributors should be a little more careful. This part, and the article in general, seems determined to celebrate Lovecraft as a literary genius, and that's something we should be a little more neutral and objective about. If Lovecraft was purposefully, self-consciously creating an overall effect for "Fungi from Yoggoth", there needs to be better evidence presented. Cuvtixo (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Advertisements

@Sweetpool50: Why do we need to list every single recording that has been made over the course of the last eighty years? The vast majority of the listed recordings only cite primary sources. Honestly, the section only exists to advertise the bands and people in question. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The list is per WP:DISCOGRAPHY and its associated Manual of Style guidelines and certainly does not count as advertisement. It was an act of WP:VANDALISM to delete a section which included some secondary material. More could be provided if we can agree on how to introduce it. The point of the list is to demonstrate the wide range of musical responses to the sonnet sequence (or items from it) from synthesizer accompaniment to a reading, to rock settings, to art song. This width has been commented on in printed sources and mention should probably be included at the head of the section. Some of the commentators admit that a 'popular' writer such as Lovecraft is far from being of the same rank as academically recognised poets but that evidence of his influence has been an interesting phenomenon. It is to be hoped that Susmuffin does not share the prejudice of the previous 2019 comment above! Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You have not responded to my citations of policy. The section cites random recordings on YouTube, Bandcamp and Tumblr. Only the first item on the list has any chance of surviving here. If there are any reliable sources, cite them. Otherwise, the list should be removed. The mentioned project's style guide has no relevance here. It was not adopted by the project. Interestingly, its section on sources does not contradict our policies regarding reliable sources. Our policies state that Wikipedia should be primarily based on secondary sources. Furthermore, Lovecraft's rising literary reputation has little to do with what random musicians on the Internet have done with his most prominent poetic work. While this sonnet cycle has been repeatedly discussed by scholarly sources, these random recordings have not received any real coverage from reliable sources. Finally, accusing me of vandalism in this context is a personal attack. I would suggest that you remove it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I will make the changes discussed; there are more sources than you (or Jstor) have yet located. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)