Talk:The Shadow over Innsmouth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Shadow over Innsmouth → The Shadow Over Innsmouth – Capitalization fix.

Based on my sources, "Over" in title should be capitalized. For example, see The Locus Index to Science Fiction and the definitive Arkham House version in The Dunwich Horror and Others (see Contents).
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zadok Allen

Zadok is killed by Dagon after he blabs about the town to Robert. I can confirm this by pulling out an old article about Lovecraft which has a synopsis of the story in it. I've added this to the article.65.255.130.104 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you should be able to confirm this by looking at the story itself? It's available online. john k 02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Allen is not killed in the story, sounds like an editorial extrapolation Chrismorey (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Zadok is named after a priest of Israel . . . in one of the Kings. 68.31.45.54 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Ascaris

the use of obscure OT characters' names as forenames was common in the 19th century US and Britain. I doubt there is any significance in the original Zadok's high status, and Allen is a drunken layabout Chrismorey (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Other appearances - Gilman

"The hotel owner in the game is named Gilman, an obvious reference to the stories protagonist. "

This seems like a mistake to me. In Lovecraft's story Gilman was, in fact, the name of the hotel owner (just like in the game, apparently), not of the protagonist.

Perhaps it was meant to read along the lines of "the hotel owner in the game is named Gilman, an obvious reference to the hotel which the story's protagonist stayed at." I believe it's actually called the Gilman Hotel. 75.108.205.201 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You believe correctly. --MwNNrules (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that "Gilman" might be a pun on gilled man by Lovecraft, you know, since the Deep Ones and people of Innsmouth are humanoids with gills. There's probably no way to cite it of course since Lovecraft never actually announced it to be pun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.214.52 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism and xenophobia

As much as I love this story, shouldn't Wiki discuss the racism and anti-immigrant xenophobia both in the story itself and that obvious inspired it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.21.167 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 February 2009‎ (UTC)

Don't get Lovecraft wrong. He hated everyone. Even his own life. 192.247.13.165 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A prequel?

I just wanted to ask if the "though the game takes place several years prior to the book and with a different protagonist, and could be considered a prequel" part about Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth should be removed? Since characters like Zadok Allen for example and most of the town get killed in the game, there is no way it could be considered as a prequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.48.250 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

---

The Shadow Over Innsmouth → The Shadow over Innsmouth – Wikipedia style conventions for capitalization, per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CT. JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCCAPS. Deor (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot find any sources whatsoever that lists the title with the lowercase "o", including especially the official site of Lovecraft. Conventions are all well and good, but in this case, it's inaccurate. Also, only two people supported the change, and it was still implemented? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To be moved does not require a quorate, nor a majority vote, only that correct policies are being applied. In controversial cases a re-listing for more opinions may occur but when it looks straightforward that is probably not needed. There is a process for reviewing moves - its focus is whether the administrator carried out the process correctly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I honestly spent less than a minute Googling this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=yQv0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&dq=the+shadow+over+innsmouth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B9-xUomDFOm0yAGvxoCADw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=the%20shadow%20over%20innsmouth&f=false . Conventions are all well and good and accurate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, then what needs to happen is a complete re-working of all Lovecraft-related articles and templates (including the media template) that include this, so as not to have countless re-directs, and title misspelling. So far, I see pretty much only Lovecraftian horror has been fixed. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Shadow over Innsmouth → The Shadow Over Innsmouth – Fix capitalization of title in line with MOS:CT. Published versions use inconsistent capitalization (e.g. here[1] vs. here[2] (see TOC), but MOS:CT is very specific that "Over" should be capitalized in the title - it is an adverb, not an article or preposition. -- KarlM (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a preposition. The shadow is over something, and the something it is over is Innsmouth. The object of the preposition is Innsmouth, and "over" is a preposition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah shit, you're right. It still doesn't change that it looks stupid and is inconsistent with the majority usage. KarlM (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CT. Deor (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There's something wrong with MOS:CT when we capitalise the U in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea but not the O in The Shadow over Innsmouth, contrary to popular usage. Perhaps it should say Prepositions containing only one syllable rather than Prepositions containing four letters or fewer... latest usage seems to be more logical than the well-established rule of thumb. Meantime plead WP:IAR and fix this title both as an improvement and as an example of what MOS:CT should say, although it doesn't. Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  "Under" has five letters; "over" has four. Changes based on the number of syllables (or even, as I've suggested, exhaustively listing the prepositions that WP capitalizes and doesn't capitalize) are fine, but under the current consensus, "over" is not capitalized, and since the popular usage is split, there should be no issue with following our house style. Since popular usage is split, WP:IAR here wouldn't improve the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  Disagree. Consensus can change. To appeal to existing guidelines as current consensus completely misunderstands (current) policy, and if we adopted that methodology, no policy or guideline would ever change. You have addressed neither my point nor that of KarlM. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  Disagree. The existing guidelines were discussed and consensus reached. Consensus can change, but not through trying to force through a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as was recently illustrated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  It is of course true that The existing guidelines were discussed and consensus reached (and also that "Under" has five letters; "over" has four), did that really need to be said? Please do not accuse me of trying to force through a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, whatever that may mean. Please also note that the policy to which the local consensus shortcut you provide links does not currently [3] use the term local consensus at all, and for good reasons.

  You seem to feel very strongly that my post above was not a good way to explore a possible exception and/or change to the guideline. Reasons? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, you should know that if one wants to change a guideline, one tries to gain a consensus for doing so on the talk page of the guideline (in this case MOS:TITLE or MOS:CAPS), not in an individual move discussion. A consensus for "Over" here would result only in undesirable inconsistency in the encyclopedia. Deor (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, although this is a very common misinterpretation, and probably even qualifies as a perennial proposal. Changing the guideline certainly requires a consensus on its talk page, and proposing a move purely in order to provide a discussion point would be disruptive, but once a discussion has been raised it's perfectly valid to ask, is this a valid exception to our current guideline? And that's what I'm doing here. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CT despite MOS:CT being random. Cannot see any reason why any prepositions should be capitalized, ever, but that is what MOS:CT says. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Majority usage

It's claimed above that the lower-case "O" in over is inconsistent with the majority usage. I think we need to examine the evidence for or against this. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not needed for the application of the Wikipedia style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And nobody is saying that it is. But, if our current title is inconsistent with the majority usage (I will add, in reliable sources) then that would of course violate WP:AT, and provide a case for ignoring (and then of course reviewing) the guideline. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Where to from here

As JHunterJ points out above, the current guideline is not to capitalise the "O". If this does turn out to be contrary to majority usage in this case, and if as a result we arrive at a rough consensus here that it would improve Wikipedia to capitalise the "O" (two big ifs), where should we go from here? Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow "majority usage" for capitalization. It follows a style guideline for its capitalization style. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, and a very, very important point, and relevant to many recent discussions. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But the consensus agrees, that's why we have a capitalization style at all instead of just saying "whatever the majority usage is". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that there was a consensus for the guideline. However, if in this case this guideline turns out to be in conflict to the policy at WP:AT, for which there was also a consensus, then that's a good reason to question whether the guideline should be applied.

And that's the trouble with these local consensus arguments. All consensus is local. What local consensus means in practice is a consensus that we want to disregard. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no conflict between using the common name and stylizing that common name according to Wikipedia style.

The trouble with most WP:IAR arguments is that in practice it means ignore rules not because ignoring them will make a better encyclopedia, but because I don't like the rules. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read through the arguments, I don't see WP:Article Title having much bearing on the discussion. This is purely about whether to follow the Manual of Style or not. And the reason for not following the style guide - which seems to be summed up as "other people use a capital 'O' " - does not seem to carry any much, if any, weight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But capitalisation is not just a matter of style. If it were, then we wouldn't allow natural disambiguation based on capitalisation alone. In English, capitalisation carries semantic information. That's why it falls under WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another very important point. Capitalisation is not just a matter of style, see below. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly a danger, yes. But WP:IAR, unlike local consensus, is policy, and represents a strong and well-established consensus. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be one general preposition guideline and one particular to book, film & music titles? It seems to me it's always those that create incongruencies. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be MOS:CT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"unlike local consensus"—no, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy too, and represents a strong and well-established consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure

I've brought together the material related to publication but I feel the structure of the article could use some more work. In particular, the lead is a mish-mash including a lengthy exposition of the plot, which partially duplicates the Plot section. I haven't the time to rationalize it just now, but if anyone agrees, they're welcome to do so.Chrismorey (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

found time to summarize the plot for the lead & do a bit more tidying Chrismorey (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Videogame references

The Fishing Hamlet in Bloodborne, developed by FromSoftware, is heavily inspired from Innsmouth descriptions as well as the loose plot outline that follows the similar turn of events. I ended up here because of the lore implications, I thought it would be worth mentioning under Adaptations. --49.224.205.49 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What Racism?

I am familiar with the story. There is only one human race in it: Caucasian, and there is only one fish-frog race in it. Although they can interbreed, they are different species. Perhaps there is Specyism, but no racism.

Some people find racism everywhere, and screech about it. This hinders people serious trying to fight racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.127.196 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Marsh's Genealogy

The 'family tree' of Captain Obed Marsh shows that he had 3 daughters by his first wife. As far as I can tell, 'Shadow over Innsmouth' only mentions one son, Onesiphorus, by his first wife and only one daughter (unnamed in the story but called 'Alice' in HPL's notes) by his second (Deep One) wife.

Did I miss something? If not, what is the source of these three daughters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaldackein (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

​I flagged the section for inline citations. If no references are forthcoming, then removing "3 daughters" from the chart might be in order. If the sources can be neatly summarised in the preamble above the chart, then that might be preferable to placing a ref in every node of the tree. —Ringbang (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Shadow over Innsmouth. 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/20080705164246/http://www.horrormasters.com/Text/a1047.pdf to http://www.horrormasters.com/Text/a1047.pdf

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) 12:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)