Talk:Necronomicon

Necronomicon
A specific fictional book title from a novel. No generic or attributive use given. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the Simpsons count? Kappa 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2002 Simpsons episode Brawl In The Family
 * and now Bob Dole will read from the Necronomicon.
 * I think the Simpsons counts, but what meaning does that use of the term convey? Anything beyond just mentioning the name? Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a rather iconic book pertaining to the black arts? The mere mention of which conjures up certain feelings and connotations. I'd say it's more than just a name. __meco 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point: it very well may be, but it sounds like you are looking for an encyclopedia article. If the mere mention of it conjures up anything at all other than the fictional book invented by Lovecraft, then the definition should reflect that with citations. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree because we're talking about a proper noun. Just because mention of the word Paris conjures up an imagery of bagettes, cafes, art, and fashion does not mean we shouldn't list it as "the capital city of France". Just because the word Versailles conjures up an image of grandeur does not mean that makes a good definition of the word (though that ought to be mentioned).  Proper nouns are specific objects and must be defined as such.  The Necronomicon is a specific book (albeit fictional) and should be defined as such.  The Usage Notes may express additional conntations as needed.  --EncycloPetey 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This cite is good . It shows a sense different from the current one where the word is used generically to denote something other than the fictional book itself, but presumably something sinister and mysterious. The definition should correspond to that sense (if it can be corroborated with other citations). Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The meaning being conveyed in the Simpsons is "an evil book". Kappa 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a connotation, though, not a definition. I don't see this as a separate definition, just a reference to the same arcane book invented by Lovecraft and referenced/mentioned by numerous other authors. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the book is fictional, it has no specific content associated with it. Its mention is intended to bring in an antiquity, weight, and horror that the name carries in connotation from other stories.  It turns up in stories by varied authors who usually mention it, possibly describing its cover or history, but never giving the contents.  It really ranks more as a word used to conjure up a sense of ancient evil and the supernatural rather than to identify a particular object.  If you do look at the Wikipedia article on the Necronomicon, you'll see that it's mentioned not only in works by Lovecraft, but also by Clark Ashton Smith, August Dereleth, Stephen King, and (humorously) in the bibliography of a book by Michael Crichton.  With reference in so many works, and an iconic "mystique" surrounding the book, it seems appropriate to give it an entry.  It even has an attributive use as the etymological origin of the Necrotelecomnicon (book of talking to the dead) used in the Discworld books of Terry Pratchett.  Other fictional works mentioned by Lovecraft (such as the Pnakotic Manuscripts) have not lived on in the imagination the same way as the Necronomicon has.  Given time, I could assemble an armada of quotations, but I think its widespread use speaks volumes. (sorry) --EncycloPetey 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of a fictional reference, it's not up to Humpty Dumpty, Pinocchio, or Quasimodo, all of which do not have entries and certainly deserve them far more. The search results showing it used as an adjective as necronomiconic, however, are impressive, though lacking the widespread use of narf (Tea_room), which is also being refused an entry.--Halliburton Shill 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep wide use in horror litrature.--Williamsayers79 20:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per use in Army of Darkness. bd2412 T 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has three cites (thanks, Kappa), but there doesn't seem to be consensus about exactly what kind of cites are needed for an entry of this type; therefore, I'm moving this to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * rfvpassed attributive use etc is a separate matter Cynewulf 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Necronomicon

 * Note: the below is copied from Requests for verification.

A specific fictional book title from a novel. No generic or attributive use given. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the Simpsons count? Kappa 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2002 Simpsons episode Brawl In The Family
 * and now Bob Dole will read from the Necronomicon.
 * I think the Simpsons counts, but what meaning does that use of the term convey? Anything beyond just mentioning the name? Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a rather iconic book pertaining to the black arts? The mere mention of which conjures up certain feelings and connotations. I'd say it's more than just a name. __meco 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point: it very well may be, but it sounds like you are looking for an encyclopedia article. If the mere mention of it conjures up anything at all other than the fictional book invented by Lovecraft, then the definition should reflect that with citations. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree because we're talking about a proper noun. Just because mention of the word Paris conjures up an imagery of bagettes, cafes, art, and fashion does not mean we shouldn't list it as "the capital city of France". Just because the word Versailles conjures up an image of grandeur does not mean that makes a good definition of the word (though that ought to be mentioned).  Proper nouns are specific objects and must be defined as such.  The Necronomicon is a specific book (albeit fictional) and should be defined as such.  The Usage Notes may express additional conntations as needed.  --EncycloPetey 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This cite is good . It shows a sense different from the current one where the word is used generically to denote something other than the fictional book itself, but presumably something sinister and mysterious. The definition should correspond to that sense (if it can be corroborated with other citations). Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The meaning being conveyed in the Simpsons is "an evil book". Kappa 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a connotation, though, not a definition. I don't see this as a separate definition, just a reference to the same arcane book invented by Lovecraft and referenced/mentioned by numerous other authors. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the book is fictional, it has no specific content associated with it. Its mention is intended to bring in an antiquity, weight, and horror that the name carries in connotation from other stories.  It turns up in stories by varied authors who usually mention it, possibly describing its cover or history, but never giving the contents.  It really ranks more as a word used to conjure up a sense of ancient evil and the supernatural rather than to identify a particular object.  If you do look at the Wikipedia article on the Necronomicon, you'll see that it's mentioned not only in works by Lovecraft, but also by Clark Ashton Smith, August Dereleth, Stephen King, and (humorously) in the bibliography of a book by Michael Crichton.  With reference in so many works, and an iconic "mystique" surrounding the book, it seems appropriate to give it an entry.  It even has an attributive use as the etymological origin of the Necrotelecomnicon (book of talking to the dead) used in the Discworld books of Terry Pratchett.  Other fictional works mentioned by Lovecraft (such as the Pnakotic Manuscripts) have not lived on in the imagination the same way as the Necronomicon has.  Given time, I could assemble an armada of quotations, but I think its widespread use speaks volumes. (sorry) --EncycloPetey 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of a fictional reference, it's not up to Humpty Dumpty, Pinocchio, or Quasimodo, all of which do not have entries and certainly deserve them far more. The search results showing it used as an adjective as necronomiconic, however, are impressive, though lacking the widespread use of narf (Tea_room), which is also being refused an entry.--Halliburton Shill 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep wide use in horror litrature.--Williamsayers79 20:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per use in Army of Darkness. bd2412 T 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has three cites (thanks, Kappa), but there doesn't seem to be consensus about exactly what kind of cites are needed for an entry of this type; therefore, I'm moving this to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the book is fictional is irrelevant. There are famous texts from antiquity (now lost) whose contents are the subject of speculation, but whose existence at some time in the past is certain.  The dividing line between such a book and the Necronomicon is very fuzzy.  There are plenty of fictional places, people, and things that we would accept as entries, so I fail to see why there is a problem with this one, especially since we have three votes to keep and three independent citations.  If I had access to a copy of the Stephen King short story Gramma (published in the Skeleton Crew collection), I could check for another citation there as I seem to recall one there. --EncycloPetey 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as per EncycloPetey. \Mike 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep --Williamsayers79 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, proper noun with no indication of attributive use. Of great encyclopedic interest, but does not seem to be used in language to refer to anything but itself.  It's used to set atmosphere, sure, but so are lots of other literary works (and fictional literary works) that we don't and shouldn't have entries for: The Great Gatsby, The Princess Bride, The Prince.  Do not see what distinguishes this from cases such as  below.  -- Visviva 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning and here's why:
 * (1) "No indication of attributive use" -- Please see the citations on the entry itself, which include an attributive use. I have expanded that citation for additional context.
 * (2) "Does not seem to be used in language to refer to anything but itself" -- you mean like Moon, Athens, Central Europe, Union Jack and other proper nouns. "Referring only to itself" is a general trait common to all proper nouns, and therefore not a reason to exclude an entry.  We're not likely to exclude all proper nouns from Wiktionary.
 * (3) "So are lots of other literary works...that we don't and shouldn't have entries for" -- but there are literary works for which we do and should have entries for, such as the Koran, I Ching, and Iliad. So that fact that there are some we don't have does not mean we shouldn't have this one.
 * (4) "Do not see what distinguishes this from Pigpen" -- Pigpen is a particular character featured in one person's works; we have no evidence yet of any appearance elsewhere. By contrast, the Necronomicon features or appears in a wide array of literary works, films, and television programs written by multiple authors spanning nearly a century.
 * --EncycloPetey 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is interesting... :-)
 * (1) Not to split hairs, but I would have called that a generic rather than attributive use, and one which suggests that an entry for the generic sense should be at necronomicon instead. However,
 * (1a) This inspired me to try "a Necronomicon" on Gbooks, which turns up an adequate number of uses of "Necronomicon" to describe something more general than Lovecraft's invention. So I will now agree with the consensus to keep -- although I still find this consensus rather puzzling in light of the pitched battles being fought over other invented nouns (brand names, fictional characters, et al.).
 * (2) We have a de facto convention for major place names, and I would argue that Union Jack is not really a proper noun in the usual sense (although it would probably merit inclusion anyway).
 * (3) Certainly the titles of some literary works merit inclusion. But most do not, regardless of the number of times they are mentioned offhandedly in other works.  For this line of thinking to make sense to me,  I need some indication of what standard the Necronomicon meets that The Great Gatsby does not.
 * (4) In both cases, the name is frequently followed by a contextualization -- at least that was the impression I got while searching for attributive/non-literal uses in both cases. For example:
 * " Dear Professor: We are in receipt of your letter of August 29th, requesting information on the availability of the Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred on interlibrary loan."
 * -- Lin Carter, The Xothic Legend Cycle
 * "Other elements of the Mythos—an entire library of mythical books of occult lore, chief among them the Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred; ..."
 * -- S.T. Joshi, Ramsey Campbell and Modern Horror Fiction
 * "I picture a scenario somewhat like Pigpen, from the Peanuts cartoon; when he takes a step, the dust falls around him in little gritty clouds.
 * -- Michele Morgan, A Magical Course in Tarot
 * " I scuttled to the basement for a smoke. I felt like Pigpen in a Charlie Brown cartoon—engulfed in a nasty cloud of odor."
 * -- Jean Flora Glick, Holy Smokes
 * In both cases it is possible to find cases where the term appears (or seems to appear) without explanation, but nonetheless the term seemed to be principally encyclopedic. I am now persuaded otherwise; "Necronomicon" is clearly used to refer to things other than its original encyclopedic referent. (I do think the entry should center on this broader "tome of dark knowledge" sense, rather than the original Lovecraftian use). -- Visviva 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (3) The Necronomicon appears as an object in fictional works through a genre of modern literature (horror); it is a mythical object like a modern Grail, Excalibur, Golden Fleece, or Pandora's box. While it does not have the status of age that these other mythical objects do, it does strongly affect the lives of people in the tales where it appears and thus carries a mythic quality as an object. The Great Gatsby has no such usage. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Necronomicon_Press, Wikinomicon Mutante 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Use in company or project names doesn't seem relevant here. -- Visviva 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete or re-RFV. Presumably, transcripts of the television shows can be found somewhere.  I personally am not willing to hunt them down.  My first objection to using them, is that they cannot be verified.  The exact spelling/capitalization can contain errors that aren't editorially reviewed, as the spoken voice won't convey that distinction.  For Wiktionary verification purposes, it would be much better to avoid such sources entirely.  While it is rational to presume that anything broadcast to the general public over public airwaves is implicitly released to the public domain, the US Copyright laws obviously don't agree.  I don't know of any television transcripts released before 1928 (is that still the copyright cutoff we use?) so any such texts will have copyright issues to overcome.  Unlike books, where the text is widely available, the TV transcripts normally are not available to the public.  Even when transcripts can be found, they usually do not originate from the authors.  More often, they are glommed from "Close Captioned" extracts and reposted without permission.  I do not see any reason to encourage the use of TV transcripts as citation material.  But I do see compelling reasons to avoid them.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Connel. Is your opinon predicated solely on the fact that TV citations are being used?  You aren't swayed by the fact that print citations also exist? --EncycloPetey 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had read the summary of why it was moved to RFD and misinterpreted that to mean that it was the TV citations in dispute. So, keep generic entry at necronomicon, delete Necronomicon.  --Connel MacKenzie 01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well cited, from books, and easily attributed. sewnmouthsecret 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept per the above support. Already cited (and ours is fair use). There may be arguments about the capitalization. I haven't looked into whether the entry would need to be moved or even split. DAVilla 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)