Jump to content

Talk:List of cult films/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Orphaned references in List of cult films

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of cult films's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN":

  • From The Nightmare Before Christmas: Scott Collura (2006-10-20). "The Nightmare Before Christmas 3-D: 13 Years and Three Dimensions Later". IGN. Retrieved 2008-09-27.
  • From (500) Days of Summer: Goldman, Eric. "(500) Days of Summer Blu-ray Review. A wonderful, fresh take on the romantic comedy gets the HD treatment". IGN. News Corporation. Retrieved 2010-01-08.
  • From Highlander (film): IGN Staff (June 16, 2000). "Highlander: Director's Cut DVD Review". IGN Movies. IGN Entertainment. Retrieved 2010-09-03.
  • From The Boondock Saints: "Interview: Troy Duffy". IGN. Retrieved 2006-12-02.
  • From Fright Night (2011 film): "Fright Night Scared Up on BD, DVD". IGN. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  • From V for Vendetta (film): Goldstein, Hilary (March 17, 2006). "V for Vendetta: Comic vs. Film". IGN.com. Retrieved January 13, 2007.
  • From Hot Fuzz: Kolan, Patrick (13 March 2007). "Interview With Edgar Wright". IGN. Retrieved March 23, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Megamind

Megamind does not qualify as a cult film.

  1. It was a box-office hit. A factor typically uncharacteristic of a cult film.
  2. It was positively received by critics. A factor also not common of a cult film.
  3. The film is too new to have substantially gathered a cult following. Granted there are some cases of films acquiring a cult following shortly after its release. (e.g. Snakes on a Plane, Repo! The Genetic Opera, Clerks) but that very rarely happens.
  4. Although I'm certain it has a quotable "obsessive" fan base, the Star Wars film series, the Harry Potter series, and the Lord of the Rings films do, too. But, because they matched the characteristics of the first two things listed on this thing, they do not qualify as a cult film. Megamind is the same way.
  5. Granted, the film contains what is deemed "eccentric, goofy, bizarre" material. The definitive humor of the film though is extremely tame comparatively to what more renowned cult films have. Films, such as: Liquid Sky, Pink Flamingos, or Birdemic.

Altogether, given these factors. Megamind does not qualify as a cult film. If you insist that it is a cult film, please feel free to submit it on the list, under one condition though. With the submission, you must include a legitimate cite reference verifying that "Megamind" indeed does have a cult status. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L99perk (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Better references

I hope people don't find my edits too contentious, but I removed a few movies from the list:

In the case of RB7, it went to a blog entry. In the case of LAH, it was user submitted content. And, finally, in the case of Creepshow, it was an unrelated article. I spent some time trying to find better sources for these movies, but I found nothing usable.

I further replaced a bunch of references that went to random web sites, most of which looked like they were self published. I wouldn't have a problem if someone removed the "unreliable sources" template now, but there are still a few somewhat questionable references left. I think I got rid of all the outright blogs, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More information?

Looking over the featured lists, it seems as though they usually include a lot more information than is available here. For example, we could convert the alphabetized lists into tables, including director and year of release. There's probably around 300 films listed here now, so it might end up being a bit of a major overhaul. Plus, it will inflate the page size dramatically. If we do this, we might want to split it into A-M and N-Z. We could also slim down the list a bit, by removing some less notable films. At the same time, there are still a few movies listed by the A.V. Club's New Cult Canon that I've been meaning to add. Maybe we should just use the A.V. Club as a reference, rather than the individual entries? For example, we'd use this:

<ref name=newcult>{{cite web|last=Tobias|first=Scott|title=The New Cult Canon|url=http://www.avclub.com/features/the-new-cult-canon/|work=AV Club|accessdate=3 May 2013}}</ref>

This would cut back on duplication of references to the AV Club, as well as reduce the size of the page. On the other hand, it might be really ugly having dozens of references going to single refname. We'd probably run through the entire alphabet two or three times over. (a-z, A-Z, aa-zz, and AA-ZZ). Is this stylistically acceptable? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed the following films:

I also replaced a few sources with better ones. I think we might want to consider whether this article needs an edit notice warning people that a citation to a reliable source is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

What is cult?

Fully half the films on this page aren't 'cult' films at all. Someone doesn't know the meaning of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldangel1 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We have to go by what reliable sources say. Subjective categorizations, such as genre, are generally handled by quoting professionals. Relying on our own opinions would be original research, which is not allowed. If you check out Cult film, you'll see that there has been substantial debate over whether films like Dirty Dancing or Star Wars qualify as cult films, and compelling arguments have been made on both sides. There have also been compelling arguments made that cult films stopped being made sometime in the 1970s, and everything since then is simply marketing. Regardless, we have to follow what reliable sources say, and if they label Dirty Dancing or Star Wars a cult film, then they're cult films. I've thought trying to tighten the inclusion criteria, but this is a pretty quiet talk page. If you have any suggestions, you're welcome to make them here. One possibility is that we could require some discussion on exactly what makes the film cult, rather than just looking for simple assertions of cult status. This would demonstrate what criteria the author uses and be educational in helping readers identify other cult films. Many of the citations currently only link to a Variety or Entertainment Weekly article that casually mentions a film as being cult. If you're looking to remove anything that doesn't agree with your own personal definition, you'll have trouble with that. There are many definitions for the term, and it's not our place to play favorites on which definition is the correct one. Everything on Wikipedia must adhere to the policies of verifiability, no original research, and maintaining a neutral point of view. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Too many questionable entries from questionable sources

I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the number of big-budget, mainstream blockbusters that are being added to this list based on an offhand comment from a source of questionable reliability. I think we might need to tighten the inclusion criteria. One possibility that I raised earlier was that the source should have to note why the film has a cult following. I've been putting it off for a while now, but I'll eventually go through the list and remove the most unreliable sources. I reverted a few obvious ones, such as citations to TV Tropes and other open wikis, but I need to look into whether a few of these others are reliable or not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

See Cult film#cult blockbuster for a discussion of this phenomenon. I promise it's concise and won't take too long to read, unlike the rest of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The validity of a source is the same as with any other article, and user-published blogs are obviously not acceptable in this regard (I have just removed one). Are there any sources inparticular you have in mind? I think we have to bear in mind that declaring the "cult status" of a film is a form of analysis, not a provable fact, so reliability stems from the credibility of the person/publication making the claim. There is a wealth of academic literature on the subject so I would be wary of including films that appear in low-rent sources but not in more serious treatments of the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The A.V. Club did a well-received series on modern cult films that was based on an expansion of the work done by Danny Peary in Cult Movies. This list draws extensively from that, and also from a few high-profile sources that I used to write Cult film. However, the sourcing here is much, much weaker than that article, and it's degenerating to the point where we're extensively quoting unpaid bloggers at obscure websites. I seriously doubt sites like Entertainment Fuse and CultFix are reliable sources, and someone (I guess that means me) needs to go through the list and remove them all. Even if they somehow do squeak by an incredibly liberal interpretation of WP:RS, I still don't think their opinions should be given any weight; like you say, there is ample sourcing available on this topic, and I don't think there's any need to resort to citing unpaid bloggers, even if there is an "editor-in-chief" listed somewhere on the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it didn't take as long as I thought it would. But I still think that we need to establish some kind of consensus that these random, obscure websites are undue, as they are an extreme minority in the established academic work that is fairly well represented in the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have this book and this book in my house, albeit the latter with the Uma Thurman Pulp Fiction cover. Not sure how they hold up for academic purposes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Philip French is a highly respected film critic in the UK, so I would certainly regard his book as a top drawer source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever he says goes, I would think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Table format

I'm not so sure I like this change any more. The article looks atrocious in this half-list, half-table format, and too many unreliable sources are being added while the article languishes in this state. I really think it should just be reverted back to the list format, and new entries should be discussed here before they're re-added. Pink Bubblegum Elephant Harvester (talk · contribs), please discuss your edits here. I'm really not thinking that they're helping the article. If you want to work on a version of the article in your sandbox, you can take your time to convert it into a table. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to ask why is part of these listings in a table and the other part (some of which duplicates the table) in list format. Liz Read! Talk! 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: The table looks better, but it's incomplete. The page started off as a list and was half-converted into a table. I could finish it off, but it would take a significant amount of work. I guess I'll look at it later today and see if I can maybe fix it. It doesn't look like Pink Bubblegum is going to finish the job, and I'm tired of looking at this broken page. I used to be pretty proud of my work on this page, but it's a complete mess now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, my concern is that it looks like this article has been deleted in the past and with the confusion between what's on a list and what's on the table, this might make it prone to being nominated for AFD again. This would be a shame because I think it's an interesting and entertaining page. I think a lot of deletion in the list portion is called for but the definition of "cult" is so fuzzy, editors get confused on what should or should not be included. For example, I don't see how The Sound of Music could be a cult film...it has a following of fans, there are special screenings of the movie but it was a popular, Oscar-winning, blockbuster and I think that disallows a film from being a cult film. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I would be sad to see it go, partly because this article is what keeps cult film from becoming a cluttered mess. I don't think there's too much risk, though. As a standalone list based on reliable sources, the article satisfies WP:LSC. I agree that there have been too many problematic and questionable additions made to the list, which I raised in a previous discussion above. However, as I mentioned there, there is significant academic support for the concept of the "cult blockbuster", a mainstream, big-budget film that develops a cult following. This would include Star Wars, The Sound of Music, Casablanca, and Pretty Woman. These are not really what I personally would call cult films, but, like I said, there's significant academic support. So, there are going to be some films that don't fit the traditional definition, but I think we need to make sure that they're supported by high quality sources. Otherwise, we have contentious claims that are sourced to minority viewpoints – undue emphasis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it's a question between my opinion and reliable academic sources, you go with the sources! I had the list, but not the main article on my Watchlist so I'll go now and read the article. I'd be willing to help out with the editing in a while but I'm working on a clean-up project right now that is keeping me busy today. 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think you should read the main article. It's probably the best article I'll ever write on Wikipedia. If you're into postmodernism and sociology, you'll love it. If you're not, then your eyes will probably start to glaze over by the third paragraph, unfortunately. I'm not quite sure how to fix that, except that maybe it's just not going to interest some people. As for this article, I think it may be halfway converted into a table, so it hopefully won't be too tedious to finish up. About a month or two ago, I removed all the entries from the list that were in the table, but someone added them back. If that edit is reverted, it might make this easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it took about four hours, but it's done. I converted the entire article into table format. It was taking too long to fill out the extra data in the table, so I stopped doing that after "B". Someone else can do that, or maybe I'll do it later. Talk about tedious work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of cult films

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of cult films's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Best":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed it, as this is from an interview. We need a secondary source, not a statement from the director himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 30 external links on List of cult films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of cult films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A few films that should be added, but reliable sources are hard to find

There are a few newer films that are either already largely recognized as cult classics or are beginning to develop a cult following. However, it is hard to find reliable sources for some of these films:

TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Memento, as well is not on this list, and that's from 2001 71.77.65.85 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about Fargo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.210.212 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Austin Chronicle, Metro Silicon Valley, and The A.V. Club are very good sources to locate citations for cult films. For genre/exploitation films, Fangoria, Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting, and Twitch Film are your best bet. For independent films, Indiewire. For science fiction films, SFX. I disagree about almost all of these additions, but I'll see what I can find. If we enforced any inclusion criteria at all, Fargo would be forbidden. It's a financial and critical success, and many (including me) consider it one of the best films of the 1990s; that's a classic, not a cult classic. I don't think we should be adding so many mainstream blockbusters to this list, but reliable sources apparently disagree with me. One idea that I had earlier, which attracted no responses, was to require that the source explain why it's a cult film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How about Teen Wolf...Joe Dirt.. Young Guns..... Uncle Buck Coryjay79 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

How about these? https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-100-best-animated-movies-cult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.190.160 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Article split

I've just stumbled across this article and see that it's huge (524k in size, 1,600+ refs). Per WP:SIZE, I think this should be split out, similar to other film lists (crime films, comedy films), etc. If there are no objections, I'll do this in a few weeks. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I gave up on this article and took it off my watchlist a while ago. Part of the reason why it's so huge is because it was severely bloated, not only with poor examples but also a huge number of unreliable sources. It's turned into a mostly-useless example farm. But, still, splitting it into separate articles would be better than leaving it like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't object to the split but I question whether there are enough cult films for decade lists. How about a List of cult films of the twentieth century and a List of cult films of the twenty-first century? If it needs more refining than that then it could be done at a later date. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it might be a dumping ground, rather than being a half-decent list. Looking at the titles and years, a quick dump of the data into Excel gives the following splits:
  1. Upto 1939 - 47
  2. 1940s - 47
  3. 1950s - 120
  4. 1960s - 218
  5. 1970s - 355
  6. 1980s - 394
  7. 1990s - 320
  8. 2000s - 226
  9. 2010s - 47

I'd maybe combine the first three and then continue with the decade splits. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Major edit ongoing

Over the next few days, I plan to substantially revise this article to remove unsourced and un-reliably sourced content as well as excessive references. Please bear with me as the article undergoes some changes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have also noticed several films on this list, such as Citizen Kane and Taxi Driver, which are clearly not cult films because of their significance both culturally and film-wise. I have removed these films as well. If you find overwhelming evidence to consider them cult films, please feel free to re-add them, but I personally would dispute such sources/labeling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2

Wouldn't both of those films count as cult films? Especially since johnny 5 becoming iconic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.220.210 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cult films. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This list is useless

As of today, it seems like the criteria for adding a film here is:

- Flopped when released and later was a success? Ok, it makes sense.

- Flopped when released and some folks like it? Welcome here, I guess (even if "some" is a very broad term).

- Is part of a franchise? Well, that means people like it, doesn't it?

- Was a success when released? Of course, it was successful, so probably it has some following.

- Was a mainstream movie that flopped and nobody cares about it except for the odd critic? Hey, he wrote "cult", so why not.

I'd say almost every movie in wikipedia could be added on that basis, so let's be realistic and narrow it down or change it into a category.

83.213.42.203 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Some considerations about the possible deletion of "List of cult films"

Hello,

I'm going to argue that it would be a great loss if this page got deleted.

When people talk, they do recognize the meaning "cult movies", so if a book of knowledge, which Wikipedia is, deleted this entry, it would be a loss in terms of understanding culture and reality. It is clear that the mere definition of "a cult movie" is a challenge. But having a list of "cult movies" is already a step ahead which can be followed by various kinds of elaborations, including that of the definition of "a cult movie". Deleting the "list of cult movies" would be erasing the first step (say, "the base camp") by which approaching the phenomenon would become even more difficult than if there were no such list yet.

This article might help us understand a lot about culture, and can serve as a core upon which other articles can be built. We can get to understand, for example, that "cult movies" are specific of a culture (like North American, European, Indian, Chinese, to mention but a few of the possible scopes), and of an age or period, too.

Deleting this article would be a destruction of something in the making. Instead of deleting this article, improving it -- which could involve a complete re-thinking, if necessary -- would be a way wiser thing to to. Although this was my first time to visit this article, I was shocked to see the notice at the page header that it is being considered for deletion.

Jepe-BP1 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jepe-BP1, you can add this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination). But please remember that one's argument must be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not simply a general premise. If you have any questions about commenting at the AfD, please let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you, I will (post it there and as you about WIKIpedia policies & GL) Jepe-BP1 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As a reference work

Further to my previous post, if a person is trying to identify a cult film they don't remember very well, a sloppy list that leans to the inclusive side is probably going to serve best, so long as the list can be arranged by different criteria (a sortable genre column would also help; and a movie should be able to list several genres).

I regard this page as a definitional resource, but as a portal for people to locate film pages they wish to view (that they might not otherwise be able to find). — MaxEnt 00:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Other split criteria

I do not think that splitting the list into the starting letter is a good idea. I think it might be much more reasonable to split it by either decade or maybe even starting letter of the director's name, e.g. people might be interested in cult films from the 80s or cult films by a director they like. At the moment, to acquire these films, they had to go through 26 lists, which sucks pretty much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.234.71 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sequenced by date

For my purpose just now, I needed the list sequenced by year, even if still in parts. — MaxEnt 00:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

yes agreed JCJC777 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ability to sort and re-order

I think on other pages like this one can click at top of column and reorder, i.e. by date.

next step would be to divide sources into 'definitive' (named as cult by a top critic) and other. JCJC777 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The ghost of the box office bombs lists?

@Betty Logan, Barkeep49, and Thewolfchild: Does this remind you of those long lists of box office bombs that we eventually decided were better off being deleted than fixing? I looked at the Wikipedia articles of some of these entries and none of them describe the film as being a cult film, but it did survive an AfD last year. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well the series of Box Office Bombs lists had lots of other problems not just their size. I think the criteria for inclusion, one source (and maybe not even a high quality source) is way too low. Personally I am less bothered by the size than some but this list likely has too many entries just given the super low inclusion standard currently set. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the WP:TNT approach might be appropriate here as it was there. If we were to establish serious inclusion criteria, we would probably be removing most of the entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
AfD is not the same as TNT. AfD means there would be no List of cult films article on Wikipedia at all. Entirely deleted. Since most people believe we should have an article on this topic. If you want to tighten the standards of the list that is easy, set the standard and delete everything that doesn't meet it. The very first cite (7 Faces of Dr. Lao) is to a self-published book (Lulu) which should be immediately deleted. The ones to journalist articles might require multiple sources. The ones to books might require at least two sources. Etc.. up the requirements. Then maintain it over time as well. I've done this in other list articles, it takes someone to adopt it as a project. -- GreenC 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I made my AfD very clear that this would be based on TNT. Many articles are recreated after being deleted, including this very article! I felt this was a very similar to case to a successful AfD that I proposed. I did consider deleting entries as they appeared to be non-notable, but I quickly found this would mean removing most of the entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria and other matters

@Skirts89, Andrew Davidson, Gonnym, GreenC, Dream Focus, Erik, Pigsonthewing, Clarityfiend, and Garlicolive: notifying participants from the AfD, my apologies if you're not sufficiently interested. There is broad agreement that there needs to be stronger inclusion criteria, and we should have that discussion, but I think for now we can exclude such sources like blogs and those with close interests to the film. I think we can also exclude non-rigorous newspaper articles that aren't discussing the cult status of the film. To make this as easy and quick as possible, as many people as possible should be removing entries and people can challenge those removals as we go along. Then at any time we can split the article again, probably by decade. This is even messier given that this was split alphabetically between March and September last year, and the splits still exist without being updated as this article has. Thanks all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove any entries without first doing a brief search for reliable sources. I see nothing wrong with the length of the article, it loads fine for me. Does anyone have problems with its size? If you need to split it then of course do it by year, it would make no sense to do it alphabetically. Can anyone search college textbooks for film classes for the word "cult film" or "cult following" or just the word "cult" I suppose? And how much coverage do you think a newspaper article would have about "the cult status of a film?" They mention it has a cult following, that's all you need. Dream Focus 02:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
They may refer to the film as a cult without intending to be an authority on what is a cult film. Even if the source is trustworthy, they may not be the type of source we would use to judge what is a cult film. As for the size, we have guidelines like WP:SPLITLIST and WP:ARTICLESIZE, this is a nightmare for mobile devices, there's about two thousand entries all in one table which is just not simple to read, and it was the third largest article on Wikipedia until someone decided to restore the split from March last year in the last few minutes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with the purge. I honestly believe that going at it like this is going to take much longer. For what it's worth, a lot of RS use "cult" in the same manner that they use "viral" which basically means nothing. I'd say a film needs to be mentioned in books about cult following OR have a very large amount of RS referring to it as such, for it to be included here. I'm pretty sure that after a real validation of the article, it won't need to be split. So many films here are really not cult films. --Gonnym (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of us, I say we all chip in and remove entries we don't think belong there. Are you inclined to remove everything sourced by a website? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We now have parallel discussions, here and on the AfD page. I'm not finding that helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion should be done here I believe, probably creating a new "title" with the link of the Talkpage in the Afd page is the right thing to do. Garlicolive (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One simple way of filtering the possibilities is to require two sources rather than one. This is the protocol at the list of unusual deaths, for example. Another possibilitity would be to require appearance in one or more external lists or compliations of cult films, such as the book Cult Midnight Movies: Discover the 37 Best Weird, Sleazy, Sexy, and Crazy Good Cinema Classics.
It is also good to look at particular cases. For example, I looked for omissions and immediately found that The Sound of Music was missing. I aded it to the S page of the alphabetic list. It bothered me that I had to put the director's name into the list rather than its big star – Robert Wise rather than Julie Andrews. I reckon that she is more of a cult figure than him but that's the point at which it becomes difficult to tell the difference between cult and star fandom. My next attempt was Avatar and it's interesting to find that, while numerous sources predicted that it would be a cult and there was a lot of hype about suicidal fans when it was released, sources now talk of "the film's failure to flourish as an object of cult fandom". But maybe the approaching wave of sequels will change that. What do we do with cases like that?
Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The Sound of Music and Avatar were cult films? That can't be right unless I've completely misunderstood what it means to be a cult film. Are you suggesting that we should remove entries that only have one reference? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, remove entries which only have one reference, unless that reference is a book. It takes absolutely nothing to write for a website these days and there are many uninformed writers who love throwing marketing words around - "cult" is one of those words. A book, on the other hand, takes money and a lot of time, so they tend to be much more reliable. As I've posted above, I'd also go even further and require only book citations. --Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be some form of agreed-upon standard of inclusion before so much work is put into this article. I don't recall a consensus being agreed upon which determines what a "cult film" is. It definitely isn't just the inclusion of the term in an article page, nor does an external source calling it a "cult film" make it one. I think developing a separate criteria is important. It's like obscenity - you know it when you see it. The Rocky Horror Picture Show or Repo Man would be a cult film, but Star Wars or The Lion King is not. Skirts89 17:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

True, the article got that long because the criteria was not well defined, some user suggested starting the article again with a better criteria, but it seems easier to rework this article, separating the movies by decade first (if this is the type of sorting chosen) and then deleting/better sourcing the movies (for example). I would be in favor of sorting by decade , but another user pointed out that the other article sorted alphabetically is already sorted, being less work, so it is up to debate. Garlicolive (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Our article Cult_film#Definition is actually quite good and authoritatively sourced. Nevertheless, the definitions are ambiguous and subjective. Was struck by this: "Over time, the definition has become more vague and inclusive as it drifts away from earlier, stricter views. Increasing use of the term by mainstream publications has resulted in controversy, as cinephiles argue that the term has become meaningless." If it is a meaningless term, any list will also be meaningless, and the criteria doesn't matter! So we can arbitrarily pick something with the goal of maintenance as priority. For example, multiple citations. That makes it easy to delete items (can be done with a script) and sets the bar a little higher for those wanting to add things. -- GreenC 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A script would be very welcome and would avoid a the problems that any particular method would have made. I've deleted the entries that only had one website reference from the 0-9 list, and this removed half the entries. We also have the problem of many books being self-published or written by someone connected to the film. The best script would remove all entries that had only one website reference and provided a list of what was removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon about a script, looking more closely as the wikisource it might be difficult to automate decisions. Still I think what you did with 0-9 is good. -- GreenC 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Skirts89 I agree. I suggest a two tier system. Category 1 sources (aka highest quality sources that focus on cult films) where the label would merit automatic inclusion (e.g. Cult Movies (book)). Category 2 sources (aka reliable sources) where it would take 2 (or more) citations calling it a cult movie to merit inclusion. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No list article on Wikipedia needs more than one reliable source confirming the information. You can't just mass delete 90% of the list because no one bothered to look for more than one. One is enough as long as its a reliable source. Dream Focus 01:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No list needs to be complete either. The problem isn't whether the source is reliable or not, although there are unreliable sources used in this article. The problem is whether the source is determining that the film is a cult film, or they have only mentioned this with no indication this was based on researched. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. A single use of the word in a single source is not sufficient evidence of cult film status in terms of a general broad consensus about something, which is what Wikipedia is about. As our article on cult films makes clear, the meaning of a cult film has become almost (or entirely) meaningless due to over-use of the term. It's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to list every film that someone, somewhere, happened to call "cult". We need a higher threshold that demonstrates wider consensus. -- GreenC 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cult_films/Archive_1&oldid=1073779831"