Talk:Cult film

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Cult film has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
January 5, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
January 22, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 11, 2013	Peer review	Not reviewed
November 9, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 26, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Rex Reed#Offensive comments in reviews|comments about Korean culture]] The anchor (#Offensive comments in reviews) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[fantastique#Cinéma Fantastique|cinéma fantastique]] The anchor (#Cinéma Fantastique) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Lede

The lede is waaaaaaay too long. WP:LEDE: A lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an essay in itself. - Altenmann >talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's perfectly fine. That page says it should be "four well-composed paragraphs", which this is. The article passed a GA with that lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the paragraphs themselves could be pared down? I know this is an article of which you are proud, but don’t allow this pride to potentially cloud your judgement in this respect. Just my two cents Editmakerer (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The length is fine. MOS:LEAD says, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." For some topics, four paragraphs would be a lot, but considering that this is a type of film that has a long history, it's definitely suitable, like with any film genre article or article about the history of film in some country. Furthermore, MOS:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and considering the article's length (about 9,200 words), fitting an overview into four paragraphs involves a lot of summarizing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordiness

This article is very wordy imo, should be split a bit up. Habat1165 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prune it a bit eventually. I was probably a bit too thorough, but it's a broad topic, and – at the time of it was rewritten – it was still policy compliant. Things could have changed in the past 10 years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZERULE says when it's over 15K words, it should be divided or trimmed. Looks like it is around 9.7K words. So it could be trimmed to somewhere between 6K-8K words. And/or another possibility is to just split out the "Types" section, which is about 2.3K words, and leave behind a summary section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, splitting out the "types of cult films" section was something I had considered. It seems like it could potentially stand on its own. If someone did split the article, that's what I'd recommend they spin out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]