![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I haven't the time to find sources, but I would expect that The Prophecy trilogy (also know as God's Secret Army) should belong on the list. An interested party could probably find sources and add them.
That's it. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy around long pages these days, but as a reader I feel strongly that the current alphabetic division is inadequate.
Aristotles ( talk) 18:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Altenmann, Reywas92, Dream Focus, Mushy Yank, Turtletennisfogwheat, StreetcarEnjoyer, Cunard, Zxcvbnm, Clarityfiend, Erik, and GreenC: As participants in the most recent AfD, consider this a formal invitation to figure out some kind of proper list criteria (I have for the record also left a message at User talk:35.139.154.158, as IPs cannot—as far as I'm aware—be pinged). As a starting point, I propose criteria analogous to those of list of military disasters: in order to be included, a film must have been designated a cult film by multiple reliable sources specifically dealing with the subject of cult films. Other suggestions are of course also welcome. What say you? TompaDompa ( talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is how the start of the current List of cult films: 0–9 ( Special:PermanentLink/1217603111) would fare if we applied the criteria discussed above:
Film | Year | Director | Source | In the film's article's body: Wikivoice statement about the existence of a cult following exists (y1/no) OR Source supports adding such content in own voice. (y2/no) |
In the film's article's lead: Any kind of mention of cult film status exists (y3/no) OR Mention of cult film status does not exist but body content would make it a due addition (y4/no) |
Criteria fulfilled, film included in the list (yes/no) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1: Nenokkadine | 2012 | Sukumar | https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/top-mahesh-babu-telegu-movie "9 Telugu movies that define superstar Mahesh Babu's career". | No | y3 (failed verification) | No |
10 to Midnight | 1983 | J. Lee Thompson | "10 to Midnight (1983) Review". 18 January 2019. | y1 (source not reliable) | y4 (conditioned on y1) | No |
100 Bloody Acres | 2012 | Cameron Cairnes, Colin Cairnes | https://indaily.com.au/arts-culture/film/2013/08/01/100-bloody-acres/ | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status) | No | No |
100 Tears | 2007 | Marcus Koch | https://web.archive.org/web/20170409234058/http://www.cultflicks.net/horror/100-tears-review.html | No | y3 (source not reliable) | No |
12 Monkeys | 1995 | Terry Gilliam | "The oral history of 12 Monkeys, Terry Gilliam's time travel masterpiece". | y2 (casual—and non-RS due to WP:RSHEADLINE—mention of supposed cult film status, can't support own-voice statement) | No | No |
The 13th Warrior | 1999 | John McTiernan | "MOVIE REVIEW: The 13th Warrior Review". | y2 (source not reliable) | No | No |
1990: I guerrieri del Bronx (1990: The Bronx Warriors) | 1982 | Enzo G. Castellari | "1990: The Bronx Warriors". the Vintagent. 10 September 2019. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status; thevintagent.com not a credible outlet for film reviews) | No | No |
1991: The Year Punk Broke | 1992 | Dave Markey | Cooper, Leonie (2017-07-31). "Nirvana, Sonic Youth and the cult grunge film that shook up the music industry". NME. Retrieved 2023-03-05. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status) | No | No |
2 Days in the Valley | 1996 | John Herzfeld | "Charlize Theron Recalls Her Film Debut in '2 Days in the Valley'". 10 July 2016. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status; wwd.com not a credible outlet for film reviews) | No | No |
@ TompaDompa: What do you think about this?— Alalch E. 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's the reply:
Film | Year | Director | Source | In the film's article's body: Wikivoice statement about the existence of a cult following exists (y1/no) OR Source supports adding such content in own voice. (y2/no) |
In the film's article's lead: Any kind of mention of cult film status exists (y3/no) OR Mention of cult film status does not exist but body content would make it a due addition (y4/no) |
Criteria fulfilled, film included in the list (yes/no) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Rocky Horror Picture Show | 1975 | Jim Sharman | [1] [2] | y1: See The Rocky Horror Picture Show § Cult following | y3 | Yes |
Blade Runner | 1982 | Ridley Scott | [3] | y1: See Blade Runner § Cultural analysis | y3 | Yes |
The Big Lebowski | 1998 | The Coen Brothers | [4] | y1: See The Big Lebowski § Legacy | y3 | Yes |
The Room | 2003 | Tommy Wiseau | [5] | y1: See The Room § Midnight circuit | y3 | Yes |
Dune | 1984 | David Lynch | [6] | y2: Two sentences in the lead are bout its cult status and at least one of the references supports an own-voice statement (and there are other sources out there, such as this Slate article and this Guardian article); can propagate from the lead to the body | y3 | Yes |
References
— Alalch E. 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Twelve monkeys is a cult film.[1]
How do we account for the fact that La Jetée is a cult film while 12 Monkeys is not?It's about understanding 12 Monkeys in the context of certain other films, which are cult films, while 12 Monkeys isn't. You can access the article via the Wikipedia library. That is what I mean by "substantive". An ability to make an own voice statement. Maybe "substantive" is the wrong word that implies too much. — Alalch E. 15:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
look[ing] for quality and substance in reliable sources, but what you are proposing isn't exactly a firm set of criteria that can be easily and consistently applied by different editors, now is it? And as for the method of cleanup, every single entry that does not at present have the kind of sourcing it should have should be removed now, and only added back later if proper sourcing is found. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
What does "outlier" even mean?I'm not sure I understand the question correctly. As Wikipedia editors, we assess the overall literature on the topic. That's how we find out whether a particular viewpoint—e.g. whether a specific film is a cult film—is prominent within that body of literature or not. This is the very basics of the WP:DUE side of WP:NPOV.Why would it be difficult to find criteria that are easily and consistently applied? "The film listed as a cult film in a book specifically on the topic of cult films" is very easy to apply consistently, to give an example.If it's difficult to find sources confirming a particular film's status as a cult film, that is a pretty strong indication that it is not commonly regarded as such. If we want to make a list that is representative of the overall literature on the topic, as our WP:Core content policies mandate, all we have to do is assess the literature on the topic. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You're saying that if a cult-film scholar names a film as a cult film but other scholars don't, that it would be an outlier, right?Not quite that simple, but along those lines. Obviously the sources can have restricted scopes. But if only a single scholar finds it to be a cult film worth mentioning, as demonstrated by other scholars not mentioning it in the context of cult films, then it is per the sources not a particularly prominent instance. If there are sources that are meant to be exhaustive (within their scope) that do not include it, that demonstrates that they do not consider it a cult film. But I think we may be getting somewhat off-track.Would it be fair to say that you would favour inclusion criteria similar to those of list of films considered the best (in brief, roughly "the film must have been voted the best in a notable poll"), along the lines of "The film must have been called a cult film by a reliable scholarly source on the topic of cult films"? I don't have a problem with that (nor would I have a problem with the WP:DUE approach or even a combination of the two). My priority is finding an approach that can be applied easily and consistently, preferably even by somebody who has not edited the list before or somebody who is not familiar with the topic, that is not overly inclusive.I have to say that I am generally opposed to the cleanup approach which retains examples that do not seem to meet the threshold for inclusion until it has been demonstrated that they do not. Sources should always be the starting point for all articles, not added after the fact. Call it a source-centric versus example-centric approach, perhaps. I have cleaned up enough lists to have come to the conclusion that affording poorly-sourced (or, perish the thought, unsourced) entries that level of benefit of the doubt is typically a massive waste of time and effort. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to start a separate thread for cleaning up to run parallel to finalizing the list criteria. I'm doing cleanup only using books since I am assuming that this is better than most other types of sources. I've gone ahead and improved inline citations for cult films from these two books, and in some cases I added new listings.
I have the book below above to incorporate and will see if I can find others. I noticed while I improved/added the above that there are three books by
Danny Peary cited throughout (Cult Movies 1-3), but I can't tell if someone was able to mine the entire books or just added citations to preexisting listings. It would be good to go through these books to make sure we cover everything. I will look for other books since I think this list should have book references at its core.
Since some books can't be previewed, I will check my local book stores to see if they have books about cult films that I can screenshot to mine and add here. EDIT: I put all the books at the top and updated the statuses. Thanks,
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I haven't the time to find sources, but I would expect that The Prophecy trilogy (also know as God's Secret Army) should belong on the list. An interested party could probably find sources and add them.
That's it. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy around long pages these days, but as a reader I feel strongly that the current alphabetic division is inadequate.
Aristotles ( talk) 18:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Altenmann, Reywas92, Dream Focus, Mushy Yank, Turtletennisfogwheat, StreetcarEnjoyer, Cunard, Zxcvbnm, Clarityfiend, Erik, and GreenC: As participants in the most recent AfD, consider this a formal invitation to figure out some kind of proper list criteria (I have for the record also left a message at User talk:35.139.154.158, as IPs cannot—as far as I'm aware—be pinged). As a starting point, I propose criteria analogous to those of list of military disasters: in order to be included, a film must have been designated a cult film by multiple reliable sources specifically dealing with the subject of cult films. Other suggestions are of course also welcome. What say you? TompaDompa ( talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is how the start of the current List of cult films: 0–9 ( Special:PermanentLink/1217603111) would fare if we applied the criteria discussed above:
Film | Year | Director | Source | In the film's article's body: Wikivoice statement about the existence of a cult following exists (y1/no) OR Source supports adding such content in own voice. (y2/no) |
In the film's article's lead: Any kind of mention of cult film status exists (y3/no) OR Mention of cult film status does not exist but body content would make it a due addition (y4/no) |
Criteria fulfilled, film included in the list (yes/no) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1: Nenokkadine | 2012 | Sukumar | https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/top-mahesh-babu-telegu-movie "9 Telugu movies that define superstar Mahesh Babu's career". | No | y3 (failed verification) | No |
10 to Midnight | 1983 | J. Lee Thompson | "10 to Midnight (1983) Review". 18 January 2019. | y1 (source not reliable) | y4 (conditioned on y1) | No |
100 Bloody Acres | 2012 | Cameron Cairnes, Colin Cairnes | https://indaily.com.au/arts-culture/film/2013/08/01/100-bloody-acres/ | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status) | No | No |
100 Tears | 2007 | Marcus Koch | https://web.archive.org/web/20170409234058/http://www.cultflicks.net/horror/100-tears-review.html | No | y3 (source not reliable) | No |
12 Monkeys | 1995 | Terry Gilliam | "The oral history of 12 Monkeys, Terry Gilliam's time travel masterpiece". | y2 (casual—and non-RS due to WP:RSHEADLINE—mention of supposed cult film status, can't support own-voice statement) | No | No |
The 13th Warrior | 1999 | John McTiernan | "MOVIE REVIEW: The 13th Warrior Review". | y2 (source not reliable) | No | No |
1990: I guerrieri del Bronx (1990: The Bronx Warriors) | 1982 | Enzo G. Castellari | "1990: The Bronx Warriors". the Vintagent. 10 September 2019. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status; thevintagent.com not a credible outlet for film reviews) | No | No |
1991: The Year Punk Broke | 1992 | Dave Markey | Cooper, Leonie (2017-07-31). "Nirvana, Sonic Youth and the cult grunge film that shook up the music industry". NME. Retrieved 2023-03-05. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status) | No | No |
2 Days in the Valley | 1996 | John Herzfeld | "Charlize Theron Recalls Her Film Debut in '2 Days in the Valley'". 10 July 2016. | y2 (casual mention of supposed cult film status; wwd.com not a credible outlet for film reviews) | No | No |
@ TompaDompa: What do you think about this?— Alalch E. 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's the reply:
Film | Year | Director | Source | In the film's article's body: Wikivoice statement about the existence of a cult following exists (y1/no) OR Source supports adding such content in own voice. (y2/no) |
In the film's article's lead: Any kind of mention of cult film status exists (y3/no) OR Mention of cult film status does not exist but body content would make it a due addition (y4/no) |
Criteria fulfilled, film included in the list (yes/no) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Rocky Horror Picture Show | 1975 | Jim Sharman | [1] [2] | y1: See The Rocky Horror Picture Show § Cult following | y3 | Yes |
Blade Runner | 1982 | Ridley Scott | [3] | y1: See Blade Runner § Cultural analysis | y3 | Yes |
The Big Lebowski | 1998 | The Coen Brothers | [4] | y1: See The Big Lebowski § Legacy | y3 | Yes |
The Room | 2003 | Tommy Wiseau | [5] | y1: See The Room § Midnight circuit | y3 | Yes |
Dune | 1984 | David Lynch | [6] | y2: Two sentences in the lead are bout its cult status and at least one of the references supports an own-voice statement (and there are other sources out there, such as this Slate article and this Guardian article); can propagate from the lead to the body | y3 | Yes |
References
— Alalch E. 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Twelve monkeys is a cult film.[1]
How do we account for the fact that La Jetée is a cult film while 12 Monkeys is not?It's about understanding 12 Monkeys in the context of certain other films, which are cult films, while 12 Monkeys isn't. You can access the article via the Wikipedia library. That is what I mean by "substantive". An ability to make an own voice statement. Maybe "substantive" is the wrong word that implies too much. — Alalch E. 15:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
look[ing] for quality and substance in reliable sources, but what you are proposing isn't exactly a firm set of criteria that can be easily and consistently applied by different editors, now is it? And as for the method of cleanup, every single entry that does not at present have the kind of sourcing it should have should be removed now, and only added back later if proper sourcing is found. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
What does "outlier" even mean?I'm not sure I understand the question correctly. As Wikipedia editors, we assess the overall literature on the topic. That's how we find out whether a particular viewpoint—e.g. whether a specific film is a cult film—is prominent within that body of literature or not. This is the very basics of the WP:DUE side of WP:NPOV.Why would it be difficult to find criteria that are easily and consistently applied? "The film listed as a cult film in a book specifically on the topic of cult films" is very easy to apply consistently, to give an example.If it's difficult to find sources confirming a particular film's status as a cult film, that is a pretty strong indication that it is not commonly regarded as such. If we want to make a list that is representative of the overall literature on the topic, as our WP:Core content policies mandate, all we have to do is assess the literature on the topic. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You're saying that if a cult-film scholar names a film as a cult film but other scholars don't, that it would be an outlier, right?Not quite that simple, but along those lines. Obviously the sources can have restricted scopes. But if only a single scholar finds it to be a cult film worth mentioning, as demonstrated by other scholars not mentioning it in the context of cult films, then it is per the sources not a particularly prominent instance. If there are sources that are meant to be exhaustive (within their scope) that do not include it, that demonstrates that they do not consider it a cult film. But I think we may be getting somewhat off-track.Would it be fair to say that you would favour inclusion criteria similar to those of list of films considered the best (in brief, roughly "the film must have been voted the best in a notable poll"), along the lines of "The film must have been called a cult film by a reliable scholarly source on the topic of cult films"? I don't have a problem with that (nor would I have a problem with the WP:DUE approach or even a combination of the two). My priority is finding an approach that can be applied easily and consistently, preferably even by somebody who has not edited the list before or somebody who is not familiar with the topic, that is not overly inclusive.I have to say that I am generally opposed to the cleanup approach which retains examples that do not seem to meet the threshold for inclusion until it has been demonstrated that they do not. Sources should always be the starting point for all articles, not added after the fact. Call it a source-centric versus example-centric approach, perhaps. I have cleaned up enough lists to have come to the conclusion that affording poorly-sourced (or, perish the thought, unsourced) entries that level of benefit of the doubt is typically a massive waste of time and effort. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to start a separate thread for cleaning up to run parallel to finalizing the list criteria. I'm doing cleanup only using books since I am assuming that this is better than most other types of sources. I've gone ahead and improved inline citations for cult films from these two books, and in some cases I added new listings.
I have the book below above to incorporate and will see if I can find others. I noticed while I improved/added the above that there are three books by
Danny Peary cited throughout (Cult Movies 1-3), but I can't tell if someone was able to mine the entire books or just added citations to preexisting listings. It would be good to go through these books to make sure we cover everything. I will look for other books since I think this list should have book references at its core.
Since some books can't be previewed, I will check my local book stores to see if they have books about cult films that I can screenshot to mine and add here. EDIT: I put all the books at the top and updated the statuses. Thanks,
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)