Talk:List of cult films

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

Missing films[edit]

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.

Speaking as a user, there really should be a full list somewhere[edit]

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)[reply]

me too Normal Bates (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
me three. It was a bad idea. – ishwar  (speak) 01:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with it? With how long the page was getting it seems a reasonable thing to do.Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to search them all, because you know one of the words, it is such pain to have to search 27 different pages. An option is to provide a link to a page that transcludes all of the 27 subpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List criteria[edit]

@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)[reply]

"reliable sources specifically dealing with the subject of cult films" will be slim pickings and arbitrary because it ignores things like academic journal articles or film books by historians or places like the Library of Congress. Keep it simple and unambiguous. One way is to require multiple sources, as it shows a plurality of opinion which is a kind of consensus. And remove certain sources that are lower quality such as click bait and blogs. This method might be controversial since most entries have only one source and given the scale, it would be a monumental task to add more sources. Let's see what others think. -- GreenC 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our definition of "reliable sources" is too broad (AFAIK). We have to distinguish reliable sources coming from scholars and from journalists. I guess you know why: journalists, even objective are tempted to throw in some hype. Scholars are less prone to that. That said, to make the task less monumental, I would suggest to make the first scan and put {{Additional citation needed}} where you think the ref is less than bulletproof. An additional attention must be paid that the source cited uses arguments to support this classification, so we can see it is not just a random opinion or a lauding epithet. It this case {{better source needed}} with parameter "reason=unsupported opinion", - Altenmann >talk 01:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: The cult status must be covered in "Reception" section of the article about the film, with arguments, because the article is a much better place for verification. (I am sure all these "List of..." articles especially that long have only a limited readersip, insufficient for proper scrutiny.) - Altenmann >talk 02:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, can't believe this crappy list was kept. What a disappointing close to call out the delete voters for not adequately rebutting the keeps, when four came in the very last day after being canvassed and I didn't happen to see it then. With a 6–5 !vote, I'm very tempted to open a DRV to at least relist the discussion instead. Yes, I'd agree that each film listed should have at least two sources that detail the aspects that make it a cult film. Better yet, this should actually be more than a bullet-pointed list and provide a bit of context for each item! To repeat from the AFD, when Cult film says "Overly broad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic", the simple attibution of this word is inadequate. But are any of these keep voters requesting refined selection criteria going to bother adding sources to over 2,300 items, or was that just a drive-by suggestion??? You know, Cult film has a nice compilation of cult films described with useful context. Sure, these long prose sections are hard to read so some folks may want a regular list, so how about we scratch these ridiculous 27 articles, start with listing only those in the main article, and others are welcome to expand with films that meet whatever criteria. Reywas92Talk 04:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at "E" and improved the source for one listing here. I feel like it would be pretty easy to pop the title and "cult" in Google Books and see what shows up. Basically, wherever possible, improve the source, and if it seems too difficult to find mention, remove it (and put it on the talk page). I agree with the concerns about blogs and so-called listicles, but if a film made it on a listicle, there is probably some justification to be found for it from somewhere more reliable. So I'd be fine with one reliable source if it was a book like the one I just added above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: subtantive discussion of cult film status in the films' articles as the criterion. According to this, only films for which there is a discussion in their respective articles how they are cult films (at a minimum at the level that exists in Donnie Darko), which enables a due mention of the cult film status in the film's lead section, should be included in the list. The discussion must include a wikivoice claim that a cult following exists or has existed (a statement of fact that we make in own voice). A casual observation of a commentator how the film is a "cult film", without an ability to back up the claim that a cult following materially exists or has existed, does not suffice.—Alalch E. 16:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat similar to the criteria for list of common misconceptions, then? Not a bad idea, I think. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, somewhat similar, good comparison. That is a good list. —Alalch E. 16:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just two cents, but seems a bit circular if the criteria for entry depends in part on language in a Wikipedia article. - Enos733 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language is not original research, the body summarizes what the sources are saying, the lead is summarizing what the body is saying, and the list entry summarizes what the lead is saying in the most succinct way possible, by simply mentioning the film as a cult film. It is an extension of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If the article's content is unsourced, not supported by an inline citation, has poor text-source integrity, fails verification, own-voice is inappropriate for a statement of fact because of the nature of the source: no addition to the list. So it wouldn't be circular; it comes down to the sources, ultimately. The ability to maintain content about cult status in the article is a filter for whether the sources talk about cult status substantively or use include the word "cult" in a trivial, subjective way. If editors wouldn't add something about a film's purported cult status to the film's article, editors shouldn't add the same claim to this list either.
And everyone could add any film for which there is sufficient support in the sources for its cult status, regardless of whether the article mentions it. They would just also need to add this information to the film's article to assure editors that the list entry meets selection criteria. If there is a dispute around this, it would happen at the film's article, which is a much better place to settle the dispute around an individual film's legacy, than this page. —Alalch E. 01:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse proof-of-concept[edit]

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)[reply]

Looks promising. What about some of the more-or-less "canonical" examples such as The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Blade Runner, the 1984 Dune, The Big Lebowski, and The Room? TompaDompa (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ Peary, Danny. Cult Movies, Delta Books, 1981. ISBN 0-517-20185-2
  2. ^ Haigh, Ian (3 May 2010). "What Makes a Cult Film?". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
  3. ^ "8 reasons why 'Blade Runner' became a cult film". Deutsche Welle. 2017-10-04.
  4. ^ Booker, Keith M. (17 March 2011). "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema". Scarecrow Press – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Walker, Tim (20 July 2009). "The Couch Surfer: 'It may be sublimely rubbish, but The Room makes audiences happy'". The Independent. London. Retrieved 23 November 2009.
  6. ^ Shaffer, R. L. (23 April 2010). "Dune Blu-ray Review". IGN. Retrieved 19 July 2014.

—Alalch E. 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, these criteria seem to produce more-or-less the results we would expect the theoretical "correct" criteria to. I would support adopting them. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of "substantive discussion" is too high and also outside WP:LSC. Editors and readers should not have to refer to another article to determine inclusion, on top of whatever is being done in the list. One of the common selection criteria is "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", and I see many books about cult films that would be good to improve sourcing within the list. Mentioning the cult status in the film article itself is fine, but it's a nice-to-have that should be distinct from the list criteria. We should be vetting each listing to find their cult status in the real world and remove it if we can't find any. Some of the numbered titles can definitely be removed. Something like 12 Monkeys is written about in the academic journal New Review of Film and Television Studies with the title "12 Monkeys, Vertigo and La Jetée: Postmodern Mythologies and Cult Films", which warrants automatic inclusion. Again, there are so many cult-film books that we can use these far more than other sources. It's easy to put intitle:cult in Google Books with the film title to see if it ever pops up anyway. I've gone ahead and requested a couple of cult-film books from my local library and can reference these for films in these lists. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include a statement that 12 Monkeys is a cult film in 12 Monkeys based on one article title being "12 Monkeys, Vertigo and La Jetée: Postmodern Mythologies and Cult Films". Do you have any better verification for the claim that 12 Monkeys is a cult film? What's in the content? —Alalch E. 15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Review of Film and Television Studies, especially as an academic journal, is an absolutely reliable source. If there is unwillingness to list 12 Monkeys as a cult film based on this verifiability, I cannot find any justification in the proposal. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you state that 12 Monkeys is a cult film in 12 Monkeys using this source. Would it be

Twelve monkeys is a cult film.[1]

? —Alalch E. 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be merciful and cut this short. I am a friend. I have fond feelings for everyone. I don't want anyone to feel bad here. Thing is... The article you cited does not call 12 Monkeys a cult film. It calls it NOT a cult film. If you actually read it, you will find the following: 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)[reply]
Ah, I withdraw my statement about 12 Monkeys, then, not having accessed the article. It had seemed like it was calling all three films cult films. My bad!
To clarify, I don't think it should matter if the film article mentions if it is a cult film or not. It would be helpful, but I don't think it should be part of the inclusion criteria. The list should be able to stand alone with inline citations of reliable sources verifying them, like cult-film books listing films. If editors want to take the extra step and expand the film article with the details from that film's listing in the book, that's totally fine. A better example would be the British Film Institute's book 100 Cult Films here where we should see all of them listed here and using the book as a reference. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied below, to your reply to TompaDompa. —Alalch E. 09:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on several points. The WP:Common selection criteria are not the only acceptable ones. The underlying idea of "If it would not be WP:DUE to call Film X a cult film on its own article, it is not due to call Film X a cult film on a list of cult films" is sound, and the list of common misconceptions article amply demonstrates that this approach works. The proposal to make a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" is a nice idea, but it really sidesteps what it means to verifiably be a member of the group—or to put it another way, what the group is, exactly. Whether something is a cult film is a subjective assessment, after all. Is this a list of films that are sometimes considered cult films (corresponding to fairly loose sourcing requirements) or a list of films that are generally considered cult films (corresponding to fairly strict sourcing requirements)? If the former, we would be listing different films where the designation as a cult film is respectively fringe, debatable, and uncontroversial on equal footing, so-to-speak—and I don't see that as being even remotely compatible with WP:NPOV. If the latter, we need to define criteria that can be easily and consistently applied—and (possibly a slightly modified version of) the criteria proposed by Alalch E. fit the bill, though they may not be the only ones. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying these are the options:
  1. " Is this a list of films that are sometimes considered cult films (corresponding to fairly loose sourcing requirements) or..." and "...we would be listing different films where the designation as a cult film is respectively fringe, debatable, and uncontroversial on equal footing, so-to-speak—and I don't see that as being even remotely compatible with WP:NPOV."
  2. "...a list of films that are generally considered cult films (corresponding to fairly strict sourcing requirements)?" and "we need to define criteria that can be easily and consistently applied—and (possibly a slightly modified version of) the criteria proposed by Alalch E. fit the bill, though they may not be the only ones."
I don't know what "sometimes" means here. There can be more academic genres like "neo-noir" that won't necessarily be in every reliable source about a film, but that does not mean that it can't be called a neo-noir film. I don't know what "respectively fringe, debatable, and uncontroversial on equal footing" means either, if reliable sources write about them as cult films. The best sources are going to be books about cult films, like seen here. Whatever films are being named in these books should be listed at minimum.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "generally considered", like what makes a consideration more generalist? Are you saying films named by academics writing about cult films should not be listed as such, only more "popular" ones, for lack of a better word?
Honestly, it would be better to go through some examples like the numbered titles and see what is findable and what has been written about them. I don't quite feel like there's "easily and consistently applied" criteria beyond finding it categorized as such in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hybridize and postulate that the criterion I've suggested is the way to go over that minimum. If there's an authoritative book about cult films, okay, let's go with that. If there isn't such a book, the way to satisfy inclusion requirements is an ability to make an own-voice statement that the film has a cult following using any available reliable sources, and to test the supposition that for a given film such a statement can be made, it should be added to the article. We can do both. Book or the aforementioned criterion in tandem. Like GNG and SNGs. Compromise? —Alalch E. 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be fine, but we should work through examples to see how they come out. Right now, I think it's more important to have a list based on books, and then deal with anything that no book covers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: Alright, I'll try to explain. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are ten sources about which films are cult films and which are not. One of them deems Film X a cult film, five of them deem Film Y a cult film, and all ten deem Film Z a cult film. That would, in the overall literature, make the designation of Film X as a cult film fringe, of Film Y debatable, and Film Z uncontroversial. If we then include all of them on the same list, we are presenting fringe viewpoints in the field as being of equal standing as generally accepted ones, in violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense to talk about the number of sources, especially up to ten. WP:NPOV does not quite talk about lists, but I think the way to apply it here is to look for quality and substance in reliable sources. Like a so-called "fringe" listing could be a reliably-sourced contemporary review that prematurely declares a film to be of cult status, and I can see grounds to remove listings from this Wikipedia list for that. But if we have a cult-film scholar writing books, all the cult films named by them should be included because that's the most significant view we can get for this topic. Beyond such scholars, if a layperson journalist calls a film a cult film, we should look for more sources to see if that categorization has weight. What do you think? And as mentioned above, I'd rather that we mine all the cult-film books (already replacing some very weak sourcing today and yesterday) and then look at what's left. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars can disagree, can they not? One scholar's assessment that a particular film is a cult film could still be on outlier in the overall literature on the topic of cult films. I have no problem with 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)[reply]
I think we have to be careful with our assumptions here. What does "outlier" even mean? A cult-film scholar knows best about cult films. I have no idea if there are disagreements or not, or if a scholar's work is simply an expansion into more specific genres under the cult umbrella.
I also think we are not going to find criteria that is easily and consistently applied. A film can become a cult film for different reasons, so the same criteria won't always fit. I think going with cult-film books are a good start.
As for cleanup, I would say it's harder to put listings back in. For me so far, it's been easier for me to improve the inline citation when the listings already exist. Maybe come up with a process for removal, like if <film title> intitle:cult yields no results in Google Books/Scholar, remove it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? That implies that the scholars don't consider it a cult film, but that's our assumption. Maybe they all cover different time periods and genres. The one scholar's categorization is enough, is what I am saying. If there is actual disagreement as indicated in sources over whether a film is cult or not, we can go through that here.
I agree with your criteria sentence about books, which tend to write in retrospect of established films. Film periodicals doing the same would be next. I think the challenge is layperson journalism, and when there is a quality list versus a so-called listicle.
I agree that if it's difficult to find sources, to remove it. I think a check against Google Books/Scholar (and whatever else would be good) can be done for each listing before moving it to the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A single cult-film scholar is far more reliable than a layperson journalist, being the authority for the given topic; part of WP:RS is considering "the creator of the work" (the reliable source). If a layperson journalist calls a film a cult film, and we do not see that repeated by other journalists, that would not be enough weight for inclusion. I think the creator matters in considering weight. I do see weak weight with very recent films being declared at the time of release as a cult film by such journalists, and I endorse purging these.
Honestly, I don't know what criteria there should be besides books (and academic articles, but I haven't really looked at that yet). I see "best" and "worst" categorizations as part of generalist discourse, and topics like cult films and specific sub-genres are specialist and more niche. I don't find that these have to be "proven" in a generalist way, if the reliable sources are solid. I'd ask the others for their opinion (maybe ping again?), and I'd be curious to see what films are left after exhausting book references.
As for cleanup, can we just set a deadline for purging? And have a specific checklist to go through for each film that's left? For me, it's been a lot easier to improve around 100-150 listings from the two books I've used so far when the listings already exist. I'd like to maintain the listings for a little longer to more quickly improve the sourcing across the board. Whatever is left, we can chop away at, letter by letter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

I would probably not use Schneider's book as the sole source for any entry. I am familiar with a related book by Schneider—1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die—and it does not have a great reputation when it comes to editorial standards (in particular what gets included). TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cult_films&oldid=1219446480"