Talk:cult film

This article should not be deleted

This article should not be deleted because there is literally a Wikipedia article in a lot of languages. There is a Danish translation of a full word, that's right, no spaces, no nothing, a legitimate word that means "cult film" (see kultfilm), and this is a legitimate word. Please do not delete it from this dictionary. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly "Sum of Parts" because the definition is just cult + film with no additional meaning. We don't record terms that are just a combination of two known words, except possibly for translation reasons. Dbfirs 00:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There are long, space-less German words for all kinds of things that are sums of parts in English. The existence of a single-word translation is not on its own an argument for an English entry. Seriously, we've had all of these discussions a zillion times before on here. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you have to say about cult classic then? Should it be deleted too since you guys insist on deleting this entry? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. But it's not "you guys insist": we have RFV and RFD so that these discussions can take place. If you understand the way Wiktionary works, based on WT:CFI etc., then you can contribute to the discussion and possibly change the decision. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay well do you guys agree that this article is attested? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's attested, and regularly used, but it's two words, each with a clear meaning, and these add up to the combined meaning without any possibility of confusion. Dictionaries are for words, not sentences. They do sometimes make exceptions for combinations of words where the combined meaning is not the sum of individual meanings, and cult classic possibly comes into that category because the implication of classic film is not obvious from classic. Dbfirs 08:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RFD 2014

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

cult film

Per cult video game. SoP. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think cult film should not be deleted. The first reason is that I can find 10 sources right now on the internet and put them into citations. Also, cult classic is a synonym, made before cult film (not created by me), and was edited by several people, and was still not deleted. Third, kultfilm is a full word, a Danish translation of the word cult film, and kultfilm has no spaces. Every word without spaces should be added to the dictionary unless it was clearly a made up word. As for cult video game, yeah just delete cult video game. But not cult film. What do you guys think? What else do I have to do to prove that this is not a bad entry?

One more thing. Equinox said it should be deleted because it is like "brown leaf". Well no it's not, because cult film is a very widespread word and is used quite a lot, whereas cult radio or cult video game are not used as much. Please consider that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. RFD doesn't mean that it isn't a real thing. We know you could show that it exists. But "brown leaf" also exists. The point is that the meaning is clear from the separate words. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it exists. Lots of things exist. I want it kept because it is used very widely. I'm not saying that I want to show that it exists. I'm saying I want to show that it's used a lot.

And I do understand that you are an administrator here, have been here much longer than I have by a long shot, and are probably much older than me (I'm a young editor). Maybe my idea of a multi-lingual dictionary containing all words in all languages is different by a long shot than what experienced editors and administrators think, but I still really want this to be kept. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"brown leaf" is also used very widely, as you can see here [1], so that argument, on its own, isn't enough to justify keeping. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My criteria:

1. Is it used widely? Yes
2. Does it have a Wikipedia page? (not required but helps a lot in my cause) Yes
3. Does it have a translation in more than one language? Yes
4. Does it have translations in a language where the word in that language has no spacing or hyphens? Yes
5. Is it important? Yes
6. Would someone look it up in this dictionary? I'd say yes to that too, eventually they will
7. What happens when it's not there? Well then hell. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read our criteria. The first three criteria mean nothing for rfd. The forth has some relevance, but only as a sort of circumstantial evidence- there are languages that can say things like "I saw those two women walk this way" as a single word with prefixes, suffixes and infixes. The fifth is also irrelevant to RFD. The last two are really part of the same point- and also relevant but not decisive.

The point about "sum of parts" entries is that there are a near-infinite number of such entries possible, but none of them would convey any useful information that isn't already provided by the entries for the component parts. You really have to show that cult film has a meaning that can't be found at cult or film. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per my rationale on #cult video game, unless someone manages to cite cultfilm where I failed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It isn't idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Delete it. I have no more arguments. This is not criteria for this dictionary. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

... or for any dictionary that I've ever seen. Dbfirs 08:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Lemming test: Collins has it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops! So it does! I've added a sense to our noun entry for those (like Collins) who regard "cult film" as attributive use of the noun, rather than adjectival use of "cult". In this context, I see why Ready Steady Yeti argued for inclusion. Perversely, we have art film and Collins doesn't. Dbfirs 09:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not SoP. If it were SoP, then it would mean a film made by a cult. If the Branch Davidians had filmed David Koresh preaching to his flock, that would be a cult film. But that is not what cult film means. Cult films are not produced by cults, nor are they about cults. Cult films are weird and unusual, and their audience becomes obsessive and irrationally appreciative of the film. Pink Flamingos (1971–72) starring Divine became a cult film. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as defined at "cult", adjective. You might as well falsely argue that "brown leaf" itself requires an entry, since there are different senses of brown and leaf: it isn't, for example, a brown page in a book, even though that's a "leaf", and plausible. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So do we need the words "weird and unusual" in the definition? That would make it more than SoP. Dbfirs 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, after a hesitation. For one thing, Collins has it. For another thing, here is cult film,cult movie,cult comedy,cult book,cult video game,cult horror,cult radio series at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., which suggests that "cult film" and "cult movie" are the main expressions, of which the other ones are immitations. I do admit that these cult things form a group, but I am not sure this makes them sum of parts. Yes, you can take the group, figure out a definition of "cult" used in these combinations, and add it to cult (adjective), but I am not sure this is the best treatment; it smells too much of adding a definition to adjective red: Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence, and then claiming SoP for red dwarf. For those editors that are sometimes ok with a redirect, I propose you consider to figure it out how to take the reader from "cult film" to the adjectival sense that cult currently has; what about cult#Adjective? Although cult#Portuguese also has an adjectival definition. In any case, keeping "cult film" entry seems to serve the users better than removing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Correction: The Ngram actually suggests "cult book" is the term that appeared earlier. I would still keep "cult film" and "cult movie" together with "cult book". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep is what Stephen seems to say above, albeit without boldface. (A note made for the likes of me who like to count votes.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind what I said above. I also say keep. Forgive me for not understanding every bit of what you guys just said. But I think I get the point. This is what I was thinking about this morning before getting out of bed. Cult film, for one, is not a combination of the entries for cult and film. Cult film means "A film that has acquired a cult following.". This word cannot be guessed by combining the meanings of cult and film in any senses. It is not about cults or having to do with cults (well I suppose it could be but that's not what the word means), it has to do with the film acquiring a cult following. Plus, more support is that another dictionary, Collins, has this entry. In that case, cult video game still seems questionable. I would actually rather cult video game be deleted, because the Wikipedia article does not have articles in other languages about cult video game. But this rule for inclusion is not what Wiktionary is looking for. I think Wiktionary (not me) would rather keep this entry for the same reason as cult film. For the reason, it is not a video game about or made by a cult, but it is a video game that has acquired a cult following, once again. I think I've made my case. Thanks for the support. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• One of our definitions of cult is "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group", so if a cult film is nothing more than a film that is enjoyed by a small, loyal group then this is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because the word does not assume that the movie has something to do with a "small loyal group of enjoyers", neither does it mean that it was made by a "small loyal group of enjoyers". The meaning of the word is "A film that has acquired a cult following" (not a cult). Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitions are just explanations. They can be rephrased and still refer to the same thing (approximately, but no one uses uses natural languages like legalese anyway, except lawyers). What if we deleted "small" from the definition of cult? Would it still not be cult + film? — Keφr 18:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete! I did not realize. Look at the example in the definition that Angr refers to. "cult horror movie"! On the contrary, in commemoration of this attempt to keep this world, let's replace the example with "cult film"! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete (I think this discussion is effectively dead anyway). Renard Migrant (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I think cult film is the original term, rather than the adjectival use of cult. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete! I don't know why we haven't yet. This discussion is long since over. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–September 2016

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

cult film

Bringing this up again. Though I created it, that was years ago when I didn't fully understand the concept of "SoP". This is SoP. See how cult video game, cult movie, cult TV show, cult comic, etc., can all be used as "something that has acquired a cult following." Though "cult film" is the most common one, that does not mean it should be kept, if we can find the definitions at cult and film. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Among OneLook dictionaries Collins has this. But cult#Adjective has this covered and even cult#Noun conveys the idea. The ambiguity between "a film that has a cult(-like) following" and "a film about a cult" (eg, about Manson or Jonestown) remains. [[Cult film]] needs {{&lit}} if it remains. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  I think there's a better case for an entry for cult classic, which failed RfD (See Talk:cult classic). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• English contains many SoP terms, even compound words are sums of parts. No grounds for deletion, therefore keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  WT:CFI#Idiomaticity disagrees with you. I don't quite see your point. Nobody's denying that English contains things like I have a black car, so why bring it up? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not? I don't expect anyone to agree with me. DonnanZ (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Collins has it[2], and while one such dictionary is not much, this is still an appeal to the lemming heuristic. I said more at Talk:cult film in 2014. SOP is a ground for considering deletion; x is SOP => redeeming qualities should be sought and if none are found => delete x. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  Wow, the linked Collins definition seems to be written for children or idiots: is that their normal edition? Anyway, I would ask: do you think that cult + film does explain the meaning (same for cult video game, cult musical, cult rock hit, etc.): if so, would you not at least think a redirect to cult appropriate? Equinox ◑ 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  The lemming heuristic is really just a heuristic, letting us focus more on expanding the dictionary and less on regulating it. I posted more substantive arguments in the original discussion at Talk:cult film. The arguments include the Talk:free variable argument. The adjectival sense at cult really seems to originate from the existence of the "founding" terms "cult book" and "cult film", and I would keep the terms as founding. On the talk page, I mention a "red drawf" argument. A related note: I don't think "cult" can be used predicatively, but I may be wrong. To the question, yes, I think cult could explain the meaning, but so could red if it contained definition "Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence". Even so, I am not sure the definition "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group" is accurate; Collins seems more accurate and seems to match Macmillan:cult[3], but I don't know. As for the Collins definition, I like it. I love clarity and simplicity, even excess clarity and simplicity. One has to realize that the definitions are often more important to non-natives and fresh learners than to natives who already know what a cult film is anyway, and that English is the lingua franca which people around the world hurry up to learn. A redirect would be better than nothing, but cult film entry is certainly more convenient since the task of picking the part of speech and the definition line from cult entry has been already done for the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm. 1. I was a little snobbish about Collins (although I do genuinely think that their def sounds dumbed-down, which doesn't make much sense unless it's a foreigner-facing dictionary). 2. Your point about "founding terms" is sensible and interesting and reminds me of prime number (I think we argued about that one too! Obv my position is that "17 is prime, and 17 is a number", but then again a mobile phone was a thing before a mobile was, and yet they are the same entity and it would be a historical loss to delete the former, which was once the only name). I don't think I agree about "red dwarf" because I can't see it taking any other noun ("red star"???), whereas at least we can have a "prime factor", a "prime integer", etc. I would still prefer an ety at "cult" that explains "it was originally cult film, used by John McFilmReviewer [can we source this?]" but whatever, I like your insightful post. Also I can't be bothered to read all the links again. haha. I'll leave it alone. Equinox ◑ 19:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Probably the most common, perhaps the originator, of a class of similar phrases, as mentioned above. Makes sense to have at least one of them, and the first or most widespread would be my choice. P Aculeius (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. --WikiTiki89 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)