Talk:List of cult films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Surprise

Greetings,

I am surprised, one of the greatests movies ever made, a cult classic, isn't on that list. I think "2001: A Space Odyssey" should be listed here.

Thank you,

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to read the definition of cult film. Is it obscure? No. A box office bomb? No. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, it received a mixed reception and there's that drug thing, so maybe ... Must ponder a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it's in. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Full list?

Is there some technical argument against having these compiled into one single page, say List of cult films/Full or something like that? Although, it would need some <noinclude>s and/or <onlyinclude>s, because currently the attempt shown below would exceed the WP:Template limits#Post-expand_include_size value...

{{:List of cult films: 0–9}} {{:List of cult films: A}} {{:List of cult films: B}} {{:List of cult films: C}} {{:List of cult films: D}} {{:List of cult films: E}} {{:List of cult films: F}} {{:List of cult films: G}} {{:List of cult films: H}} {{:List of cult films: I}} {{:List of cult films: J}} {{:List of cult films: K}} {{:List of cult films: L}} {{:List of cult films: M}} {{:List of cult films: N}} {{:List of cult films: O}} {{:List of cult films: P}} {{:List of cult films: Q}} {{:List of cult films: R}} {{:List of cult films: S}} {{:List of cult films: T}} {{:List of cult films: U}} {{:List of cult films: V}} {{:List of cult films: W}} {{:List of cult films: X}} {{:List of cult films: Y}} {{:List of cult films: Z}}

And I'm not sure how to approach excluding all the references, for the sake of layout. I mean there is the quick-and-obvious solution of having them <noinclude>d, but that would be a maintenance nightmare. :-| -- 84.232.196.123 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a recent AfD discussion where the decision was made to split in order to manage the size of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes there are technical reasons. There are limits to what some end user platforms can comfortably display (such as older mobile) and there have been reports from some users that large pages don't work for unknown reasons or intermittent and after reducing page size it works better. It is also a Wikipedia guideline that pages that exceed a certain size. -- GreenC 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well obviously there might be users that cannot view the large page. Maybe someone is still on cable modem and has trouble getting images. Should all pages be kept convenient for all users? I'm not asking to nuke this style of per-letter lists, just to also have a compiled FULL list. For users who can comfortably access that. -- 5.12.62.59 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

PS About the "exceed a certain size" -- is that before of after transclusions?

Transclusions are possible. See List of Latin phrases (full) as an example of a large list that was split into separate articles then recombined by way of transclusions into a single page. It's not a single list, though. This method should be acceptable per Wikipedia:Article size: Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. Also consider splitting and transcluding the split parts. -- GreenC 18:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

'List of Latin phrases (full)' is a 567.4 KB download. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There would be List of Latin phrases as a sort of landing page for users to choose which version they want. "To view all phrases on a single, lengthy document, see: List of Latin phrases (full)" -- GreenC 20:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

People arrive at our pages by a number of routes (for example, Google); we don't get to dictate how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe but Google searches will find "List of cult films" before "List of cult films (full)" for a number of reasons. The purpose isn't to prevent access to long articles but to make them retrievable under a common system. The same way we don't require top hats at George Washington (baseball) because it's expected there is a higher level dab page to find the other George Washintons if this is not the one you want. -- GreenC 22:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's great. List of Latin phrases (full) is exactly the kind of approach I was thinking of. And I see that it even has the footnotes and references grouped up at the end. But now... what did you mean by "not a single list"? Which one, the Latin phrases or the cult films?! o.O -- 5.12.62.59 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

List missing

There really should be a list. Lexein (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is the list?

It says "list of cult movies" but don't have a list. Ducknuck (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ducknuck! The list is very long, so it has been alphabetically broken up into separate lists. Click on one of the letters in the index to see the titles starting with that letter. Hope that helps! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hostage

I would argue that the 2005 film Hostage has become a cult classic in recent years.

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC))

I don't see a list

Is it me or there's just no list. SmangaMbongwa (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of lists. Each letter of the alphabet leads to a separate list. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

it seems like a bad way to do it Normal Bates (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing films

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.157.254 (talk • contribs) 19:14, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

me too Normal Bates (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

me three. It was a bad idea. – ishwar  (speak) 01:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)