Talk:Cult film
Latest comment: 23 June 2024 by NinjaRobotPirate in topic Wordiness
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult film Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Article history Template:WikiProject banner shell User:MiszaBot/config Template:Refideas
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Wordiness
This article is very wordy imo, should be split a bit up. Habat1165 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)