Talk:Horror film

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TeeRenTee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrinafinke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LEVcapustudent. Peer reviewers: Nat brizzkey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of “horror film” in the lead

“A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear in its audience for entertainment purposes“ isn’t quite the whole truth. I think it’d be better stated that the universal factor among horror movies is that they aim to evoke a negative reaction in its viewers. Horror movies such as Hostel, Saw or the vast majority of splatter movies don’t really try to evoke “fear” at all but rather simply disgust and revulsion. Same goes for the body horror genre. I think that’s what the lead did say a couple years back, and I thought it was more accurate. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Good points, FollowTheSigns. It's more than reasonable for the primary definition of a horror film to refer to 'fear', but you also rightly point out that a significant subset of horror films, especially in the 21st century, primarily seek to disgust or repel/repulse rather than frighten - aside from the horrors you mention, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (itself referred to as a horror on its own page) is perhaps a prime example. I'd support an amendment to the opening sentence which says "A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear or revulsion in its audience for entertainment purposes." Gregory 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Have changed "revulsion" in the first sentence to "disgust", to reflect the fact that "revulsion" redirects to the Wiki page "disgust", and the word "revulsion" is also used in the second sentence. Gregory 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryjames (talk • contribs)

Timeline

The "Timeline" section is an absolute disgrace. Just an incredibly long list (180,000 bytes) of various films, with some WP:OR musings and very little sourcing. I've just been WP:BOLD and massively slashed 2010s, 2000s and 1990s, and tried to add some citations that describe actual trends in horror cinema. I hope other editors don't mind and that this could kickstart further improvement to this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this whole article needs a re-write form the get-go. The sources are questionable, actually reading it is a nightmare. I'm tempted to try and pull information to start a new version, but it sounds like a monumental task. I'll get to it someday. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Agree seems like a colossal task. I've added the rewrite tag so others are aware. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Per the suggestion of Arcahaeoindris, i'm going to plan on doing some re-design on the article. One thing I've done in earlier attempts is try to have some emphasis on sections like in List of horror films of the 1950s. I have some books i've ordered from the holidays, specifically The Birth of the American Horror Film by Gary Don Rhodes which I think will help clear up some of the early history of the genre that really very loosely touched upon in most overviews. Other than a brief history, i'm curious what other sections would be good. There's a big danger of these kind of articles just becoming overblown with overt fan cruft and people wanting their favourite or obscure horror film mentioned, which does not really help readers digest an article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So I've been ovserving your edits @Arcahaeoindris: I'm going to try and tackle some of the historical sections to clear them up a bit. Sound alright? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've done a quick(?) re-do of the historical sections from pre-cinema to the 1950s. I'm going to take a break at it form now, but how do people feel about how this is organized? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: thanks so much for your work, your overhaul is such a massive improvement! It's a a third of the length it was when I flagged this. Structure looks fine to me. I think the main issue is still that the history section is too many examples and WP:TOOMUCH detail. Only particularly notable or influential films should be listed, like e.g. The Blair Witch Project. It would not be unreasonable to split it off into History of horror films at its current length, or in any case parts of it could for sure be made more concise. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to do that, but I feel like when we say things such as "The film created a spawn of similarly _____-themed films like ____, _____ and ____" we kind of have to list them a bit because we need to show that it was a real thing, y'know? I felt it was actually pretty fun to list some nearly forgotten films mixed in with more commonly remembered one. Like, just because it's a trend, it didn't necessarily create "great" works, but it created what the genre's make-up is. I'm wondering what kind of sections would/should be required next following this split. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the article for science fiction film looks to be in good shape and can be used as a guide here. History of science fiction films has been forked off and summarised on the main article. That article also has a "Themes, imagery and visual elements" section that could be included for horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on what we have in this article already, I think the "influences" section is a bit redundant and unencyclopedic. Any content worth keeping needs to be summarised or the section renamed. The Reception section, particularly about moral panics and censorship, can also definitely be expanded as this is a key issue specific to horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hesitant on the influences section, as the history of film article shows countless adaptations of Poe and shows that towards the end of the 19th century (and very early 20th century) there was a rise of material which would establish the horror film. I finally got my copy of "The Birth of the American Horror Film" and am slowly reading through it. I could probably expand it/re-write it to make it for better prose. I think it's good to have because you can see the turning point in when we're still adapting tons of classical literature (tons of Poe adaptations in early cinema all the way into the 1960s) and after when we just start adapting contemporary authors like Bloch and Stephen King. It's basically a way of saying "these stories dont' come from no where". you know? I'd be down to move it to it's own section and yes, the other sections need updated re-writes themselves.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @Andrzejbanas: I was actually referring to the other influences section further down and not the section on early influences in the History section. Your section on literary influences looks good and seems justified for the reasoning you have outlined. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahh right on. I'd be fine to remove it and expand upon the other sections. There is a lot to cover on censorship and having it's own section would probably tidy up the history section a bit too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting horror film history to it's own article

I've made the proposal on the article to split the History of the horror film to its own article. I think this will help, because it's hard to talk about the history of the article without doing some history (bans on horror films, some mild definitions of genres, etc.) that could be moved into other sections of the article. (i.e: part of the 1970s history of natural horror film can be moved to it's own section, horror films halting production due to the UK pressure and the Video Nasty hysteria of the 1980s, etc.). I think this will immeasurably improve the article that is still very easily tripping over itself in repeating the same stuff over and over, and that's after my own edits! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created a proposal for what the current look of the horror film article could look like with a smaller and more concise version on my sandbox here. Thoughts @Arcahaeoindris: ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I support the split. Draft looks good, thanks for doing that. I will have a quick skim and make some edits in the sandbox page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good @Arcahaeoindris:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I like it too.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So as there seems to be nice push for supporting the move, I'm tempted to do it now. I know @Arcahaeoindris: was doing a copy-edit on my Sandbox, but I feel like it could still be pruned or have some parts moved around within this section of the article. I'll give it a few bits of discussion, but I think we are good to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please proceed. Sorry that I didn't make as many edits as I could have on the sandbox as got sidetracked with other articles. But go for it, can always edit further once the content is up on the page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I'll move the article shortly. Thanks again for everyone's support. Wikipedia can be great sometimes! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And done. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So...after moving it, i've given it some thought and...do we really need the history repeated twice on the wiki? I feel like the opening paragraph of "In his book Caligari's Children..." would give enough of an intro and just have it link to the next page. So much of the history of the horror film is going to be "birth of subgenres", themes, and censorship ordeals that we want to cover in other sections anyways. Perhaps, we can have a bit more than that first paragraph, but going through the decades is just sort of us deciding what we feel is and isn't important, when it should be more properly balanced and spread out in the History of horror films section itself. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! What an improvement. Yes, I think that is a sensible idea. I would definitely suggest keeping a very broad overview of some of the key points and trends from the History article but the current structure is probably too long and doesn't need to be duplicated. The lead section also needs to be rewritten to summarise the new key points. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Have had a go at rewriting the lead. Much of the previous content was not supported in the body of text. Feel free to make further changes. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Current re-write of the lead seems fine for now. I think as we expand and find more solid strong information for the article, the lead will grow with it, and probably the need for seperate articles (List of horror film sub-genres?) Might need to be made. My suggestion for furture sections might be Regional horror films, where we can discuss more specific details of horror history from around the world. I know the current History of horror film article feels maybe a bit too Western with it's focus on British and American productions, but that seems to be the case as that's where the majority of horror films came from that pushed the trends of industry (outside some bits and pieces from Italy in the 60s and 70s and Germany in the 1920s, and of course the j-horror boom for the late 90s/early 2000s). As @Arcahaeoindris: has made some really nice starts too articles like Thai horror, I think some sections on this could help. I'm also tempted to create a Horror film fandom, or horror film audience subsection, as per my recent additions on trying to define the genre suggest, audiences interpretations of the horror film is has really suggested the definition of the genre as time has moved forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong agree with all of the above. An expansion on "audiences" could probably build on the existing part on "effects on audiences" which needs work. If you're happy to, go ahead and further cut down the history section, although obviously no rush as it is currently the strongest part of the article and know you have put in loads of work on it! Have gone and made a start on a "regional" section just using excerpts from other articles for now, although so far has just been on Asia. In the process have also finally done away with the aimless and superfluous "Influences" section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! It feels great to for once work with a wikipedia editor on an article where it's not just us reverting each other's edits :) I think i'll leave history as it is there for now, as we can probably pluck and pull some parts of it for other parts (audience, regional, etc.) Good work on the regional section, i'll try to expand on other parts of it soon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hahah, strong agree on that one! Probably a first for me too lol. Ok great, this article is already in much better shape. I think a few of the cleanup tags at the top can probably be removed now (i.e. rewrite, citations? others?) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't add any of the tags other than the "re-write" (which we are doing now). "This article may contain indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples. (January 2017)" might still apply to sub-genres as it's a pretty list-y section. We can probably get rid of "original research" as everything within the article that needs work seems to be tagged and you and I have added sources. The essay part is...probably out of date. I feel like that was part of the various school projects that have edited this article in the past. Maybe we can move the "re-written" part to some sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

@Andrzejbanas:, although I recognise your reasoning for this edit, I actually really like the previous Nosferatu image, and prefer it to the replacement one as an opening image to the article. It's a bit scarier and shows some cinematic shadow/negative space which I think captures the spirit of horror quite nicely. We definitely don't need two Count Orloks in the article though, so how about the previous image with the new caption? It's great to be sprucing the whole article up but just wanted to say that. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah i'm kind of flip flopping on it. The other image of Nosferatu is really good, i just felt like "ehh, two nosferatu's in one page?" Nosferatu's look and and visual appearance is important too. I'm thinking we could swap it back to that shadowy version once we expand upon the "Cinematic techniques" section, That way, we can have an image that hits like, a dozen check marks: historical, worldly, and captures imagery that's still used in horror cinema. I remember years ago there was once an image on the site that compared a similar image of Freddy Kruger with his claws out that was similar. I think we could bring back the shadow one with no real issues (other than it's not free, but with all the reasoning above, I think it's the idea choice). So yeah, long winded paragraph from me basically saying "I agree with you." :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regional horror

As we've expanded on this section, I've started moving some sections around and combining others. For example, I've changed Australia to Australasia as I feel like we can cover both New Zealand and Australia as they occasionally make co-productions and both really only got seriously into the film business in the 1970s and 1980s, and perhaps really only started developing their own horror film identity in the 21st century. This task might be even more complicated than the regular timeline of horror, so wish us all luck and I'm happy to hear any more suggestions with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded on the European horror films. While horror films are definitely made all around Europe, I feel like we've hit the main sources of it. My Spanish section might need some tidying up, but I feel like you get the idea across. I'm curious if we should include the United Kingdom there because I feel like it's almost a seperate entity that doesn't have quite the same similar styles and co-productions that the others do. I think the Asian horror section needs a bit more balancing out (which will be tricky). Beyond that, I think we could include some American specifics, but ...that should be enough? I think Australasia (or at least, New Zealand and Australia) is good for now, as the history of horror films in those areas is sort a relatively new thing as their film production, especially in genre films, seems to have only really kicked off in the mid 2000s. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Really excellent work @Andrzejbanas: I agree the section is looking very good. May just need a bit of minor cleanup for wording/conciseness. If there are any other European countries known for their horror cinema (e.g. Czech? Poland?) could always add a brief note in the lead of the section. I'll see what I can do to expand the Asian horror section. The risk now is that the section becomes too long - it is already over 30,000 bytes according to the section sizes template above. As with history though, if there is enough scope this could lead to more article splits e.g. Eurohorror, or Italian horror, etc. and then be replaced with the excerpt template. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it will get complicated as those countries (especially the Eastern block) did not really have an industry of it. As mentioned in the earlier section of the article, we should probably focus these on geographic-based cycles, rather than individual countries. I.e: Italy definitely had a cycle of giallo, zombie, gothic etc., France has a small cycle with their new french extremity and have dabbled in it. Honestly, if it weren't for the New French Extremity, i wouldn't give them their own section. Ditto for Germany which barely made anything, but that German Underground Horror thing is definitely something to notice, Spain however, has a horror cycle that even got revived in the late 90s/2000s but it's surely not as intense as Italys. I feel like these Czech or other countries could get brief mentions inthe lead if they have tiny little blips of something notable, but from my research these are the countries that had the biggest impact, the grandest cycles, as well as the most sources to back it up without feeling like we are pulling at straws. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Great, in that case sounds like you've covered the key bases :) I believe you, in which case bulk of Europe section sounds like it is finished. Have also added a brief intro sentence for Asia. Hong Kong and Chinese language films definitely are still missing here, and I'm even thinking Malaysia could deserve a mention (albeit probably a fairly brief one). Do you think any of these regional sections could be split off into new articles to keep the length down? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

and also potentially the United Kingdom. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And also African horror films actually. I haven't found anything on Nollywood horror yet (if much of it exists), but there are a few sources on South Africa and Ghana from a brief search. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, i feel like a lot of them will end up like the Indian horror film section where we repeat ourselves saying "There is minor horror development in [country here]". I think India should be included as it's one of the major film production places in the world, but I don't know about the others. As for splitting it up, let's just keep building it and after we're, well, not "done", but perhaps satisfied with what we have, we can figure it out how we should split it up. Doing it pre-emptively might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Censorship section

I'm wondering if we will need a censorship section as the article progresses. I find that it can probably be moved to specific sections once we build them up a bit more (i.e: Germany's new regulations on films in the 1980s led to the german underground horror) and the UK Video nasties scare will effect a section on British horror, while anything more major (i.e: UK's ban on horror films and such that cut down horror production in the 1930s) can be properly be shown in the history section, as it was basically on the United States making horror films at that period. The same can be said for China and others. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This section should really only be a very broad or brief overview if it's left in; I think it's worth reflecting on horror films as a whole as being particularly scrutinised, attracting controversy or being censored altogether. As mentioned above, the regional section is already becoming quite long and will likely lead to more split off articles, meaning parts on regional censorship may eventually need to be split off too. Let's remember this article should provide only a broad overview of the topic, one aspect of which is censorship/controversies. What do you think? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As i'm searching through it, I feel like that could be in a reception section as banning of horror films is mandated by governments/film boards, which are geographically based. I'm sort of envisioning a reception section that sort of states how horror films have changed (criical reception has grown much more friendly towards critics as critical analysis and research has been done in the 1990s/2000s and I have the sources to back this up!). It's more of a wait and see kind of things, but this is what i'm leaning towards. I'm not saying sections or topics aren't valid, i'm just seeing how it's easier to organize them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This makes sense to me; if that's what sources lean towards sounds good. There's also already an article on Vulgar auteurism as linked. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

History section

I note this issue was previously touched on here in May of last year (now archived). A now-banned user has been complaining about this section on multiple talk pages, inclding mine, which brought this issue to my attention.

The "History" section is divided into sub-sections, each for a different decade, save for the last section which is labelled "2010s-present". The question is, why not have a "2010s" section followed by a "2020s" section, as we are now well into the 2020s? For the past few years, there have been several points in time where there actually was a separate "2020s" section, some with decent content, others... not so much.

Just last January however, one of the regular contribors to this article made a series of changes that included a "2020s" section and it appeared to have worthwhile content. But then about two weeks later, that same editor made another series of changes, that then lumped the "2010s" and "2020s" sections together into a single "2010s-present" section. This is what apparently set off one particular user who took umbrage with the change, and while I don't agree with their actions, I am curious why this change was made.

This would also apply to the recently spun-off History of horror films page, which has the "2010s-present" subsection. These stand in contrast to the List of horror films of the 2010s, List of horror films of the 2020s, and especially the "Horrorfilmlist" template. Thanks - wolf 18:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors can of course discuss this, but please note that the recent change was only done in an appeasement effort to halt talk page harassment, and that is no way to arrive at consensus. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: "Yes, please see talk"

...and? You haven't said anything about the content in question. Just because someone pestered some user on a different site about a particular edit, does not mean that the edit was in any way improper or incorrect. Why is it you are ignoring BRD and taking the first step toward edit warring, instead of addressing the actual edit in question? - wolf 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give the editor who originally made these changes the right of first reply. They've been inactive for a couple days, but thankfully we have no deadline. And actually, making edits because a banned user pestered you is improper and incorrect, see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Proxying.MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you haven't addressed the actual content here. And while you cited wp:proxying, have you read it? Because I've complied with it. Also, I didn't make the changes to stop a banned user from "pestering me", I made them becuase I believe they are obvious and correct, and they improve the articles. As I pointed out in my OP (have you read that?), the changes were already made by another editor, (not "Jinnifer", but Andrzejbanas), who then undid them with no explanation. As I said, I don't agree with the actions of this banned user, but I don't believe we should make changes that are detrimental to an article just because of one disruptive banned user. - wolf 00:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also see WP:CANVASSING, especially since aforementioned banned user made it a signature feature of her modus operandi to incessantly harass other editors in the insanely inane hope she could force them to change their mind. It's also why so many editors at this page insist on refusing any of Jinnifer's suggestions as per WP:DENY. Furthermore, then there is also the problem of how banned user Jinnifer was an unreliable editor to begin with, who constantly posted nonsensical personal opinions as though they were facts, and just as readily vandalized pages in addition to edit-warring.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of which has either been addressed or doesn't apply. - wolf 00:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey sorry. I'm not sure specically what edit you are discussing that I undid. I did undo my own edit, it was probably because I either changed my mind. I usually leave an edit summary, but it might have been just me having a slip of the finger as well. Happens. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: thank you joining in, but your comment does not, (much like the others here), actually address the specific content change being discussed. I linked your edits in my OP, both the change that makes sense, then the second change that, well... not so much. The second edit seems to be addressing a pending split (that became a fork instead), so I can understand how some things may get mixed up and overlooked in the process, but now I'd just like to address the content change, speciifcally as it applies to layout. Not the content move to "History of horror films", and not the ban evader that went a little nuts in response to the change... just the change itself, (as I detailed in my OP). I'm just seeking to address content, and possible improvements, so if you (or whoever) wouldn't mind doing that, it would be appreciated. Thanks - wolf 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about the split between 2010s and 2020s? I feel like there isn't enough content for 2010s and 2020s to be split yet (namely for the last decade, especially with the draught on films due to COVID pandemic.) In my view, what I was trying to do was expand other sections of the article so we could slowly weed out what we don't need in the brief "history of horror section" and place it within subsections of the article. I haven't quite had the free time to really take a swing at it recently, but that was kind of the direction I was going. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Yes, combining the two decades together doesn't make sense. It also necessitates putting the two hat-notes together. We are well into the 2020's, and the impact of the covid pandemic is on that decade, it should be written about separately. In fact... it was! Then it was lumped back together again. Now a couple of editors have been willing to edit war to keep it that way, in response to a ban-evader who doesn't like it, but haven't provided any content-based reason for that. All that aside, separating the decades, so they are like every other entry makes sense, lay-out wise. We shouldn't push against content improvement just becuase of someone's behavior. Also, if this was in response to the content split (fork actually), I don't see how that applies. - wolf 16:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand people being upset about content being out of order but honestly, even separating it my decades is implying every decade has it's own style which is not true as things very and continue one within decades. Anyhow. I don't want to a new section for the 2020s yet because there isn't enough information to fill in there. Sections that are a single paragraph long don't really require a subsection. Unless there is some specific wiki rule here, while MOS:OVERSECTION states "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This basically is why we aren't doing this now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Obviously one subsection for a decade in a list of decades is not "clutter". And given the impact covid had on the film industry, it's arguably worthwhile to have that info clearly introducing readers to, and informing them about, the 2020s in film, intead of having it tacked onto the end of the 2010s like some minor after-thought. The 2020s will need their own section (again) at some point soon anyway, so I don't see why a few editors have dug-in against this, all seemingly because they were put-off by that block-evader. Well, thumping your chest and saying: "Oh yeah? I'm not gonna make this page better just cuz you say so! I'll keep the crummy version for as long as I can, just you watch! That'll teach you to evade a block!" ...is not very policy. I could care less about the block evader, I'm just seeking to make an obvious improvement to the page. One you had even made yourself. - wolf 04:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor is not being blocked because we don't like their ideas. I even agree with some of them. They are blocked because they have continued to vandalize the site by adding unsourced information, not contributing to discussion on their edits, and continuously harassing editors. Anyways, once the section can be expanded upon in a reasonable way i have no objection to adding it. Beyond that, anyone who can read three paragraphs and basic headings will understand the content. A one sentence section that states "no films were really made" is like having a chapter in a book be a single page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"They are blocked because..." - I'm aware of why they're blocked and I'm saying it shouldn't matter. It shouldn't have had any impact on decisions to improve the article, though it seems that is just what happened.

"...is like having a chapter in a book be a single page." - you say that as if that never occurs in books, yet it does. But that is besides the point, I'm obbiously not suggesting that there be a "2020s" section that simply states: "no films were really made", (which is a strawman argument anyway). Films have been made, as seen in the List of horror films of the 2020s, and there is more info about that in the forked-off paragraph at History of horror films#2010s-present (more on that in a sec). But more important is the reason why film production dropped off at the beginning of the 2020s, namely the covid pandemic. That should not be just a few sentences added as an after-thought at the end of a "2010s-present" section. The 2010s should stand on their own like every other decade/subsection, and the 2020s, should be its own decade/subsection, starting with the covid... right now you're just burying the lead! This current layout, on both pages, doesn't make sense.

And speaking of both pages, why create this content fork anyway? (I asked this before) Why not have a simple paragraph on this page (with a hatnote), summarizing the the "history of film" on that page? (that's really the page that this duscussion is ultimately about). That page should be the only one with the list of decades, it should have a separate 2020s section, with an additional hatnote to covid, and ideally a little more content on the pandemic, and more content, if possible, about any films made or released since 2020. (imo) - wolf 16:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't really suggested anything beyond why it's absolutely positive we need a seperate section. I've listed the wikipedia rules on why we don't split excessively. I personally think it makes sense per the rules standards. Once it can be expanded upon, go ahead and add it. As for now, you haven't really convinced me with your "it doesn't make sense" argument to break wikipedia standards. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated my position, and have gone well beyond "it doesn't make sense". Reducing my position to that shows that you either have no interest in discussing this is in good faith, (which makes all these replies of your some kind of exercise in argumentative must-have-last-wordism), or you don't really understand my comments. I've posted 7 replies and approx 8300 bytes of text, so there is certainly more than just "it doesn't make sense". And while you may have cited part of the MoS guidelines, you haven't shown how my suggestion is in any way "excessive", (or otherwise how the guideline in any way applies). I've tried to make this as clear to you as I can, but I'm not going to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. So congrats, the article lacks an obvious improvement, you still haven't addressed the need for a fork, but at least you showed that block evader who's boss. Have a nice day - wolf 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey hey. I'm 100% not trying to ignore you, but what have i missed? As for "the article lacks an obvious improvement", you can say words like "obvious" but I've shown the rule why we don't just add the section. It's been standard stuff with several articles I've worked on (some album articles warrant enough information on a release and a separate receptions section, others do not.). Re-reading your comments it seems to be mostly "well we used to have this section". The previous form of the horror film article was unsourced, and far too large. A section will be created when there is enough information for it. Feel free to add stuff if you like, but otherwise, i think this is why no one is really jumping in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

QED. I think we're done here. - wolf 22:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. If you change your mind i'm happy to figure things out in the future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Political horror?

Almost as a joke I revealed that the well-received 1972 movie musical Cabaret had most of the elements of horror films -- freakish characters, weird goings-on, and bad things happening to good people. The bad things going on may have been what everyone knew would go on with the rise of the German Nazi Party, and its rise would be associated with extreme evil to the only likable character in the story (the Jews), ominously expressed in the brutal killing of the beloved dog of the (Jewish) Landsteiner family. After plenty of vulgarity and the shock (highly effective at the time of the movie's release), the real horror comes from the bucolic scene in which a squeaky-clean young man sings to a receptive audience of conventional people the tuneful song "Tomorrow Belongs to Me". The receptive audience joins in to become a chorus that leaves no question of what Nazis would be like.The sexualized entertainment and the transvestite characters of the Kit-Kat Club would be no more.As shocking as transvestites were in 1972, Nazis were far worse -- even if they were super-conventional types.

Elements of horror flicks are clear in the movie (and some stage adaptations, of which there are many) and they are necessary.Pbrower2a (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR, in all the research i've done for years on this site, I can't say Cabaret has come up in conversation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is why I put that here. Political reality, whether in Nero's Rome or Weimar Germany, can itself be horror.Pbrower2a (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

not sure what you are trying to get at here but outside personal musings it doesn't really seem to be about improving the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section

Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The place to raise user behavior problems is WP:ANI, not this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is little that can be done to stop banned user Jinnifer from abusing new IPs or making new accounts with which to continue harassing other editors into editing on their behalf beyond blocking those IPs and accounts once we determine Jinnifer is behind them.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, we could always just change the "2010s-present" section into two sections for "2010s" and "2020s". It makes sense, it's an improvement and whether you guys like it or not not, it's gonna happen eventually anyway. Seems silly to deliberately not improve a page just to teach a sock-hopping troll a lesson. - wolf 21:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Except for the problem that it's a demonstrative fact that appeasing trolls, especially sock-puppet masters, never encourages them to stop their misbehavior. Besides the fact that banned user Jinnifer can not be trusted to either behave accordingly, make meaningful, beneficial edits, or abide their own worthless promises, then there's the problem of having a section that's supposed to chronicle and describe movies in a 3 and a quarter year time period.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The demands aren't even consistent - they used to edit war to impose fewer sections lumping more decades together. Or sometimes they want to remove everything pre-1970. MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hence my statement about "meaningful, beneficial edits." Until there's a way to permanently bar banned user Jinnifer from editing again, the only standby is to use WP:DENY until that current incarnation is blocked again.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

And there's the problem right there; editor's that are more focused on making sure some troll doesn't "win", even if that means removing an obvious and inevitable improvement to an article, one supported by other editors in good standing. That is not a sound editing practice, and not one supported by an actual policy, as opposed to an essay. - wolf 00:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions about what other editors are focused on. I happen to think WP:DENY is the proper strategy and also think that there isn't yet enough material to justify a new section. I also firmly believe that people who are only showing up here because a troll is harassing them cannot contribute to any sort of consensus. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"I also firmly believe that people who are only showing up here because a troll is harassing them cannot contribute to any sort of consensus." - Yep, like I said... there's a problem here. But fortunately, you don't get to decide who can and can't contribute to consensus, or who can edit articles. - wolf 00:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the recommendation of appeasing a troll who has a demonstratively evolving set of demands has not gained consensus, either, especially since said troll can not be trusted to cease harassment nor vandalizing once their demands are met.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And having said that, there does not appear to be enough material or events that justify splitting "2010s to Present" into "2010's" and "2020-present" at this time.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros/Mr.Fink: "the recommendation of appeasing a troll..." - who recommended the appeasing of a troll? That's um... disingenuous. Like some here, I won't claim to speak for any other editors, but as for me, I made that edit because I thought it was improvememt. Still do, I'm just not hung up on it. It'll happen soon enough, so I guess the article(s) will have to look silly until then. - wolf 02:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, as stated above, we aren't separating the sections per MOS:OVERSECTION which states "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This is standard Wikipedia rules which should be abided by. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're responding to a post from a week and half ago, during which time no one else has posted here and I haven't even looked at this page, never mind editing it, meaning this necropost of yours was entirely unnecessary. Have a nice day - wolf 05:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)