Talk:Horror film/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As some of you would know from the recent revision, I had been asked by Jinnifer under the user name of Onghske u r out ror u yeah u to do that when it asked me about a favorite horror movie. If you don't believe me, look at their message under the heading "Question" on my talk page. I'd like to let you people know that last night, I had no idea that the user was a sockpuppet account for a blocked user until @NJZombie: revealed it in his revision. As for the sock puppeteers, perhaps they might be wanting the 2010s separated from the 2020s for their personal reasons that I have seen that you people are up against. Right? Rtkat3 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3, nobody is upset with you concerning the changes. You’re not the first person this block evader has tricked into doing their bidding and you probably won’t be the last. No worries! NJZombie (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That, and WP:DENY is the best method with dealing with Jinnifer and her sock puppets.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"You’re not the first person this block evader has tricked into doing their bidding..." - gee, that's not at all insulting</sarcasm>. Just because a sock puppet pointed Rtkat3 to that section of the article, doesn't mean they were "tricked" into anything. Give Rtkat3 some credit, do you not think it possible that after being pointed this way, they then assessed the layout for themselves and made changes based on their own sound judgement? - wolf 00:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Except that now, banned user Jinnifer wants to merge everything from the 1970s to today.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It would appear that is some sort of an attempt at reverse psychology, to get one of the gatekeeper editors here to say "no, we need the section to be divided into decades", at which point Jinnifer would then say "Ahh-ha! I told you so"... or something like that. (Who really knows what is going on inside their head...?) - wolf 18:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing so complicated, their demands are just that inconsistent. See the diff I linked toward the beginning of this section. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Vs Lumping

Currently, consensus is for keeping the 2020's merged with the 2010's because there is not enough material for 2020's in horror films for it to pass MOS:OVERSECTION. Is there any way to resolve this need, like going out to research for more material to expand/write an acceptably large enough section?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

I have a citation that corroborates the date of the enactment of The Motion Picture Production Code in 1930 (AKA the Hays Code) and its replacement by the MPAA rating system in 1968. The citation is from 'The JSTOR Daily', the article is titled 'The End of American Film Censorship', and the URL is: https://daily.jstor.org/end-american-film-censorship/ Poppedballoon (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added to Censorship section I assume you were referring to. Might need another source for the end of sentence but I removed the citation needed tag. Next time please make your edit request in "please change X to Y" form. Thanks WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the Goth Subculture.

Horror movies and Goth are not the same things. Goth is a music subculture based around Gothic rock and its 4 subgenres Deathrock, Cold Wave, Ethereal Wave, and Dark Wave. Horror is not a Goth thing and it never was. Just because the Wikipedia article says there was some influence it doesn't mean it's connected to the music. Horror movies and the horror genre as a whole has been around way before Goth even existed. Goth didn't exist until 1979 with the song Bela Lugosi's Dead by Bauhaus and the fanbase didn't come around until the 1980s. Horror is just considered darkly-inclined. Please check out these two videos that explain what Goth is and what it is not.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GsskYEDgrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk_QKoWWh2E DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources (cited over on Goth subculture), such as Goth: Undead Subculture from Duke University Press, which explicitly make this connection. This trumps whatever personal opinions or youtube videos you might want to share. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That book states that David Bowie and Joy Division are Goth precursors. David Bowie never did gothic rock or any of its 4 subgenres. Joy Division was an early gothic rock band that has had a big influence on the goth scene. The Crow and Dracula have nothing to do with Goth. Dracula was written years before the formation of gothic rock or any of its 4 subgenres. The Crow also has nothing to do with Goth and is simply darkly inclined. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, we follow sources, not personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

How is that a personal opinion? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Who said goth and horror are the same thing? Agreed that "Bela Lugosi's Dead" kicked off the goth movement and subculture. This article clearly states the song was inspired by bassist David J's own binge on horror movies. The song itself is written about a horror movie icon. This article is a discussion of horror influences of the goth subculture. Influences ARE connections. Saying horror existed before goth did is not an argument in your favor. Horror and goth didn't need to start at the same time for there to be connection between the two. As MrOllie has stated, we go by the sources provided, not by some YouTuber's how to be a goth guide. NJZombie (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest a change to the opening section under authors

Please add H.P. Lovecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WallyFromColumbia (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Montana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 960 cannibal holocaust blu-ray 6o.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Article intro

"Horror is a film genre that seeks to elicit fear or disgust in its audience for entertainment purposes." Disgust? As disgusted as some viewers may be at some horror films, it would be an individual reaction. I'd volunteer that the number of films that intentionally set out to disgust an audience are out of the norm. I'd vote to replace "disgust" with "unease." The News Hound (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - I would offer the same. While there are movies like Beetlejuice, that should probably be under a horror subgenre of disgust. Horror in general is simply intended to elicit fear in audiences, simple as that. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Disgust comes from the cited source, unease does not. If we want to change the definition we need a new matching reliable source. I also disagree that it's an uncommon goal for this genre, consider films like the Human Centipede or the works of David Cronenberg. MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Support. Honestly we should go by the prose we have. What is and what isn't a horror film is often subjective and as another cite in the article states "there is no pure agreement on what the horror film is". Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Citation 264 directs readers to an article by John O'Greene and Glenn Sparks, however, the article listed is by Glenn Sparks, John Sherry and Graig Lubsen, per the doi link (https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500084198). This article does not mention the ecitation transfer process mentioned in the wikipedia text. Could the cited reference please be removed from the page? JGarnettAU (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashley Rodgers90 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jneezy504 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Tags

I feel like the banner tags could be removed from this article; it's been revised heavily in the past seven years since they were added. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Horror

I was bold previously and removed the "Christmas horror" section. While there are several instances of horror films set around Christmas and proper public reaction, none of them describe it as a genre (at least in the current indication). I don't think it should be used as such without such distinction as there are several films released with holiday-themes to try and cash in on re-watches, but is that a genre per se? The sources dont' back that up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The book I've cited describes it as a subgenre on multiple pages. You asked for citations to that book by page numbers, so I ordered the book through ILL and provided them, so I did address the concerns you brought up in your previous removal's edit summary. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the cite I provided, noting they were on pages 2 and 9: Valereee (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking into, the book seems to just say it's a cycle without really providing a lot of evidence. It even state Jason Bailey discussing that since Halloween leading to a glut of holiday-themed horror and the author themselves states on page 5 and 6 "defining a Christmas horror subgenre has also proven to be challenging." noting it's not limited to a santa-themed killer, it's not a sub-genre of the slasher, but then again says there is a sub-set of it that is a slasher sub-sub-genre (on page 7). I'm not seeing any real strong definition here other than in and out of horror film history, some horror films were set on Christmas. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Defining it may be challenging, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a subgenre. It has subgenres of its own. Not sure what "it's a cycle" means.

What exactly are you looking for, if a book about the subgenre published by an established publisher that uses the term "Christmas horror subgenre" multiple times in its introduction isn't good enough? Valereee (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that makes it quality as a Google search, but there is little context here, there is no meat on the bones of it. It can't seem to decide what it is other than "some horror films are on Christmas" but might as well say that any film. Is it a horror subgenre or a Christmas film subgenre? The book does not seem to go into detail and doesn't makes a convincing argument and doesn't even seem convinced by its own declaration. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we'll need a third opinion. Valereee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've requested one. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm actually at a keyboard I can type at now. To clarify, this niche style seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher. I feel this information from the book is probably misplaced, or better by Christmas by medium. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What is a horror cycle? Valereee (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood cycles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What does that concept -- explained in a microstub which has been tagged as unsourced for fifteen years -- have to do with whether or not a subgenre qualifies as a subgenre? Valereee (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to help you if you are trying to write about film genre and have not stumbled upon the term "genre cycle". Either way, I'd also bring up WP:FRINGE for this as this is such a small sub-sub-sub-genre, that having it located within the article against far more broad terms "slasher, supernatural horror, etc." There are certainly a book or two about Christmas themed horror films, but I don't see anything scholarly or serious (as this book even opens up, it's not supposed to be a serious scholarly view). Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll ignore the insult. Again: what does that concept -- or FRINGE -- have to do with whether or not a subgenre qualifies as a subgenre?Valereee (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Because from what I've researched when writing the article, the Christmas horror cycle or genre or subgenre, did not come into major discussion (which is why I may also refer to WP:UNDUE, in factoring in this with the other genres.) What is the essential understanding that viewers take away from this? How common is this term? It's not very from my research in writing up this article. I apologize, for the insult, but you asked me twice, when it's something you can easily take search and perhaps I felt a bit attacked. I apologize. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I'm sorry you felt attacked. But there's an entire book -- and according to that book, at least two others -- about the subgenre. Why does it matter whether or not someone somewhere is calling it a "cycle"? How is it somehow a fringe theory when an established publisher -- a publisher who publishes academic works -- is publishing a book of essays about the subgenre?

The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's strong as I never hear the term in regular use. Even looking up the major films like Gremlins or Black Christmas, they are usually referred to by far more common genres or subgenres. This is why I'm calling WP:UNDUE here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that you never hear the term in regular use, though. What matters is what RS are calling it, and in this case there are multiple RS, including at least one book of essays about the subgenre, using the term. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I can google it as you have and find bits and bobs, but it's not a strong common thread per WP:UNDUE. Specifically "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space" We don't include everything just because there is a citation available. It does matter, because there is undue weight applied here. I wouldn't add the term Nu-kaidan applied by David Kalat in his book on J-Horror which he tried to clarify as being a term for the rise of J-Horror films, as the term is not colloquial. I've searching through academic journals and am finding nothing, and I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point. It's not undue to include in the article about a genre that discusses subgenres of that genre a very short discussion of a subgenre that has dozens of notable entries going back over five decades and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm open to what that short discussion entails, but including it is not undue. Valereee (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Just wanted to mention that a good barometer for measuring the acceptance of declared genres, is to look up films at AllMovie, AFI, and BFI to see how those entities categorize film. Just picking one at random here that would seemingly fit the bill of "Christmas horror", I went with Krampus to see how it was categorized. AFI labels it "Comedy, Fantasy, Horror"; BFI just lists "Horror"; AllMovie, which is usually the most inclusive of the bunch, lists the primary genre as "Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comedy" and the sub-genres as "Creature Film, Holiday Film".
  Looked up Black Christmas next, and BFI again just has "Horror", while AllMovie has "Mystery, Horror, Thriller" with "Slasher" as a sub-genre (interestingly, the film does not have an entry on AFI).
  These are not nails in the coffin for either side of the argument, but they should probably be taken into account. Film genres on Wikipedia typically rely on sources like these, and if they're not using the classification, then chances are it is a fringe classification that isn't widely recognized. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve some coverage, but it should probably be very limited in scope. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's basically what I'm trying to get at, even in terms of genre, it would be an utmost outlier that outside of "10 Christmas Horror films to watch around the holidays" as a generic term to cover Gremlins or Black Christmas, which if we gathered the most base sources, would describe it as various other genres and sub-genres more prominently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The addition I'm suggesting is 115 words. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not that it's a short or long element, it's that even just including it with the others like natural horror or such feels undue. I think that's not what I'm getting across to you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're getting it across to me; you don't want it included at all. I disagree that any inclusion is undue. As I've said, I'm open to what that inclusion is. But based on RS, it's a subgenre. Valereee (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is where WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we have one citation of this book referring to it as a subgenre. This is why I brought up the academic journals and even the book itself states "nobody discusses it". As the current horror film article states "genre is what we collectively agree it to be", in this case, we have one person calling it this. WP:SOURCETYPES also notes to "cite current scholarly consensus". WP:RS also states to " Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." In short, and what I have been trying to get across, is, you'll need more than just this publication, and more specific academic research is not on your side here. If anything, for what I've said above, this fails the rules you said apply to it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem we are going to run into, is that typically when you introduce a subgenre, you need to provide examples. What examples would you provide? AFI, BFI, and AllMovie are among the most respected authorities on the subject. None of them seem to support the subgenre, so that would make listing Black Christmas, Silent Night, Deadly Night, Krampus, etc., a difficult claim to defend. Sure, there are some decent sources out there that have used the "phrase", but are they actually saying this is an established genre (established in the sense of writing about a widely-accepted concept, as opposed to coining a new term)? If they are coining the new phrase without making reference to others' writings on the subject, then they are behaving as a primary source. Primary sources are not bad per se, but they typically hold less weight than secondary sources who provide in-depth analysis of a subject that others have already covered.

  I haven't dug into the sources that deeply, so I'm truly just asking the question here as an outside observer. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  What horror subgenres that we're mentioning do they support? Valereee (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, if you want to take the time to peruse the site, be my guest. I think one of the three have a complete list you can search through. I can't remember offhand, and I'm out of time today. However, if you could still help me get an answer to the question I asked in the meantime, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @GoneIn60, I think you're asking me to answer are they actually saying this is an established genre (established in the sense of writing about a widely-accepted concept, as opposed to coining a new term)?? Yes, I think between the book, the Hollywood Reporter, and NPR, RS are saying it's an established subgenre. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  (ec) @GoneIn60, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is also at AFI under Horror. Not "Teen horror". And at AllMovie at Mystery, Horror, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Thriller with subgenres Creature Film, Religious Drama. We mention it here specifically in the Teen horror section, and there isn't even a main article for that section, which is over twice as long as what I'm suggesting. I'm not trying to pretend I understand film genre MOS, but I just don't understand how this could be undue. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think all subgenres that lack support at AFI, BFI, and AllMovie would be eligible for the same scrutiny. Andrzejbanas is going into these genre articles and attempting to clean them up as noted here. That's not to say they have to be explicitly supported by the big three, but if they are not, we're going to need some pretty strong coverage elsewhere, and that probably means more than a passing mention in a few books and articles. Can't hurt to have the discussion. I definitely don't want to lose information that is getting significant coverage. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The strongest source I'm citing is a book of essays about the subgenre published by an established publisher that publishes academic books. This source isn't academic, but the entire book is about the subgenre. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm open to removing teen horror honestly as well, as it appears to be more of a cycle (or perhaps belongs in closer observation with the teen film. But as it stands, that one has several academic articles, books from several different authors. I probably didn't do away with it as i've heard the term teen film tossed around enough and managed to find several sources backing it, but I did try and do the same for christmas horror, and came up with basically only your book and several listicles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hollywood Reporter is not a listicle. NPR is not a listicle. Both refer to this as a genre or subgenre. Both discuss the genre and its appeal in depth. I do not move drafts to main space until I have sigcov in three RS. Check the history at Christmas horror, where you can see the move. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've had books from McFarland that completely had incorrect information (i'm looking at you Italian Horror Film Directors). I'll admit those are stronger sources, but these seem to be not very scholary. The THR source states "Tales From the Crypt (1972) became the first film to feature its killer in a Santa outfit, something that would become a standard of the subgenre" while the book says they are not slashers. There is no consistency between the few and far between sources of what is the genre, because Christmas films set and again, there is no real scholarly information other than "this film came out, then this one. Gremlins exists." There is no real context or anything interconnecting these in any of these sources. Can you develop these into a consistent paragraph we can have that sort of Transends something beyond "Christmas horror films are horror films set during christmas", then it would be worth including. Because despite these being reputable sources, there is no real thought put into them other than well disguised listicle content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well-disguised listicle content like NPR and Hollywood Reporter, you mean? Valereee (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  What information do you want to pull from those articles? What indepth research is there in it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that there is a subgenre to horror that is recognized by the industry, the best mainstream media, and an established publisher. That's worth mentioning here. Valereee (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  So from what you said, you just want to say that "it exists". But I more or less meant, what do we want to say? Like, could your write a sample here based on these sources because so far if you just want to say it exists (which I don't you do), then that offers nothing to anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could we compromise on:

  === Christmas horror ===

  Main article: Christmas horror

  The earliest use of horror elements in films with a Christmas setting date to the early 1900s, but the modern genre fully emerged in film during the early 1970s and was controversial due to its departure from traditional treatments of Christmas in film. It is part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric celebrations of the winter solstice. An early example of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night.

  That tells the reader that there's an origin history dating back to prehistory and there were precursors in film 100 years ago, that the subgenre emerged in the 70s and was controversial, and that one important early example is SNBN. Valereee (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  a few issues. Per the History of horror films, the term horror as a genre did not exist, so referring to them as much in an anachronism. Either way, this in article on horror film, so we don't need to discuss that. We sort of just jump to topics that like a "modern" (in what way is it modern?). The genre isn't really controversial, as people weren't protesting a genre, they protested specific films so that's not really accurate either. This is kind of why I didn't really like these sources, because it makes a lot of false connections as a whole. I tried to scrap something myself from what was written in the book, NPR, and THR, but just found inconsitencies and nothing that really is a strong connection.  :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you're unwilling to make any compromise whatsoever for a short mention of this subgenre because you dismiss what is being said in a book 100% about the genre published by an established publisher, a feature-length article in a 90-year-old trade publication, and a fairly lengthy treatment by one of the most well-regarded English RS? Valereee (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also please stop using Wikipedia as a source. It's not a reliable source. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm obviously using the cited prose in the article. Please assume good faith, I have tried to apply the sources you mentioned myself, and I don't think publications break rules as valid sources, I just don't think the content within them is there to convincingly say anything of major value. I'd suggest actually reading these articles in questions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, If you want to use those sources that isn't my issue. My issue is that they have a lot written in them but with little usable applicable content. Yes, reading ghost stories was a Christmas tradition in the UK dating back to what that source states, but that doesn't connect the dots between this and the 1970s films historically or if they are even connected. This not display a lineage or history, it's a rag tag of horror and horror-oriented texts that only assume a connection because they are both set around Christmas. (unless there is something I'm missing in the prose, but not from what I've read or what you have sourced). Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am trying to assume good faith, but you keep pointing me at sometimes long and often undersourced and poorly-written tangential articles as if they're providing support for your objections, which keep changing every time I address them.

  1. The first objection was here, where you wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre. So, yes, you were objecting to it as a genre. So I went and got those page citations and, since I thought that was your objection and I'd dealt with it, added the info back.
  2. Your second objection was here, where you complained that I had added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true.
  3. You then argued of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content you'd removed I'd quoted the book source calling it a genre three different times.
  4. You then argued that it wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher.
  5. You then argued that you didn't find the book's arguments convincing.
  6. You then argued that seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher. I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect here.
  7. You then told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film.
  8. You argued calling a genre was FRINGE.
  9. You then argued that nothing in the sources]] provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.
  10. You then argued that you never heard the term in common use.
  11. You argued that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, sayig, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic.
  12. You Diff/1199086783argued that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment.
  13. You argued that you've found errors published in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles.
  14. You argued that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice.
  15. At this point, two other editors came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. And you said, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it.

  Which is starting to sound a bit WP:OWNy -- if you can't write it, it doesn't go in? I've written something like five different version of this. I think if you can't write it, and others agree this is a legitimate subgenre of horror, we should include some version of what I've written. Valereee (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally had a chance to take a closer look at two of the main sources in question here: NPR (2015) and The Hollywood Reporter (2018).

Both are independently written on the subject and suggest there is a deep historical connection between "darkness" – embodying fright, misery, death and decay – and Christmas tradition, which dates back for centuries. That darkness is tied to ghost story elements from Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale (1623) and Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843) all the way to "It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" (1963). Other associated dark elements include the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents, folklore figure Krampus (16th century), the evil Mouse King in "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King (1816), and the Abominable Snowmonster (1964). These sources call these precursors to the "scaled up" horror elements depicted in the modern Christmas horror genre, an era that both agree begin with the release of Black Christmas in 1974. THR actually calls the subgenre a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story". NPR adds insight from industry buff Hannah Forman and Krampus director Michael Dougherty.

I don't believe I have immediate access to review the book source, but it wouldn't be surprising if it touched on some of these same points. Additional sources I came across include Collider (2022) from Senior Writer Shawn Van Horn, as well as Mashable (2022) and Fronteras Desk (2022), a subsidiary project of an NPR affiliate. The latter is just a short excerpt from an ASU Film and Media Studies professor, but it does show that the subgenre has some level of academic acceptance.

With all that said, there isn't a ton of coverage outside of those sources and a pile of listicles found on Google (at least in terms of online sourcing). There is also still the concern that this genre mashup hasn't truly received widespread acceptance. Some of these sources revert back to the "slasher" subgenre as a whole when describing Christmas horror, which could indicate it is a less prominent sub-subgenre of horror. If that's the case, then its coverage is really getting into the weeds of genre classification. Despite this concern, I do think it's received enough coverage as a minority aspect to warrant a very brief mention in this article per WP:DUE, a position that will only be strengthened as more high-quality sources are published and/or located. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've written something like five different version of this. I think if you can't write it, and others agree this is a legitimate subgenre of horror, we should include some version of what I've written. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on what to include, other than they think it's a genre. So that's not agreeing or disagreeing to the present situation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write something up. Headed off to an appointment right now, I'll be back when I'm back at my keyboard. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Third Opinion

Maybe the above comments by User:GoneIn60 were meant to be a Third Opinion. If so, the Third Opinion request can be closed. If not, I concur with the above statement by GoneIn60 that Christmas horror is a valid subgenre of horror. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Robert McClenon. Just for clarification, I stumbled across this discussion after following a bread-crumb trail that began with this post. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, @Robert McClenon. Valereee (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)