Talk:cult classic

cult classic
Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep basically per my reasoning from above. This is a sum of parts only if the group of terms involving cult book, cult film and cult classic is used to extract an adjectival sense of cult serving to represent this group. In, Collins does not have it but oxforddictionaries.com (not OED) does; curious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 15:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. + . — Ungoliant (falai) 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm evil, eh? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain. At this point, "cult classic" is no more than the sum of its parts. It may have been the first "cult _" collocation to come into use. Other collocations show up earlier in ngrams, but tracking down the actual books reveals that what Google has recorded as early (pre-1930s) instances of "cult work", "cult game" and "cult book" are in fact instances of "diffi- cult (work|game|book)" across line breaks, and the two early hits of "cult story" are actually a scanno of "colt story" and "a new study of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, of its function as the early Christian cult story". The earliest hit of a "cult _" collocation which is actually relevant seems to be this one from 1933: "Charles Ford's achievements include everything from his cult classic film Johnny Minotaur [...]". One could try to demonstrate that this use of "cult classic" predates "cult" having the sense "enjoyed by a small, loyal group" (in which case it would pass the "in a jiffy" test), but I am not sure how one would do that. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Film? The question is really whether the term "cult classic" means "cult classic film", or whether it normally means "a perfect and/or early example of a particular style enjoyed by a small loyal group" and "an artistic work of lasting worth enjoyed by a small loyal group".  Then it would be a sum of parts.    D b f  i  r  s   07:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky, that's why we have a relevant definition at cult, it's not some sort of incredibly fortunate coincidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure a definition should be at cult. But it can stay there; we also have a definition at prime (Adjective, #4) and prime number. See also Talk:free variable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)