Horror film is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Horror Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture Culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal Top‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

In an effort to make this article easier to read and to bring out some key points of analysis, I reformatted parts of two or three paragraphs from inline lists into vertical lists. This treatment is encouraged by MOS:EMBED, particularly in the section titled ""Children" (i.e., indentation)."

Unfortunately, another editor undid my work this afternoon. The editor has declined to continue our original talk thread, so I am restarting the discussion here.

What is the consensus on the use of vertical lists, particularly as a way to clarify dense inline lists? If there is a consensus, I am willing to re-do today's work. Pac Veten (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be (with few exceptions) a prose encyclopedia. We should not be reformatting sections of it into bullet points. I did not decline to continue, I stated that I was not willing to answer questions while you ignored mine. Here is the question you ignored again: 'How did you unintentionally reformat text into a bullet point list? Are you using some sort of automated tool?' MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:EMBED points out the value of vertical lists to clarify certain material. Given that guideline, what are your thoughts?

For your question quoted above, could you please clarify what was meant by "unintentional" reformatting? I didn't use any automated tools in this work. Pac Veten (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it is well understood that Wikipedia should not substitute bullet points (in the style of PowerPoint) for strong, paragraph-based writing. The question here is a different one: should dense, complicated, inline lists sometimes be broken out into vertical lists for clarity. WP:EMBED answers "yes" to this question, in effect. Pac Veten (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, you stated that 'this would have been unintentional', I was seeking clarification. MOS:EMBED sets out standards for formatting lists when they should be embedded in an article, it does not encourage or require such lists. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you may have misread my talk page? The comments there note that any *content* changes would have been unintentional. The formatting changes were by design.

The lists are already embedded in this article (in inline style). The question is about the most effective formatting for a reader. It sounds like you may have a preference against lists; as a copy editor, I do support them on occasion.

To decide whether to restore today's revisions, it sounds like some community input will be needed. Pac Veten (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Although the editor above undid many recent corrections of grammar, style, and usage, I am restoring those corrections—without reproducing the issue that is open in this discussion thread. All of these corrections can be referenced in the Wikipedia Manual of Style and/or The Chicago Manual of Style, in case it is useful. Pac Veten (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction between horror films and their audiences is another significant issue discussed by Rhodes. He notes that horror films often serve as a safe space for viewers to confront and process their fears. This cathartic experience can provide psychological relief and a sense of empowerment, as viewers face and overcome their anxieties in a controlled environment. The communal experience of watching horror films in theaters or discussing them in fan communities also plays a crucial role in the genre's impact and popularity.[6]

Since this paragraph discusses audience responses without mentioning the cinematic techniques producing those responses, I was going to move it to the "Effects on audiences" section, but that section appears to be sourced mainly from scientific studies—would this still fit under that heading?

Also, the reference is missing here, and after a cursory review of Rhodes’ work I’m not actually sure he ever said anything like this. I don't think it should be deleted, however, since some scholars have produced work on catharsis in horror. Knowahsbetter (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I added the AI generated tag here, as the edits by AetherWriter display strong indications of likely LLM output, and thus need review for hallucinations, source-to-text integrity, original research/synthesis issues, and the like.

Unsurprisingly, the text @Knowahsbetter indicated above comes from one of those edits. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the content they added looking at their user history. The citation they seem to citing is freely available. Not only do the pages not add-up, the content doesn't either. If it wasn't ai-generated, its not apt to the sources by Rhodes, all of which initially, were added by myself. Do you think we should removed the banner after this edit @Gnomingstuff:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits are the only ones I looked at, so if all that is addressed then sure. Thanks! Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]