Talk:horror movie

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

horror movie

horror film

horror flick

About as straightforward as you can get. Note the definition of horror '[a] genre of fiction, meant to evoke a feeling of fear and suspense'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete all. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete, redundant to genre sense at horror (unlike e.g. chick flick where we might lack information about what kind of film women are stereotypically supposed to like). Equinox ◑ 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus, a "chick flick" might be understood as a flick about chicks, which could be high-interest stuff for the boys, depending on the amount of clothing used in the setup. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think it is 100% sum of parts with respect to the horror sense "An intense painful emotion of fear or repugnance". And even then, I somehow feel this is worth keeping. Some dictionaries have this: horror movie: Collins[1], Macmillan[2]; horror film: Collins[3], dictionary.cambridge.org[4]. Furthermore, the genre sense at "horror" originates as a shortening of "horror movie", so deriving the sum-of-parts claim from the genre sense at horror seems inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No it's from a different sense of horror. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, it is not certain that the genre sense of "horror" originates from "horror movie": it pertains to both books and movies. Now, how is this sense of "horror" attested? MWO does not have it, while Collins[5] has it only as a "modifier", as in "horror movie". The attesting quotations in the horror entry are rather unconvincing. Anyway, I think this is keep at least per dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan Polansky, keep just per the lemming test? You can't find any merit in the entry at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as a translation target and per Dan Polansky. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What happens when WT:CFI and the consensus of the vote are at loggerheads? Which is more important? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that we can say they are at loggerheads, if editors are voting to keep based on their interpretation of the CFI as permitting this entry. We do seem to have an as-yet unwritten provision for keeping useful translation targets. bd2412 T 21:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But they're not voting on their interpretation of CFI. Nobody's claiming it's idiomatic. It fails CFI but like I say, as long as voting takes precedence over CFI, and it does, this is a keeper. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They believe translation target is a CFI. That's their "interpretation" of CFI, if you will. Purplebackpack89 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Renard is correct. WT:CFI has only one definition of idiomaticity which does not encompass the lemming test. WT:CFI also contains no provisions for "translation only" entries. There is nothing to "interpret". — Keφr 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• RFD kept as no consensus for deletion (4 keeps, 3 deletes) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)