Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2

Dislikes

The Rings of Power season 2 trailer was recently released, and currently has more dislikes than likes on YouTube. 2600:6C4A:67F:95A8:6D24:1725:6363:399E (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Dislikes are not visible on YouTube, and not something we would mention here even if they were. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reception wording

@Nyxaros: please explain why the wording of the RT and MC details must be different at this article from every other Rings of Power article. So far the only reasoning you have given for this is "It ain't broke" which is not a valid reason for inconsistency within the topic. If you feel this wording is genuinely better than the current wording used for these articles then please explain why and we can discuss whether all the articles should be updated with the new wording. If you don't think that and have just reverted me twice for the sake of it then I would also appreciate you being upfront about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't copy-paste every wording from (an)other article(s), especially when that wording is also added by you. Your edit is completely unnecessary and worse than the current wording. Since a similar incident has happened recently, I suggest you reconsider the attitude of this is the way it is in the article A that I edited, so it must be the way it is here like my old edit, because your revert seems to have been made just to justify them. ภץאคгöร 20:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of WP:OWN when you are the one who is making unilateral, barely-explained changes. We don't copy-paste every wording from (an)other article(s), but we do expect there to be consistency within a single topic and it is not unusual or unreasonable to have similar wording for the same content on two season articles of the same series. The fact that I added the current critical response wording to the season 1 article is irrelevant, if another editor had ensured that all the Rings of Power articles were consistent in their critical response wording and someone added different wording to this article without justification, I still would have made the change for consistency. Insisting that the wording be different at this article just for the sake of it is disruptive and completely unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you should stop repeating what I wrote for your edit and revert ("disruptive", "completely unnecessary", "WP:OWN"... really? You can look at the edit history and compare the number of your edits to mine on the page...). Second of all, as I wrote above the "consistency" you added is not valid and I'm, again unlike what you wrote, trying to explain the situation in the most basic way. You changed the original wording (linked above) before changing the info here to your preferred version and probably added/changed the season 1 article too (haven't checked that one). Therefore, you are imposing/adding your own wording to the mentioned articles for what you claim to be "consistency". If you were really following what you wrote, be "consistent", you would actually only need to follow the "consistency" of the original wording of TV series article in season articles, meaning that you would make sure the original wording is used in all three, but you are trying to enforce your own addition so I'm not buying it. You must provide a valid reason instead of what you claim to follow, but which you obviously don't. ภץאคгöร 22:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That is silly strawman argument. I have made it clear that I am interested in taking a consistent approach to all of the articles in this topic, where it makes sense to do so. You have somehow decided that this could only be true if I stuck to the "original wording" and never wanted it to be changed. But I can obviously want all the articles in the topic to have basic consistency and still be open to improved wording being suggested. It is very common for an improvement to be made at one article and then the same change subsequently be made at other relevant articles. Nothing nefarious about that.

If you want to have a genuine discussion about your preferred wording and my preferred wording and come to a consensus on what it should be moving forward, then I would be glad to do that. And then we could update all of the articles to match. That sounds like a win-win to me, and would be a far better use of our time. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What is this tendency to constantly misinterpret what I write? Even if you want to use this made-up consistency, it's something that should be discussed first, especially since it's a change that will affect multiple pages. It's not a tool to push your version with obviously worse wording, which is what I was talking about in the first place. The changes you made did not start as suggestions. ภץאคгöร 15:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I genuinely have no idea what you think I am misinterpreting. Secondly, I did not go around changing a bunch of articles to be more consistent, they have all been established with the same basic layout, formatting, style, and wording from the beginning and any changes that have been made across the topic since then have not been controversial. You are the first person who has taken issue with such a change, which is why we are talking about it now. Speaking of which, are you interested in having a genuine discussion about the RT wording as I proposed, or do you intend to keep ignoring that part of my comment? I am trying to be civil and collaborative but this response suggests that you are not interested in that. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You literally changed the wording on the series article and then the season articles as I mentioned four days ago. So you DID go around changing a bunch of articles to be more consistent. Back at it again. I'm definitely interested in that since my first comment, once this behavior stops and a better wording than the current one (or just a valid reason to use other wording(s)) is presented. ภץאคгöร 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

They were already consistent before I made that change. When I updated the wording at one of the articles, I updated it at all of them so they were still consistent. It feels like you are intentionally trying to be frustrating by pretending not to understand that, especially with edit summaries like "zzzzz, not surprising" which does not bode well for this mature discussion you are apparently interested in having. But if you do genuinely want to discuss the wording, then let's do that. This is the current wording for these articles, using season 1 as an example:

The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 83% of 491 critics gave the season a positive review, with an average score of 8/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "It may not yet be the One Show to Rule Them All, but The Rings of Power enchants with its opulent presentation and deeply-felt rendering of Middle-earth." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 71 out of 100 based on 40 reviews, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.

And this is your suggested new wording that is currently being used for the season 2 article:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 86% of 81 critic reviews are positive and the average rating is 7.50 out of 10. The website's critics consensus reads, "The Rings of Power's sophomore season discovers new virtues while retaining some of its predecessor's vices, overall making for a more kinetic journey through Tolkien's world." Metacritic assigned the season a weighted average score of 67 out of 100 based on 23 reviews, indicating "generally favorable" response.

My biggest issue with this new wording is the change in tense, saying "On [RT the] reviews are positive and the average ratings is..." rather than "[RT] reported that [the critics] gave the season a positive review". RT's data is constantly updating, particularly while a series is being released, and the chance that the data being presented is out-of-date is quite high. So using wording that says our data is what RT currently lists can be misleading. By saying that our data was reported by RT, we are avoiding this and following MOS:CURRENT.

Here are my thoughts on the other changes in the wording:

1. "critics gave the season a positive review" vs. "critic reviews are positive" -- obviously not much difference here but I think the first version is less awkward
2. "with an average score" vs. "and the average rating is" -- the second version incorrectly suggests that the average rating is something separate from the reviews
3. "8/10" vs. "7.50 out of 10" -- I actually prefer how this is spelled out properly in the second version
4. "The website's critical consensus reads" vs. "The website's critics consensus reads" -- I think the second version is more awkward, but I see that "critics consensus" is the term that is actually used on the website
5. "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score" vs. "Metacritic assigned the season a weighted average score" -- no strong feelings about this change
6. "indicating 'generally favorable' reviews" vs. "indicating 'generally favorable' response" -- apart from the obvious typo in the second version, I'm a bit torn on this one; Metacritic used to literally say "generally favorable reviews" so that seems more correct to me, but "responses" does mean we aren't repeating "reviews" so soon in the same sentence

Based on all that, I propose this updated wording as a possible compromise: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 86% of 81 critics gave the season a positive review, with an average rating of 7.50 out of 10. The website's critics consensus reads, "The Rings of Power's sophomore season discovers new virtues while retaining some of its predecessor's vices, overall making for a more kinetic journey through Tolkien's world." Metacritic assigned a weighted average score of 67 out of 100 based on 23 reviews, indicating "generally favorable" responses.

If you are happy with the proposed wording then that is great, if not then please explain specifically what you take issue with and why. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You cannot blame other editors for stating that they are not surprised because your replies sound like a broken record. I find it absurd that you attributed the expression of not being surprised to the maturity of this discussion. Anyway, since you have actually decided to improve the wording this time, here are my thoughts:

1. I don't see a problem with changing the tense, both can be used (but I'm more in favor of not using "reported"), and I also don't see a problem with "critics gave..." and "critic reviews...". I have been using both of them for years.
2. "Average rating" is the exact term used by RT. The average rating is technically separate from the reviews/percentage because RT sets the "average rating", not the reviews themselves, and there are plenty of reviews that do not give a rating. For example, if it says that there are 200 reviews with a 7.5 average, it may give the reader the impression that all reviews have given a rating.
3. "The critics consensus (on the website) reads" may be used.
4. "which uses a weighted average" is redundant.
5. I did it specifically to avoid repetition and because it is no longer explicitly used by Metacritic (like "universal acclaim"/"overwhelming dislike"). "Response" emphasizes the singularity of overall reception among the critics/the categorization defined by MC.

It seems we are close to a better wording. Still, I cannot say that I find this type of "consistency" (based on copy-paste/prone to repetition) entirely constructive, interesting or engaging. ภץאคгöร 22:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel strongly about the tense issue, but rather than "reported" we could use "found" or "calculated"? I also don't agree that my rating wording gives the impression that all reviews have a rating, but I won't argue over that point. For your last point, are you suggesting "indicating a 'generally favorable' response"? If so, we could go with this possible wording: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes calculated that 86% of 81 critics reviews were positive and the average rating for the season was 7.50 out of 10. The website's critics consensus reads, "The Rings of Power's sophomore season discovers new virtues while retaining some of its predecessor's vices, overall making for a more kinetic journey through Tolkien's world." Metacritic assigned a weighted average score of 67 out of 100 based on 23 reviews, indicating a "generally favorable" response. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As for your last comment, are you saying that it is not constructive for me to want to update the other Rings of Power articles with the improved wording that we are settling on in this discussion? You are so against my current wording that we are having this big discussion about improving it, and you have detailed clear reasons why you think it needs to be improved, but you are happy to leave it at the other articles? It just doesn't make sense to me that we would come to a consensus on better wording for this article and leave the worse wording at the other articles in the same topic. I'm not suggesting that we go around updating every film and television article, just the few about this one series. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've generally used "reported" or "according to" for RT's editorial initial review roundup articles. And yes, we can use it with "a". Actually, the point I am talking about is not specifically for the wording we have created here, but my thoughts about the consistency in general. We can of course use this wording in the articles of this series, but there may always be more than one "better" wording. Therefore, when someone replaces one of these with at least an equally better wording, we should not revert their edit for the sake of consistency. ภץאคгöร 10:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to agree on that last part, but for the current situation it sounds like we are coming to a compromise. Just to confirm, are you in agreement with my latest wording proposal or are you expecting further adjustments before it is implemented in the articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this wording looks good and can be implemented. Since Metacritic only compiles season premiere reviews, I think it should be "assigned the season premiere" or something like that. ภץאคгöร 18:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that applies in this case. Most, if not all, of the reviews they have compiled cover at least the first three episodes. Unusually, some cover all eight episodes, including Empire which explicitly says so. Other reviews include details from beyond the first three episodes so it isn't just them. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't check all of them and didn't know the critics got all the episodes. As you wrote, they often send a few episodes in advance to the critics, often the same number of episodes as the season premiere. We can forget about it then. ภץאคгöร 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Approach to the cast list

For anyone watching this page who is not watching The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I have started a discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Approach to the cast lists that could impact this article. I have proposed a new approach to determining the cast lists for this series and am hoping to get feedback from interested editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)