Talk:The Martian (film)

Budget and Box Office error

It says that the budget of the film is $109 billion while the box office is $630.2 thousand. The source it was taken from says that both are supposed to be millions only.

Obvious vandalism was reverted.[1] If you see such obvious vandalism you can revert it without discussion. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

RT

@FlightTime: What is your objection to my amends please? Changed raw numbers to pull from Wikidata so updated by bot so more likely to be up to date Indagate (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My objection is, you have no consensus for your changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But why need to get consensus for such a minor change before making it? Don't need to get comment on every change before making. Please don't revert just because not discussed before making amend, only revert if you disagree with amend. Please advise why you disagree with my amend. Indagate (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with Indagate's edits. I'm not sure what argument there would be against using these inline templates? They're narrowly used so the numbers are dynamically updated without editors needing to check manually. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My first objection was that Indagate rewrote the descriptive text of Rotten Tomatoes but did not provide edit summary to explain why. He should explain that he is promoting the use of {{Rotten Tomatoes data}}. If there is actually a consensus behind greater use of the {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} template then it would be better if RottenBot be allowed to do what it was made to do, and make edits on a large scale instead of having individual edits doing it piecemeal. My other objections are that it is strange to take the number that Rotten Tomatoes calls "average rating" and change the label to "average score" for no apparent reason (other editors have done this too but I've never seen a good reason for it). It is also a bit much to describe the selective sampling and subjective interpretation and quantization that Rotten Tomatoes does as "reporting", they don't report the scores and stats like a football game, they create them. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} has not been implemented in a widespread manner. Perhaps no one has made such a bot request yet or tried to get the consensus to carry out the request? I think it works at this time, and wherever it's implemented, it can save editors time in updating scores. In any case, how to word Rotten Tomatoes has always been a messy business. Personally, I think it needs to be made clear that the percentages come from Rotten Tomatoes always assessing a review as positive or negative, never in between, and I find the average ratings more appropriate for an encyclopedia than the percentages. I even tend to write the breakdown Metacritic has for a film (in this case for The Martian, it would be 40 positive reviews and six mixed, out of 46). I'm not going to fuss about the wording here, personally. Feel free to hash out what it should be here, but honestly, someone will likely come by and overwrite it in due time. There are certain editors with a cookie-cutter mentality that think the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic writings should be done one way, and they have the time and energy and obsession to do it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

IIRC the bot received permission for a limited trial run then stopped. It might be still running in limited capacity, it might not, but if you are enthusiastic about more articles using the template it seems strange not to ask the bot author first and find out.

Erik says "cookie cutter" (and has said it many many times before) and I say a bit more consistency would be nice. I am not hung up on one true way of doing it but I am trying to do it more or less the same as it has been done by many other editors before me. (I don't see why some people write "The review aggregator" but other things being equal I wouldn't bother to change it either.) There's more than one way to do it but there are more than a few ways that are worse than others, so if we could try to avoid some of those it would be a good start. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's my favorite go-to description! Feel free to have at some ideal language, but like I said, it may be a waste of time if you move on and someone else comes along and overwrites it with their version. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Erik suggested "I even tend to write the breakdown Metacritic" but this adding even more verbose detail does not seem like a good idea when some editors are already complaining about the alleged emphasis on review aggregators [2].

There have been many discussions about ideal language (several past discussions can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators) but despite what some people might think I'm not trying for "ideal language", I'm merely trying to avoid making things worse.

-- 109.79.176.100 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Link within same page seems redudant

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section § Links_from_the_lead_to_article_sections

An editor added a link in the lead section that points to a section further down on this same page.[3] This link seems redundant, the table of contents already serves that purpose. That editor disagrees and has restored the link.[4] (The guideline WP:INFOBOX warns to avoid links within the same page, because the Infobox is not a table of contents, but) I have not yet found the relevant guideline that specifically discourages this sort of redundant link, but WP:OVERLINK seems close. Maybe another editor will comment, or maybe I may have to ask for a WP:Third opinion. Do editors other than User:Apokrif think this extra wiki link in the lead section is really a good idea? -- 109.76.132.168 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That was a perfectly fine link. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Article got to {{good article}} fine without it. Seems like a slippery slope to many more unnecessary links but if you both really think it is fine then I will leave it. -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the table of contents is that it's relevant entries are not displayed alongside the relevant text, so relying on the TOC alone makes the browsing more difficult. Apokrif (talk) Apokrif (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem with linking the word scientific accuracy is then why not link to any of the other phrases in the lead section that point directly to the article below. (I'm sure there are editors that would love to link the words "positive reviews" directly to the Reception section.) Perhaps because this film actually tries to be somewhat more scientifically accurrate than most films that you feel it needs extra emphasis? Within page linking still seems unusual an unnecessary for Wikipedia articles, but it doesn't seem to have been specifically discouraged by any guideline I'm familiar with. -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"why not link to any of the other phrases in the lead section that point directly to the article below": WP:BOLD. Apokrif (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It has: any Wikipedian can add other links. Apokrif (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. This kind of link (linking to a section below) is highly uncommon, in fact I've never seen it on an article other than for redirects, and there are also WP:EGG concerns. Plus, why would we only link "scientific accuracy" and not "filming" and "musical score"? It just doesn't make sense. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no WP:EGG concern here. " It just doesn't make sense": you are welcome to add these links. Apokrif (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLD doesn't allow you to do whatever you want, it's just to encourage editors to not be timid and provide guidance on what to do when a bold edit is reverted. Again, nothing to do with this case, which is a MoS scenario. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

None of those terms should be linked. The lead is a summary, not a table of contents. The table of contents is the table of contents. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK links are not forbidden in the lead. Apokrif (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Links are not forbidden in the lead. But links that link to a section on the same page in the lead is unheard of. If necessary, we can start a discussion at MOS:LEAD to request for clarification. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you dropped a link to this discussion over there yesterday. We'll see if someone else chimes in here, or we can discuss further over there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a wide difference between not forbidden in the lead and actually being a good idea. It is highly irregular to apply a within page link' page to the words in the lead section like "scientific accuracy" when readers would reasonably expect it to be a wiki link. It is also wildly inconsistent, why link the words "scientific accuracy" in the sentence "The Martian received praise for its direction, visual effects, musical score, screenplay, scientific accuracy, and likability, largely due to Damon's performance" and not link anything else in the same way. Please remove the link and restore the WP:STATUSQUO already. -- 109.76.140.168 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the IP completely. Just because it's not explicitly "prohibited" by WP guidelines doesn't mean it's bad practice. Again, I have seen no article do this, which indicates that this is not the convention and there has been no consensus in favor of such a change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Just because it's not explicitly "prohibited" by WP guidelines doesn't mean it's bad practice." exactly.

The fact that it is too rarely done in other articles (something which, as already noted, you can redress yourself) does not imply that it should not be done in this article. Apokrif (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"readers would reasonably expect it to be a wiki link": I don't get your point, the wikilink I added is actually a wikilink.

"not link anything else in the same way": this looks like a WP:ATA and has already been addressed above (did you read the whole discussion?) Also, please note that a help page explains how to make these links and does not say they should be avoided (I you think they should, I suggest you address the issue in the better-suited Help talk:Link rather than here). Apokrif (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"readers would reasonably expect it to be a wiki link" a link to a wikipedia article further explaining what is meant by "scientific accuracy" or on the general topic of "scientific accuracy in film". Instead it is a link to further down the same page (also known as a relative link). Wikipedia allows the use of relative links but normally they are used for things like the table of contents or footnotes, not links within prose paragraphs. Using it in this way is abnormal and you should be able to offer some better justification for doing this than "not forbidden". You tried it, other people didn't agree, you cannot say it is actively a good thing, so we should be able to remove it without it being restored again. -- 109.76.202.131 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:ATA is not relevant here, it is an essay about "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and this is not a deletion discussion. No article is being deleted. No reliably sourced content is even being deleted. The only thing being removed was an extra relative link that was only recently added and is redundant anyway. This an issue of linking and STYLE -- 109.76.202.131 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Since there's been no consensus on this issue, I've started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC on section links in the lead. Your input is welcome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The RfC technically hasn't expired yet, but there is WP:SNOW consensus against including said links. I've ended the RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)