Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose

Average rating not available for TV shows

There's currently a problem with accessing the average rating for television shows. I've brought this up at MOS:TV. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Use on television episodes

This template is almost nearly perfect to be used on television episodes as well. However, if the episode has a 100% approval rating it still links to List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which obviously doesn't apply. Is there a way we could add an additional parameter to this that could exclude that link if needed? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Television episodes are also generally rated by season, right? That's another wrinkle. Sdkb ^talk 06:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct. They also typically receive an overall rating for the whole series too. I was specifically using Doctor Who in this case, I've used the template in most recent episodes except those that have a 100% rating because of this issue. There's a rating at the show page, season page, and episode page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Not changed anything about wording for seasons etc, just made the wikilink conditional on Wikidata classing the article as a film. Indagate (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This template is punctuated incorrectly.

A previous user quoted from the Manual of Style that "it is clearer to use a colon to introduce a quotation if it forms a complete sentence, and this should always be done for multi-sentence quotations."

The usage here isn't preceded by a complete sentence, a requirement for colons according to the Manual of Style here and every other major style guide (CMS, APA, MLA). See the APA guidelines for example (https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/faqs/colon-use). For a less authoritative but more comprehensive description, see https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_colon_or_comma.htm.

The sentence would need to be something like "The website's consensus reads as follows: ..." in order to use a colon. I suspect many would find that awkward and that most would prefer "The website's consensus reads, ...". UsernamesEndedYearsAgo (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

New Wording (Nov 2024)

The new wording of the prose is very awkward and wordy. Using Joker 2 as an example: As per the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 32% of 348 critic reviews are considered positive, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 10, and critics consensus: "Joaquin Phoenix's eponymous Joker takes the stand in a sequel that dances around while the story remains still, although Lady Gaga's wildcard energy gives Folie à Deux some verve." As per the review aggregator Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 45 out of 100 based on 62 critic reviews, considered as "mixed or average".

First off, starting back to back sentences with "As per the review aggregator..." reads way too much like a formal peer reviewed research paper, and isn't how people or a typical Wikipedia article write. Secondly, having the score, review count, ratings, and consensus all in one sentence is dangerously close to a run-on, if not just awkward. There was also already a discussion in the past about using "4.9/10" instead of "4.9 out of 10" since its more streamlined, as well as in-line with the cited website's format. I think the "as per" is superfluous (we know it's per those aggregators, they're the ones being cited and linked to) and there should be a period separating the ratings and the consensus. TropicAces (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How about this:

On Rotten Tomatoes, 32% of 348 reviews are considered positive, with critics consensus: "___"

(Let's not mention average rating, cos it's not visible on the site unless you click on the tomatometer, and when you do click on it, the rating by top critics is shown as default, instead of all critics, so there is a greater chance of error citing the wrong rating. Also RT considers only the tomatometer to base its consensus and not the rating) Cinephile4ever 16:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Next:

A weighted average score of 45/100, considered "mixed or average", is assigned by Metacritic based on 62 reviews. Cinephile4ever 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that including the average rating is important for context, and RT's weird new idea of putting top critics first is annoying to have to double check but I haven't seen too many articles affected by it (they're quickly caught by editors or include a hidden note reminding people to check their score). I think a fair middle ground here is "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 32% of 348 reviews were considered positive, with an average rating of 4.9/10. The site's critics consensus reads: "___."" As far as Metacritic's prose goes, I think its important to note Metacritic at the start of the sentence, not buried in the stats, since the casual reader may think the 45 score is still related to RT (or at the very least say "...mixed or average reviews, assigned by Metacritic.") TropicAces (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)tropicAces

Let's do away with the words "review aggregator" for RT, cos metacritic is also a review aggregator. Since we give wiki links to both, people can click on them and know they're review aggregators. Next, replace "were" with "are", cos new reviews are being added continuously on the site.

On Rotten Tomatoes, 32% of 348 reviews are considered positive, with an average rating of 4.9/10. The site's critics consensus reads: "___."

How about this for metacritic:

Metacritic considers the film to have received "mixed reviews", with a weighted average score of 45/100 based on 62 critics' ratings.

Substitute with "favorable reviews" or "unfavorable reviews" or "universal acclaim" or "overwhelming dislike", I think it makes more sense. Cinephile4ever 03:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if you're ok with "as per", then this is fine too:

As per Metacritic, the film has received "mixed reviews", with a weighted average score of 45/100 based on 62 critics' ratings. Cinephile4ever 03:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose removal of the average rating. It's usually more informative than the Tomatometer. Nardog (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is literally no consensus here right now, and I oppose both of these "new" versions including the trivial addition of "considered" and the incorrect quotation of "reviews" since MC no longer uses "reviews" (e.g. "Metascore Mixed or Average"). ภץאคгöร 11:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What you mean no longer uses "reviews"? Go to their site and see for yourself the meaning of metascores: https://metacritichelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/15456077802647-What-s-with-these-green-yellow-and-red-colors

Also "considered" is important, cos RT and MC consider the same review to be positive and negative for many movies, if you want I can give examples. Cinephile4ever 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Or I will accept your awe-inspiring finding that the word reviews should not be within quotations. Let's have it your way like this: "mixed or average" reviews, instead of "mixed or average reviews".

And I will also accept that the word "considered' need not be included, cos since the sentence starts with "On RT", it implies the reviews are positive only on RT, though the same reviews might be considered negative on MC. Any other magnificent opposition from you? Cos the other two users "nardog" and "tropicaces" haven't objected to the new change. Cinephile4ever 13:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well well, it is surprising that it took you about 20 minutes after your reply to realize it. Instead of writing snarky and empty words ("awe-inspiring", "magnificent"? really?), you must realize that there are editors here who are against the changes and it's not just about the removal of "average rating", the quotation of "reviews" and the addition of "considered". ภץאคгöร 18:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well even after taking so many hours, you are unable to say anything else except those you already said, but it's alright, you can take a few more hours and say what else it's about. Cinephile4ever 03:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose these changes. Nothing is broken? With a few tweaks over the years, it's been working well. I wouldn't call your proposal a tweak at all. Mike Allen 22:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, do you start a quote of review by Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian like this: "On the newspaper website The Guardian, Peter Bradshaw opined..." or do we all write like this: "Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian considers the film "a masterpiece". So, do away with the words "review aggregator", simply start with Rotten Tomatoes, like we start with Metacritic. We don't mention the words "review aggregator" for Metacritic, then why only mention for RT. We should either mention for both, or not mention at all. I prefer the latter, cos as I said earlier, we give wiki links for both RT and Metacritic, so people who don't know what they are can click on them and know they're review aggregators. Also, the user "tropicaces" said using the words "review aggregators" twice is wordy.

So, I suggest we start with: "Rotten Tomatoes considers 32% of 348 reviews to be positive". There is another reason why this is better, and I have said it before too. The same reviews are considered postive by RT and negative by metacritic. I can give plenty of examples if you want. I have read a lot of reviews on RT too, and found many reviews they consider positive are actually negative, and that's also why they have a link asking anyone to tell them if they think any review is mischaracterized as positive. That is why I insist on using the word "consider".

Next, why is the word "website" repeated twice, and why is it "website's consensus"? It is not the consensus by RT, rather what RT considers to be the "critics consensus", and those are the exact words used on the site. So, the next sentence should start: "The site's critics consensus reads:"

So here is what I finally suggest as the better version:

"Rotten Tomatoes considers 32% of 348 reviews to be positive, with an average rating of 4.9/10. The site's critics consensus reads: "__."

Now tell me who agrees with this version, and who don't, and the reason why. Cinephile4ever 04:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Now for Metacritic:

Do we write for RT like this: "Rotten Tomatoes, which uses a simple average, assigned the film an average rating of 4.9 out of 10"? This is so unnecessary and wordy, that is why I suggest for Metacritic the same what we write for RT: "with a weighted average score of 45/100".

Then this current wording is wrong too, "based on critics". Do they base their score on critics or critics reviews or critics ratings. I say the latter is the best, because it is the weighted average of critics ratings that is the Metascore, that is why I added the word ratings. Again, only Metacritic considers these scores to label a film "mixed or favorable or unfavorable". That's why I suggest this as the better version:

Metacritic considers the film received "mixed or average" reviews, with a weighted average score of 45/100, based on 62 critics' ratings.

And if you all are so opposed to the word "consider", then I am fine with starting with "As per" too for both RT and MC:

As per Rotten Tomatoes, 32% of 348 reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.9/10. The site's critics consensus reads: "__."

As per Metacritic, the film has received "mixed or average" reviews, with a weighted average score of 45/100, based on 62 critics' ratings.

And if you are all so opposed to the words "as per", then omg I'm fine with replacing "as per" with "On" too.

I'm only wanting better choice of words, so instead of just opposing my choice of words, if you got any suggestions of better phrasing, say it too, I'm always willing to accept. But don't just stick with the old phrasing which is really pathetic. Cinephile4ever 04:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)