Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators

Metacritic percent?

Our example says, "Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 49%..."

Metacritic calls the number a "METASCORE" and, to the best of my knowledge, this is not a percentage, but a weighted average of various critics' scores. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you search for a film at Google it will often list a short description of a film and some of the scores it has received. For example my search for John Wick 3 returns a short description of the film and also some scores: 8/10 IMDb | 89% Rotten Tomatoes | 73% Metacritic

The Metacritic score is no more or no less a percentage than the Rotten Tomatoes score, they use different systems to add up and weigh the reviews but both scores are ultimately out of 100.

Percentage literally means out of 100, from the Latin per centum "by the hundred". -- 109.79.86.175 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

While mathematically it's true that "43%" and "43 out of 100" are the same, I think there's still a difference when it comes to usage or connotation. In this case, the line is blurred because the Metascore is out of 100.

Lots of scores are conveyed in plain number form ("I got a 5") or as a fraction ("I got 7.5 out of 10"). But if a judge gives a woman a score of 7.5 (out of 10) on a dive, wouldn't it be weird to say, "she got a 75% score on her dive"? Or if you scored 2100 on the SAT (back when the max was 2400), you wouldn't say "I got 87.5% on the SAT". The fact that Google uses "%" may just be arbitrary since Metacritic itself does not display the Metascore as a percentage or a fraction. They could just as well have used "/100", and their use case would probably not permit "out of 100" even though that's perfectly fine in prose. I would argue that the Metascore is "less a percentage" than the RT score simply because it is not displayed as a percentage by Metacritic, but rather as a whole number. But only barely less. Sorry for this pointless rambling lol. Winston (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

External links

This essay appears to conflict with the guidelines WP:ELDUP which say:

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and comply with the criteria for links to be avoided.

That is, there's no need to include links in the External links section that are already included as references.

This essay says:

External links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be included to provide readers with access to additional reviews in centralized locations. If external links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are already provided in the article's "References" section, it may not be necessary to repeat these links in an "External links" section.

Not exactly decisive, saying it "can be" included again, and that it "may not be necessary" to repeat the links. I contend that it is unnecessary and redundant to duplicate Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic links in the External links section. If they have already been included in the Critical response section, once is enough. I propose changing the essay to say exactly that, and that instead of saying "it may not be necessary to repeat" to clearly say "it is not necessary to repeat". -- 109.76.212.43 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So here's the part of WP:ELDUP we need to focus on: Exceptions include "websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and comply with the criteria for links to be avoided."

The question is whether or not RT and MC are "devoted to the topic", because the other two requirements have been met. Personally, I agree that repeating RT and MC in the External links section is repetitive and unnecessary, but technically it might qualify per the WP:ELDUP guideline if an editor chooses to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The External links section has been used as a bit of dumping ground for links, and I have seen links such as Rotten Tomatoes (or reviews) get added early on (such as before a film has been released), and in most cases added to the Critical response when there are enough reviews, but it is often never removed from the External links section. I thought WP:ELDUP makes it pretty clear that this duplication is unnecessary.

Can you give an example of a case where you think it is a good idea to have Rotten Tomatoes listed twice, both in the Critical response section and in the External links section? I understand the value of listing Rotten Tomatoes at least once, but I do not see the benefit in listing it twice. Even if people can come up with a few exceptional cases I think it should be made clearer that that in most cases the duplication is not necessary. -- 109.76.195.183 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

First, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is an essay, which on Wikipedia is nothing more than an opinion shared by an editor or group of editors. If you change the text so that it strongly discourages RT and MC from showing up in the "External links" section, the advice will hold no real weight. If you have a problem with listing external links that already appear in the "References" section, then you should take that fight to WT:EL, where changing the guideline there will have more bearing on editors' actions. WP:CONLEVEL may help if you need to learn more about the consensus level of policies, guidelines, and essays.

Second, I already said I agree that repeating these links as you've described is "repetitive and unnecessary". I actually agree with you in this specific case, but the guideline doesn't enforce that. It would be an editor preference, and nothing more, since the guideline currently leaves that door open. An editor still has to show that RT and MC meet the criteria for an exception, but that's not especially hard to do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I understood that you agreed (at least partly) but was asking for examples, from not only you but anyone else who could explain, because I really cant see why people think this duplication is a good idea, or even necessary at all. -- 109.77.203.37 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am disagree with 109.76.212.43, I don't see any conflict here, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not usual websites, they are similar to IMDb and comply with "contain multiple subpages", also Template:Rotten Tomatoes + Template:Metacritic film + c:Category:Film external link templates have been created to be used in the "External links" section! and if we want to remove them from the "External links" section so why these templates are created?! this proposal came from special:history/Doom (film) and I'm sure User:Armegon as the most active editor in that article is agree with me.--Editor-1 (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Editor-1 on this. I think it would be in the best interest of readers if RT and MC are included in the external links section. Per MOS:FILM, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews." Armegon (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I also concur with including RT and MC as ELs when WL:ELDUP and MOS:FILM applies. However, there are films that are notable and for which there will not be RT and MC reviews, like Samsara: Death and Rebirth in Cambodia, and we don't need these ELs. Another exception is when the websites have some reviews, and if all of them are used, then I would support not having ELs at all. However, in favor of including these ELs generally, another point to add is WP:ELNO #1, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." No featured article is going to be able to sample all the reviews (if the film has more than two dozen or so), so RT and MC can be unique resources worth highlighting to provide that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the main link to RT and MC in the opening of Critical response sections already takes readers to the main page. Reviews are easily accessible from there. So an argument could be made that readers already have access to the link in the article body. It is repetitive, and I personally wouldn't add it to EL, but I also wouldn't stand in the way of another editor doing so. It's an option under WP:ELDUP, and any challenge on an article's talk page would likely fail to prevent it. Just don't cite this essay in those discussions; you're better off citing the guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Doom (film) is not the worst example, it is only a Start class article, the External links are not cluttered and the repetition seems unnecessary but harmless. At least in that case both RT and MC have been repeated, articles often only repeat RT but fail to repeat MC for no apparent reason. If MC was treated the same as RT, it would at least be consistent but [WP:ELDUP]] convinced me it was better to not repeat either aggregator (and to try to improve the Critical response instead). Would editors really want to repeat RT and MC in the External links if the Critical response section was substantially improved, or do editors really think RT and MC should be repeated in the External links section of every possible film article?

In any case WP:ELDUP seems to take precedence over this essay, and ELDUP does not say anything about RT or MC being exceptional. (Digging in to the talk page archives Erik argued in favor of the repetition of RT and MC way way back Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_23 but maybe there were other discussions.) -- 109.77.203.37 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but I favor adding links like RT and MC to the External links section. It fits the criteria and is a small convenience, even if it might be a duplication of the link in the usual reference found in a Critical Response section. For example, you Google a movie, go to the Wikipedia page, and then you want to check out the RT page for whatever reason. Knowing there's a link in the External Links section, you can just scroll to the bottom. The alternative is to go back to the Google search or to go find it in the Critical Response section (or Ctrl-F). So really this is just editor preference. Some might be annoyed at the "duplication" while others find it useful.

Indeed, I don't even think it's really a duplication per se (unlike duplicate citations). The reference and external links sections have different purposes. In my view, some editors are more minimalist and like to pare away perceived redundancy or clutter, others find the trimmings of the former camp a tad overzealous or hasty. I personally lean towards the second group. Winston (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some might be annoyed at the "duplication" It is not about being "annoyed" about the Duplication, it is being annoyed about the unwillingness of Wikipedia editors to agree to follow even such a simple policy as WP:ELDUP, to make yet another exception to yet another rule without actually establishing that there is a consensus for this exception, and without making the effort to document this exception that editors claim is helpful. Years later the claimed desire to include Rotten Tomatoes (and Metacritic) in the External links section is still not documented in WP:EDLUP or even mentioned as a possible exception ({{maybe}}) on the list of recommended external links WP:ELP. How are new or infrequent editors supposed to make sense of Wikipedia policies when established and frequently active editors do not follow the policies or keep the documentation up to date with their intentions? -- 109.76.132.42 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Archiving urls

What is the policy/consensus on archiving the links for Rotten Tomatoes (and similar sites), since the rating (or number of reviews, etc.) often changes? More specifically, here are a two scenarios.

1. The citation does not yet have the archive parameters. You can on-demand archive the page, but what if the editor just wants to use an existing archived url even though the data on the archived site is out-of-date? Yea or nay?

2. The citation already has the archive parameters, but the data on the archived site is out-of-date. If the editor isn't going to update the archive link to an up-to-date one, should the out-of-date archive link be removed or left alone?

Winston (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I tend to not archive aggregator sites because they are always "fluid" and never "static". Unless an archive is being used to cite how a website appeared at an exact moment in time, I don't see the benefit, because, generally speaking, an archive will never match the "live" site (which is always the goal). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your take. The Rotten Tomatoes data is meant to be "live", so archiving doesn't really make sense to me. But in any case, I'd like to know what to do with out-of-date (or even up-to-date) archived Rotten Tomatoes links. Leaving aside the question of adding archived links (I personally wouldn't), should present archived links be removed, or ignored?

P.S. I'm interested in this since I'm working on a Rotten Tomatoes bot. Winston (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The one thing this page shows is a serious lack of any strong consensus. You should ask at WP:MOSFILM if you have not already done so, you'll get plenty of opinions, no guarantee of consensus though. Broadly speaking we don't want to put WP:UNDUE emphasis or get too hung up on the exact numbered score, generated by an unknown algorithm. What we really use RT/MC for is to provide a broad overview before we explain more specific with actual reviews from real critics (or at least that's my interpretation of the various past discussions I read at WP:MOSFILM).

I would not automatically include an archive URL for Rotten Tomatoes in most cases. It changes to often to be useful, and there is very little point in archiving an URL that is still live, especially on that is updating. When including Archive URLs for most sites I generally want the oldest version as it is most likely to actually contain the article contents and not an archive copy of 404 Dead link error page, but I don't normally want that with Rotten Tomatoes. If an article is stable enough to be rated {{Good article}} then a recent copy of Rotten Tomatoes should also be reasonably stable too. Still, there are cases where the Rotten Tomatoes page has moved or been removed entirely and an archive URL is all that is available.

Scenario 1. An editor might think that film has received enough reviews and that the score has stablized and that including a slightly out of date archive copy is better than nothing (but they might still be wrong, scores can change quite a lot over time, see Wonder Woman 1984 as a recent example). They probably shouldn't add an Archive URL but there are still a few cases where an editor might decide it is worth adding.

Scenario 2. An editor might have deliberately picked a specific version of the archive copy to show that the score was previously much better (or worse) or just thought the score on the archived page wasn't going to change too much. I don't think a bot should attempt to update the archive URL.

Not sure that's any help, but if you think through various use cases you'll probably figure it out. I know it might seem like the scores change a lot but in the long run they really don't. Most Rotten Tomatoes scores only change rapidly for a few weeks and then stabilize. A few years back Rotten Tomatoes changed their rules to include more obscure and genre critics and that caused a bump and a whole load of scores changed but even then not that dramatically except at the low end. If you think in terms of the lifecycle of an encyclopedia, over the long run the scores really don't change that much. Best of luck. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a given amount of time after the film has come out that we can safely assume the score won't dramatically change. Around two to three months after the film's release we could start archiving it. —El Millo (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw this and I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Been working on the bot but haven't paid much attention to the archiving issue. Never really planned on having the bot actually update or add archive urls since it seems impractical to implement, and as mentioned archiving for RT seems unnecessary. Anyways, I believe the most uncontroversial thing for a bot to do is to keep as much of the original wikitext as possible so that any edit it makes is neutral in the worst case. So I'll probably just have the bot preserve archive urls already in the wikitext. Winston (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RT and MC wording restored

Nyxaros, you changed the Hancock film article in this edit, then proceeded to change the wording at this essay here in this edit. That is unacceptable. Discuss to gain consensus. I also notice you have been brought up to the administrator noticeboards several times in the past for various forms of disruption. Let's not continue that here. I'm fine with wanting to change "approval rating" to "score" or whatever, but completely restructuring the sentence to fit a personal preference is disruptive, especially continuing to do so after being reverted by multiple editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As for "rating" vs "score", the terms are used interchangeably by secondary sources to describe the "Tomatometer score", as indicated by this source cited in the Rotten Tomatoes article. Again, I have no issues with discussing updates and making changes to the phrasing used here or at Hancock, but the point is you should be discussing it. Ramming a preferred version, no matter how right you think you are, is disruptive. If you want to make a change, now's the time to state your case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Umm. You are the only one who is against this wording here. This was already discussed multiple times and there are editors who are against "approval rating", just like MOS:FILM. Maybe instead of misrepresenting the sources you can at least try to be in line with MOS? It is no harder than writing unreasonable edit summaries. (Also avoid replies like "but you are quick to respond to changes" without knowing when other editors are on Wikipedia, it's not nice.) ภץאคгöร 07:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Umm, did you forget about this revert by Erik? As for "discussions", yes I have been in many of them over the years, which are a dime a dozen. I'm well aware of the varying opinions editors have, and very few achieve some level of consensus.

You clearly missed the point I made above, which is going around trying to ram some approved version into articles that doesn't exist in the MOS. Furthermore, the version you removed in this edit back in March didn't contain the phrase "approval rating", so that renders your explanation above irrelevant. Then after being reverted a second time, you replied with "these are exemplary sentences taken directly from the mentioned article" (assuming this IP is you). But the kicker is that you also changed the Hancock article to match, as if it would justify the revert! WTH? That's a baseless, circular argument if I ever saw one. The behavior here is what's front and center, not some silly dispute about preferred wording. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That revert from 5 months ago assumed that my addition was "forc[ing] other editors to use a specific wording", which is not the case. That's why there were no reverts or discussions after that. And MOS DOES NOT SUGGEST USING "SCORE" OR "APPROVAL RATING", SO I REMOVE THEM. Do not try to change the topic, you clearly opened this discussion to reach a consensus yet you are very interested in discussing other editors rather than the actual subject (most of ANI disc. were created by trolls or those who are unwilling to understand the situations). Fin. ภץאคгöร 18:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the MOS doesn't address specific language period, either for or against. Changing an opinion essay, of all things, to match what you're deeming consensus on top of circular editing to support your edits is disruptive behavior. That is why we are here, and that is what needs to stop. Use this page from this point forward to discuss the change you want to make. I'm open to just about anything, but in your proposed version, the "and an average rating..." bit at the end isn't an improvement, and it certainly doesn't require a preceding comma if it were to be implemented. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I know we should probably not take this essay so seriously but it is prominently linked in the project film guidelines. I'd weigh in on a discussion if was actually about the merits of different wordings but User:Sebastian James aka Nyxaros (talk · contribs) aggressively pushes his preferred wording all over the place which is yet another different choice for no apparent benefit. He referring to discussions but does not link to any relevant archives, his opinion appears to be solely his own and not backed by any kind of local consensus. I cannot begin to believe he wants to engage in honest good faith discussion when his user page still falsely claims that he is "No longer here." If he is editing in WP:GOODFAITH and has returned from a break he might start by correcting his user page, and by showing us the specific discussions he was referring to. Maybe then we can start to believe he means to have reasonable discussions. -- 109.76.204.195 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Not this IP user who had an account and has been constantly violating the encyclopedia, with multiple discussions that contradict their thoughts and "edits"... ภץאคгöร 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian/Nyxaros could be truthful or address the issues raised but instead he distracts from the matter with personal remarks. He is unwilling or unable to accept that I am allowed to edit anonymously and disagreeing with him is not any kind of "violation". Starting discussions is exactly what WP:BRD says we are supposed to do, so discuss the issue not your dislike for other users. A reasonable editor would try to explain what past discussions he was referring to, what objections he has to certain wordings or try to explain why he thinks his preferred wording is better, but he is still not even trying to show good faith here. -- 109.79.72.156 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Nyxaros, in light of recent discussion at Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)#Edit warriors, we should push this forward to a better place. We essentially have two options: Settle on an acceptable status quo while we wait for discussion to commence or screw waiting and begin discussion now to reach some kind of rough consensus. I vote for the latter. Let's get it done.

First, let's keep in mind again that this is an essay. It will not hold up as a sufficient argument in a discussion for or against specific phrasing at any given film article. Disclaimer aside, I suggest removing the statement that the essay examples are tied to Hancock. It's unnecessary. As for the RT phrasing, here are some suggestions we can use as starting points, some of which have been pulled from past discussions at WT:Manual of Style/Film and WT:FILM:

1. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 90% approval rating based on 300 reviews, with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10. The website's critical consensus states...

   
   

2. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 90% positive score based on 300 reviews, with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10. The website's critical consensus states...

   
   

3. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes compiled 300 critic reviews and assessed that 90% were positive, with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10. The website's critical consensus states...

   
   

4. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of 300 critics have given the film a positive review, with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10. The website's critical consensus states...

   
   

5. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of 300 reviews from critics are positive and have an average rating of 7.5 out of 10. The website's critical consensus states...

These are just some examples, and more than one can be listed in the essay (actually a good idea to show that articles may vary on language used). If you have others you'd like to add to the list above, please do. Let's work out differences with the RT statement before moving onto MC's. Of the examples so far, I'm leaning toward #2 and #5, with the latter #5 having the only sentence structure that allows us to drop the extra comma and change "with" to "and". --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we just remove the wording examples here? All we should really be saying as an essay is, that with RT, editors should ideally include a film's percentage, total number of reviews, average rating, and a critical consensus, and with MC, score out of 100, number of reviews, and what MC indicates those reviews mean. Editors are never going to agree on what an "example" text should read like, so as long as each article can agree on the formatting they want, this essay shouldn't be dictating wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we'll never agree completely, so we could have multiple examples listed. We could translate that in prose as you suggest, but some things are just better shown and more easily understood with examples. Right now, there's a note directly above the examples that reads, "this specific wording is not a requirement". If the consensus is to abolish the examples altogether, then so be it! Some form of consensus here would be nice! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We should remove the examples. Take everything after "Two examples..." right now and get rid of that, and replace it with the following (c/e of this example not withstanding):

Data from Rotten Tomatoes that can be featured include its "tomatometer" percentage, the total number of critic reviews, average rating, and a critics consensus. On Metacritic, its "metascore" number, the total number of reviews, and what those reviews mean (e.g. "generally favorable" etc.) can be included. The exact wording and structure of this information can vary between articles.

In my opinion, as I previously stated, that's all we should be indicating for editors with the essay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the suggestion. Let's let it marinate and see what others think. While not my first preference, it would definitely be a decent alternative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's futile to try to "settle" the wording issue. Favre1fan93 probably has the right idea. But I'll give my opinion anyway. I dislike options 4 and 5 because "90%" comes immediately after the comma. In technical (STEM) writing I believe this is advised against (mathematical symbols should not come immediately after a comma) so it just looks bad to me, but maybe it looks fine to others. I dislike option 3 because I believe the "Tomatometer" score should come first since it's the most important part people are looking for. I like option 1 the best since the Tomatometer score is indeed an approval rating.

My opinion: Overall structure of option 1 is the best, putting aside minor differences like "has" vs "holds", "8/10" vs "8 out of 10", "90% approval rating" vs "approval rating of 90%", etc. Regarding commas, I believe the second comma is optional if you read it as {90% rating based on {300 reviews with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10} }. Winston (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Very insightful! Perhaps another option for that comma would be, "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 90% approval rating, based on 300 reviews with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10." --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, another reason why I like using "approval rating" is because it makes clear the meaning of the Tomatometer score. Otherwise one might be confused about why there is both a percentage score and an average score out of 10. Winston (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Winston regarding use of the term "approval rating". It's precise and succinct. Option 2 has "90% positive score", which despite being the term used by the website itself doesn't seem as appropriate. Options 3-5 have clumsy wording.

Another minor point (assuming a sample wording is to be retained in the essay) - do we really need "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes"? I'm guessing most visitors who are interested in the critical response to a film will know what the website is. If they don't, a description of the site is only a click away. Barry Wom (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think either way is fine. It feels unnecessary to include, but that's because I know what it is and use it. Ultimately it's a matter of how well-known Rotten Tomatoes is. If it's not well-known than it's harmless or even useful to include, but if it's very well-known then including it sounds like saying "search engine Google" or "social media site Facebook". Winston (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Good comparison. Saying "search engine Google" seems unnecessary but articles will sometimes include exactly that, see Search_engine_optimization#Legal_precedents. I tend to agree, it's just another score, readers don't need to understand much more than that, I don't think it would matter if some made up Jabberwocky or UberCritic site was giving a the film a score, and sitename is linked for anyone who needs to more context. I'm not sure others would agree to leave out the extra "review aggregator" description. If we don't leave it out though we also have several variations on that to try and figure out and gain some consensus on, for example some editors prefer writing "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes" the seem to feel it is better to including the definite article "the" there too. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I note in the article for the big film of this week from Marvel someone has decided to go with the wording "On the review aggregator website" and once again I find it strange to include "the" and I question the grammar of calling it a "review aggregator website" rather than a "review aggregator" or a "review aggregation website". If you replace the word aggregator with almost synonymous word "collector" I hope my point about the phrasing seeming strange might become more apparent. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The editors from the other discussion commented similar things they've written before. "Approval rating" is not an accurate term for Tomatometer, and it is not used by Rotten Tomatoes itself. See here. You can also click on question mark icon next to any film/TV show's Tomatometer, which says: "About tomatometer: The percentage of Approved Tomatometer Critics who have given this movie a positive review." ภץאคгöร 08:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You cannot assume that every average reader knows review aggregators, so you should write articles as if the reader is reading it for the first time without knowing anything about it. ภץאคгöร 08:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It is true that Rotten Tomatoes does not itself use the term approval rating. I still believe approval rating is an informative and accurate term for the Tomatometer score (it is a percentage of people expressing approval, in this case indicated by a positive review). Winston (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the big assumption here? The term "approval" is well-understood to mean positively received and isn't some Rotten Tomatoes' specific lingo, and the term "rating" is mentioned in countless sources covering Rotten Tomatoes, such as this one I posted at the top of this thread. So a random reader stumbling across the phrase "approval rating" shouldn't be confused by its meaning or what it is referring to. Do you have evidence pointing to the contrary, or is this just an opinion or concern?

At first, I was hesitant to support it, but not so much after thinking it through. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

IIRC way-way-back-when I tried using very similar the same wording for both sites, writing something like RT score and MC score, but some editor insisted that the differences between two aggregators were somehow important and the wording couldn't be the same for both so I grudgingly went along with the Rotten Tomatoes "approval rating" wording and Metacritic "score" that others seemed to be using at the time. I can see that the wording "approval rating" goes some way to explain to readers that it is a particular type of score (and at least at the time it seemed to be an improvement over some of the site specific jargon like Tomatometer and Metascore that some editors were using.) I have continued to use very similar wordings not because they were particularly good but because I didn't think the other variations were any better and at least I'd be reasonably consistent with many older article that no one was ever likely to update.

I've always thought the use of "holds" to be a bit strange wording choice, like as if the film was personified and had hands to hold something, and thought it was simpler to say it has/had a score. (I try to keep it simple and use the present continuous tense when writing, and in this case use the verb "has" but others like user SummerPHD strongly favored using "had"). Having said that I'd take "holds" over most of the other suggested wordings, it seems overcomplicated to say Rotten Tomatoes "compiles" and inaccurate to suggest Rotten Tomatoes "reports" anything.

There were some complaints about the grammar of saying "with an average score" and users such as NinjaRobotPirate objecting in a discussion from 2017.[1] That might be something we can clarify and factually and objectively establish and not need to discuss. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I recall that objection about with in favor of and, but Winston above also makes a good point about comma placement and how to read the sentence as a whole. If we take "based on 300 reviews with an average rating of 7.5 out of 10" as one piece, "with" makes sense, because it directly correlates to "300 reviews". Previously, it was assumed to grate harshly against "the film has a 90% approval rating", because these are two separate statements that shouldn't be joined by a preposition, but with proper context on how we interpret the sentence, I don't think that's still an issue. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me personally, but native English speakers rarely follow strict grammar rules, it just seemed to me like one part of the question it should be possible to decide objectively without discussion. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The assumption is about "review aggregator", not "approval rating". I support implementing what the website itself introduces as stated above. ภץאคгöร 15:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

When Winston commented that "approval rating" seems like an informative and accurate term, you responded with, "You cannot assume that every average reader knows review aggregators". A reader doesn't need to know much about Rotten Tomatoes (or any review aggregator for that matter) to understand what "approval rating" means. Can you describe in more detail why you think someone would be confused? Is there any evidence of confusion in the past, considering it has been in widespread use for quite some time? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"Winston" commented at 10:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC) while I wrote my comment at 08:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC). One can clearly see that the editor replied after my comment. ภץאคгöร 21:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, didn't catch that. Fixed the indenting to make this obvious now. The questions still stand, however. As a participant in this discussion, can you elaborate more on your opinion on the matter, and why you feel it may cause confusion to the average reader? If you just don't like the phrase for the reasons you've already stated, that's fine. Just wanted to verify there isn't some deeper underlying reason behind it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

According to...

There is yet another variation on the wording for review aggregator that I've seen a lot more of recently. I've seen some editors use the wording "According to" for Metacritic, and it seems verbose and clunky to me, adding yet another variation of the Reception text for no apparent benefit, and not based on any discussion either. I think having a similar wording for both "On Rotten Tomatoes" and "On Metacritic" was more consistent and more concise. The two editors I've seen using it most were Sebastian/Nyxaros and TropicAces, but neither seem willing or able[2] to explain why they were using this wording. If anyone is aware of any discussion that lead to this change in wording favored by a few editors I'd be interested to see the discussion but I don't believe there was one.
Now I think I finally get why some editors favor the "According to" wording, it seems as if they were not looking at the headline scores and comparing Rotten Tomatoes to Metacritic, like I thought we were doing. It seems as if they are placing the focus differently and looking at Metacritic in isolation, and putting less emphasis on the score but more emphasis on the summary at the end, i.e. According to Metacritic ... blah blah blah ... the film received "universal acclaim". This wording -- with the score stuck in the middle -- feels awkward and disjointed, and I don't think the change of emphasis is an improvement. -- 109.77.210.114 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "According to..." isn't the best phrasing to use in this situation. RT and MC are aggregators that compile reviews, so it's not really according to the aggregator. In actuality, it's according to the critics, which is summarized by the aggregator. Sometimes the phrasing helps with proper in-text attribution and is acceptable per MOS:SAID, but it doesn't really fit here. I prefer "On" instead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Gonein60. However, I don't think it's necessarily about comparing the RT and MC scores, as the OP mentioned. Considering each review aggregator in isolation is fine, and I believe the default thing to do. That's not really why "According to" isn't the best phrasing. Winston (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"According to" has been used for years, especially in music articles. It is intended to emphasize that the reception "generally favorable", "mixed or average" etc. is from Metacritic. Critics don't distill their reviews to a single number. Or assign scores to their reviews, and apply a weighted average to summarize the range of their opinions. According to/On Metacritic, ..., X received "...". is better than On Metacritic, the film has a rating of ... based on ... reviews, indicating "...". in my opinion. Also, this user had an account before and has been editing from multiple IPs for months now because of their actions. ภץאคгöร 08:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Nyxaros, but there's nothing wrong with editing anonymously. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't write "there's something wrong with editing anonymously." ภץאคгöร 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean I still think it's fine to use "according to". It's just not my just personal preference. Winston (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to finally learn that (allegedly) "According to" is a wording favored by Wikipedia music articles. It is a shame that it took so long for Sebastian/Nyxaros to explain themself even if he persists in presuming guilt because an IP editor disagrees with him.

As far as I can tell this essay WP:RTMC came primarily from an editor heavily involved with Wikipedia Film and has tended to reflect that, whereas Wikipedia project Television tends to use slightly different wordings. Being aware of other wiki projects like Music and Games will be useful in any discussion about getting a more consistent wording we can all live with. Thanks to User:GoneIn60 for starting the above discussion trying to discuss different wordings, I'll try to add to that discussion later. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Rant. You could've easily searched the encyclopedia instead of coming after me. I've already explained everything with sources, just keep writing them over and over because you continue to repeat your comments without any policy, guideline, essay or source. You cannot refer to editors with their old usernames. ภץאคгöร 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian/Nyxaros continues to push their personal choice of wording without anything to back it up, despite claiming that there were discussions and not showing those discussions. Sebastian/Nyxaros only just claimed "You cannot refer to editors with their old usernames" but again with nothing to back it up, and I do not believe there is any policy to support that claim, since they continue to exhibit the same terrible aggressive attitude despite a name change what I'm doing is warning other editors who may also have encountered them before. Sebastian/Nyxaros continue to falsely claim on their userpage that they are "No longer here". Their terrible attitude and falsehoods would be merely annoying if weren't for the fact that Sebastian/Nyxaros turns around and makes straw-man attacks on me for editing anonymously. Show your sources, remove the false message from your user page, discuss the actual topic of this page. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There is the part that, usually with MetaCritic, that we include MC's prose assessment (eg "generally positive reviews"), which in such case, we should say something like "according to MetaCritic". --Masem (t) 00:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You say "should" but I'm saying that does not seem to have been established yet. If we were succinctly writing "According to Metacritic reviews were mixed" that would make more sense, but when we are using a long verbose and detailed wording and interrupting it in the middle "According to Metacritic ... verbose explanation of how the score works ... the film received "universal acclaim" it seems poorly written to me (not quite Yoda level but awkward writing) and does not seem like something we should be doing. Try reading it out loud and then tell me it isn't verbose and clunky. The consistency of having both scores "on Rotten Tomatoes" and "on Metacritic" respectively seems simpler, cleaner and more consistent to me. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

{{MC}} (and consequently it's subtemplates {{Metacritic album prose}} and {{MC film}} are currently using the "According to" wording. The template appears to have been created by User:Koavf so here where there is actually active discussion I'd really like to establish if there is consensus in favor of "According to" or if other like me or User:GoneIn60 people think it is a little clunky. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point and a very good explanation of the issue you're seeing. I don't disagree necessarily, but it may be a minor contention/bullet point that we wouldn't really be able to (or even want to) control with a MOS guideline, and it may lack the significance needed to be mentioned in this essay (especially if the hope is that elements from this essay will eventually be promoted to MOS:FILM). One might even argue that the score itself tallied by the aggregator is "according to" them. So the entire sentence could reasonably be interpreted properly with that introduction. I prefer "On", but I don't think I'd go out of my way to change it from "According to". Interested to hear other thoughts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A certain editor continues to make arbitrary changes to stable articles pushing their preferred "According to" wording.[3] Of all the slight variations Wikipedia editors choose I don't get why anyone insists on pushing this one. It is actively worse than the boiler plate text "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 100 out of 100 based on 200 critics, indicating "universal acclaim". currently used by {{MC film}}. -- 109.77.204.189 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

RT critical consensus discussion at WP:FILM

Thought you might want to check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Rotten Tomatoes summaries. Winston (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when the normal routine archiving of discussions actively makes it more difficult to find anything and in effect breaks the links. I certainly do, so here's the link to the same discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_78#Rotten_Tomatoes_summaries after it was archived. (In summary, the discussion expressed concern about the addition of Rotten Tomatoes to almost every article, as being formulaic and perhaps placing too much emphasis on one particular website. Some editors reiterated past discussions (which this essay WP:RTMC already largely summarizes) and recommended against using Rotten Tomatoes for films pre-2000 or where better sources of analysis were available, and another advised adding not only Rotten Tomatoes but also Metacritic or Cinemascore if available (don't forget PostTrak) so as not to rely too much on Rotten Tomatoes.)

I personally continue to think of Rotten Tomatoes as providing a generally useful limited overview to readers but that in an encyclopedia it is more important to include prose and excerpts from reviews that get into the specific details and explain why critics thought a film was good or bad (acting, cinematography, costume, direction, design, effects, etc.). -- 109.76.128.45 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Another recent discussion here (which is bound to need updating as well once it gets archived!). I closed with similar comments. RT and MC are good starting points for newer films and hit/miss for older films, but in no way do they make the critical reception sections complete on their own. Editors hate seeing review aggregators listed all by their lonesome with no other content, but the solution isn't removing them. Do the work and expand the section first, then decide on RT and MC's relevance last. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Couple of suggestions

I have a couple of suggestions for this essay. The first is that the "minimum number of reviews to be valid for inclusion" should be more fleshed out in the essay. It implies that about 10 review is not enough (I agree that it's not), but never really tries to set a lower limit. I think I've seen 12 reviews, 15 reviews, and 20 reviews variously suggested (e.g. in WT:FILM) as the lower limit to include something like the RT or MC score – I think this essay should at pick a suggested minimum number.

AFAICT, this essay also makes no mention of "audience scores" and whether they should be mentioned or not. I'm guessing as with IMDb user ratings, they should not be mentioned in articles – if so, this essay should definitely make clear that they should not be mentioned. There are a number of movies out there like Redeeming Love that have very low critical ratings (12% at RT), but have high audience scores (95% audience score with >500 ratings at RT). If the latter are not to be mentioned, this essay should make that clear, especially as some of the streamers (e.g. Peacock) actually report RT audience scores.

My $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This essay does not need to mention audience scores because the higher level rules and guidelines take precedence over an essay. The guidelines on WP:USERGENERATED content and WP:RS already make it clear that audience scores are not allowed. (Rare exceptions can be made if reliable secondary sources report the user/audience scores but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for that, and there are usually better ways to indicate that a show is popular without resorting to user voted web polls). In one sense though IJBall is correct, the guidelines of WP:FILM and WP:TV could do a whole lot more to address this matter and clarify the general consensus and best practice on this issue. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

But is that any reason not to remention it in this essay? The more places that mention "don't use audience scores", the better. And an essay is maybe in a better position to "suggest" a minimum number of reviews in include, because, as an "essay" it would be not "binding", just a "suggestion". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ask User:Erik, it is his essay (iirc). Maybe there is room for this essay to include a bit more about what not to do, I personally don't think it is necessary to repeat the already firmly established guidelines against using unreliable sources and user generated content here.

As for the minimum number of reviews, the text in this essay Single-number "averages" of opinion can be insufficient on their own, is as far as I can tell already warning readers against putting too much emphasis on scores based on a low number of reviews. It is an interesting question and I would encourage you to ask WP:FILM. The idea didn't get much traction before but it might if you float it again. I think it seems like a nice idea in theory but in practice even more difficult to enforce than not including audience scores. Good faith editors are going to want to add Rotten Tomatoes anyway. For smaller films (often horror, sometimes kids films, straight to DVD films etc) the review count is not going to be very high, but I think it serves the readers better to include the Rotten Tomatoes score anyway so long as editors include the number of reviews counted in the blurb for context (obviously a big score based on 4 reviews is not as impressive as a big score based on more than 10 reviews, etc.). In some film list articles editors have already agreed by consensus not to include Rotten Tomatoes scores for films with less than 20 reviews, I expect you could easily argue to doing that again in other similar cases but I think it would be difficult and counter-productive to try and do it in every case. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not my essay anymore. Honestly, I'd write it differently today, and it would be more away from the general community consensus. For example, I think in the long run, the rating average from Rotten Tomatoes, and not the percent, is more important for a film's encyclopedic article, and I think Metacritic's positive/mixed/negative breakdown should be used more often. So for this essay, have at it, but realize that it has no teeth since it is not a guideline or policy. It's only a recommendation that any editor is free to ignore. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

the rating average from Rotten Tomatoes, and not the percent, is more important and Metacritic's positive/mixed/negative breakdown should be used more often I respectfully disagree. I understand why you say it but I'm not sure any more emphasis on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic than we already have would be an improvement. Other opinions are available. (I can also demonstrate that editors are confused by the Rotten Tomatoes "average rating" because I recently had an editor accuse me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for including it, and I was not actually adding it, only reverting to an earlier version of the same Reception section. He thought I made up the number and did not know that clicking on the percentage revealed the extra information including the Rotten Tomatoes average rating. It would be strange to put more emphasis on information that Rotten Tomatoes has deliberately hidden.) But who knows what conclusions a larger discussion might bring. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Technically the rating average on RT is a much better indicator of how positive the reviews are. The percentage just tells us how many critics gave it at least a somewhat positive review. That is why we can get differences between RT's percentage and MC's average rating. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition, our perception of what Rotten Tomatoes is doing with the "average rating" is just an opinion. Ultimately, I would argue it doesn't matter what we think; it's all about how secondary sources present the information. Most do not report the average rating, but quite a few do. Here's just two examples: Ragnarok and Fallen Kingdom. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Some essays exist with the intentions of representing a minority view. Others are created in hopes that one day the essay will be elevated to guideline or policy level. Then there's the huge void between those two extremes, which is where I feel this essay lies. Feel free to attempt changes anytime and see if they stick. All I can recommend or advise is that the more granular we get in the essay, the further away from guideline and policy it gets. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to rethink Rotten Tomatoes prominence on Wikipedia?

A recent article in Vulture describing both the manipulations of Rotten Tomatoes by film studies and the shifts in the review aggregation policies raises some serious questions about the prominence of Rotten Tomatoes in establishing or claiming critical success. Given how central these aggregators are to the "Critical Response" section of film wikipedia pages, is it time to rethink the idea that it is a reliable source? If so, what is an alternative? Infocidal (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMCRITICS Wikipedia project film already recommends that aggregators be used with caution, and that efforts be made to write out insights of relevant individual critics. Smaller articles often rely heavily on Rotten Tomatoes and not much else, but {{Good article}}s and {{Featured article}}s do eventually end up with better more detailed information. The intent is already there even if it is not always realized. -- 109.76.132.42 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)