Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 31 March 2022, see discussion.
Keep, 18 May 2021, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes prose template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 2 months

Allow '%' character in Tomatometer rating

I suggest to allow an optional '%' character in the Tomatometer rating by using {{Trim %}} on the parameter. It's a percentage and users may expect that 75% is allowed when that's what Rotten Tomatoes says and they want the article to say. Some articles call {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} with {{RT data|score}} which includes '%' when Wikidata includes it (as it should). Some Wikipedia editors have incorrectly removed '%' from Wikidata [1][2] to make {{Rotten Tomatoes prose|{{RT data|score}}|...}} work. The suggestion would make it work without breaking the Wikidata format for the field. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it's just a technical change rather than something that affects the displayed output, that sounds like an uncontroversial addition that'll make this template easier to use. Feel free to implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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