Template talk:Film and game ratings

WP:PROSE
It should probably be mentioned that this table is rarely used in film articles because WP:PROSE is generally preferred to lists or tables.

This is hinted at by the optional "noprose" parameter, but it should be made clearer so that editors don't put too much effort into using this table when it is very likely to deleted or replaced. -- 109.79.169.83 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned at the start of the instructions :) Kingsif (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sort of, and not emphatically. It is explained but without making it clear that it comes from a big important rule WP:PROSE and not merely general advice documenting this template.
 * Casual readers could easily see the existence of this template as encouragement to use it. Unlike the related game rankings table which is often used, this film ratings tables is almost never used.
 * Maybe I instead of making comments I should be suggesting this template be deleted entirely but it is possible in theory that some good articles might be using it. Is there a category indicating which articles use this template? I expect they need cleanup. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading it right the monthly parameter usage report seems to suggest that only 12 articles are using this template. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A few films and a handful of tabletop games. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear enough for people who regularly use such templates, which is relatively few. Forgive me for not taking the advice of a user with a single day of editing and two warnings about film-related pages already. Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about existence of Film and game ratings template
In 2020, IP 109.79.176.62 brought up the concern that the Film and game ratings template is rarely used in articles, and suggested deletion. Later in 2021, 109.78.194.208 began removing it in several articles. At WikiProject Film, they brought up the concern that the template might be abused. The WPFILM thread sees no resolution, and the template continues to be removed, such as in Hellraiser: Judgment's article by 109.76.200.100.

So, what should happen to Film and game ratings:

A. Keep, and recommend it at MOS:FILM to widen usage, like in MOS:VG

B. Keep, and retain its optional fashion

C. Delete it

Thanks---  Gerald WL  04:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A as RfC starter. I don't understand why the concerns raised regarding this template justifies not using the template. Even if nobody uses it, it is at least useful and not harmful. IP 109 brought up a confusing WP:PROSE argument, when video game articles also include similar template. The template documentation could add a warning urging users to only use reliable sources, and not use aggregated scores as ratings, as Alaney2k points out, "you can't quantify most film reviews". 109 also brought up abuse concerns-- well, any template can be misused, doesn't justify deletion of them entirely. This template is not as different as MOS:VG, and thus it could be advertised at MOS:FILM to ease 109's concerns about it being rarely used. The documentation could also be more instructive on how to use it correctly.  Gerald WL  05:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article could be renamed to "Critical ratings", "Review ratings" or similar, as it could not only limit to films and vgs, but also musics, novels, plays, etc.  Gerald WL  05:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B, because it's not hurting anybody, followed by A, if somebody wants to make that effort. I don't think the template's use needs to be recommended, but it could be mentioned. The argument that it's rarely used is weakened when the person arguing it keeps removing its use. The "abuse" argument is just silly, I'm afraid; a lot of things on WP could be abused. If our Irish colleague doesn't like the template, they can go to Templates for discussion (TFD) and see (properly) about getting it deleted. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * B, but plan migration to Wikidata Eventually and soon Wikidata will mirror ratings data like this and export it into every language version of Wikipedia. We should keep some of these boxes now as pilot cases to develop community norms about when and how to use them. They do not need to be in every article, because even if they are just in a few, that still helps advance the conversation and guidelines for use. These will be a lot more common when we start autogenerating them to make them super easy to use and quality check.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * C. Delete on grounds of WP:SYNTHESIS. A ratings template has been deleted twice before, once in 2010, and again in 2013: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_14. While I accept it is some time ago I don't think the underlying issues have been addressed in that time. A ratings template would in reality be an editor compiled aggregator, designed to present a critical consensus for a film or game. While the Film project does use aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic the scores are created by third parties and not by us. This isn't the case here, where the selection of reviews (and therefore the average score/rating) would be determined by editorial discretion. Let me illustrate the problem with an example, using the table at Jojo_Rabbit: it features three reviews including a 4-star review (graded as 100 on Metarcritic, a 3.5-star review (graded as 88 on Metacritic) and an A- (which converts to 91 on Metacritic) which average out at 93/100 (or 9.3/10). A 93/100 average score is far higher than the average rating of 58/100 on Metacritic, and 7.6/10 on Rotten Tomatoes. In other words the selection of the reviews has been biased towards reviews that are not representative of the critical consensus. This brings me to the fundamental problem with this template: if you have accurate aggregator scores such as the case with JoJo Rabbit why do you need a ratings table? And if you do not have accurate aggregator scores for a film how do you objectively select reviews so that they are representative? These tables have been deleted twice before because they are textbook synthesis and that should be the outcome here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the Jojo table isn't complete yet, I plan to find more ratings later. Like the videogames rating table, this table doesn't have to represent critical consensus, it's merely a table showing what several reviewers rate it as. I fail to see how the rating table acts as an aggregator. And critical consensus is not determined by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; in fact RT and MC can be wrong. Jojo's rotten tomatoes aggregation is especially beyond inaccurate, as critics are more polarized than positive of the film.  Gerald WL  11:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the potential problem you are describing is not anything that is an inherent property of this template: it is simply the practice of cherrypicking sources, which can be done anywhere in the encyclopaedia, for all kinds of content. That is expressly forbidden, though, and the remedy against it is no different here than it  is everywhere else. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picked reviews plague critical reception sections which is why we rely on aggregators to provide an objective assessment of the critical consensus. Templates like this one will magnify the problem of bias. If you put a bunch of 5-star reviews in the template then it gives the impression of a 5-star film. If you put a bunch of 1-star reviews in the template then it creates the impression of a 1-star film i.e. it is an editor constructed aggregator. I have already given you a clear, real world, example of how the selection of reviews at JoJo Rabbit does not reflect the aggregator scores. You may not consider that a problem, but I do in the context of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * C. Delete per Betty Logan. Also if I might add, at least for film reviews, a good number to my knowledge do not present a "quantifiable" score (ie out of 10 or with stars) so you wouldn't even be able to populate this table. And to quote Betty, if you have accurate aggregator scores ... why do you need a ratings table? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A - I did not know this template even existed, and I'm often irritated at film articles not listing the rating. I fail to see how this template could be "abused", too. We should not be giving undue attention to concerns of imaginary problems that are put forth to justify mass purges of encyclopaedic data. Also the IP needs to be told to cease and desist immediately unless and until they're backed by consensus, or be blocked. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A selection of reviews that is not representative of the critical consensus is not an imaginary problem. It is an issue that must be reconciled with Wikipedia's core neutrality policy. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it appears to me that firejuggler wasn't talking about that, he's referring to the "template being abused" argument.  Gerald WL  16:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * C As touched on above, there are WP:SYNTH issues. Also looks wonky on mobile. ~  HAL  333  04:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the latter isn't probably the best deletion argument, as it could be fixed. I've made an argument against the SYNTH above.  Gerald WL   Gerald  WL  16:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B It's a bit useful to some users. Sea Ane (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option C per the rationales given by Betty Logan.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Betty Logan. We are not beholden to Wikidata and its future plans, nor do we have direct control over WD material's compliance with our content policies, so the "but Wikidata" isn't an argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B The template is still useful even if rarely used, just have a warning that urges users to use only reliable sources. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B or C – There's nothing outright wrong about listing numerical ratings or grades for reviews, but I don't think we should emphasize those. Instead, the focus should be on discussing the specific elements reviewers liked and didn't like in a particular item, as these details lead to a more informative and more helpful article. (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are different because they aim to summarize a wide range of information, so numeric scores are easier to understand in that context.) I am very strongly against option A; we should not mandate the template, for three reasons. First, if there are not many reviews for a film, it will lead to a very short table with no real purpose. Second, it could easily end up devaluing reviews that don't offer scores or ratings, which is unreasonable – plenty of respectable critics don't offer ratings, and they should be placed on a level footing. And third, as previously noted, we should not be emphasizing simple ratings or scores over more nuanced discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you that we should have a concise prose stating the reviews before adding this template. That's why there's a noprose template to warn editors about articles with this issue. Although I'd like to note that option A is recommend, the noprose things will still be disclaimed. Same thing as MOS:VG with their reception sections.  Gerald WL  07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is not that the table would lead to reception sections without prose; my concern is that the table will become the center of attention and detract from the written reviews. In particular, my issue is that the table would value publications that issue ratings instead of valuing well-regarded publications first and foremost. For example, I skimmed some reviews for Black Widow and found that the NY Times, the LA Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, and Time all issued reviews without numeric ratings. These are all major publications, yet they could easily end up receiving less recognition within the article than, say, Screen Rant or /Film – publications which are okay, but certainly not top-quality – solely because the latter provide numeric ratings for a potential table. In other words, if you create a table summarizing only a few reviews with ratings, those reviews will automatically seem more important, and it could easily devalue the actual top-tier reviews. I do not think this is the guideline we should suddenly enforce across WP:FILM, so I must oppose option A. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for elaborating.  Gerald WL  18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus here. What I do see is people going ahead and adding more of these kinds of tables to film articles anyway. How can we get a suitable (neutral?) person to anyone review and conclude this discussion? -- 109.79.168.88 (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion didn't seem to get consensus either. -- 109.79.168.88 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I was interested to learn that this template was effectively deleted already way back in 2012 (deletion discussion). Not clear when it was recreated or if simply survived because of it is a shared template used by projects other than Wikipedia Project Film. (At the time of writing there seems to be only 2 film articles actually using this template.) -- 109.78.198.186 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lack of usage still does not merit deletion, though. You also didn't count the television articles.  Gerald WL  06:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Gerald Waldo Luis has created a nice article at Living in the Age of Airplanes. It doesn't need this table either.
 * I was following the previous consensus against using this template. I believe that the burden is on editors who want to use this template to prove their case, and I do not believe the above discussion reached a consensus or that there is any reason to ignore the past consensus. I was hoping an admin or experienced editor would have come in and closed this discussion by now but that seems unlikely to happen. It was probably worthwhile to discuss it to see if there has been a substantial change in opinion but although opinions may have softened a little there are still editors discouraging the use of this template. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it need this table? I don't think I am within the category of those "who want to use [this] to prove their case", as in those misusing this template. I used the ratings to represent the leaning-positive polarization of the film, as well as to put the RT rating there since it's just 7 reviews (well below the standard 10 reviews to be included in prose). This also helps decrease the need for more texts in the already-lengthy reception section. Video game and music articles have used similar templates for a long time, and I don't see why we can't do the same, carefully, with film articles. Why are film and television articles being treated differently? The whole worry on this template revolves around "I worry that it will..." which, considering there have been similar template for other topics, seems unjustified and it doesn't warrant deletion.  Gerald WL  01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)