Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose

RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?
Should this prose template, along with the similar Metacritic film prose and Metacritic album prose, be made substonly templates? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Background
Past discussions regarding this include this TfD WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31, and the discussion above. The talk pages of Metacritic film prose and Metacritic album prose, along with WikiProjects/relevant MOSs WP:FILM, MOS:FILM, WP:WPMUSIC, MOS:MUSIC, and WP:ALBUM, and WP:ROTTEN have all been notified of this RfC. The following editors who commented above are being pinged to this RfC: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes - Echoing some of my comments above, the Template namespace guideline, specifically the first guideline point states the following: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. These templates are doing just that, storing article text, and I don't see any reasonable reason for these templates to be an exception to this guideline. Additionally, for the two film prose templates, there is currently no consensus within WP:FILM, at MOS:FILM, or on WP:ROTTEN for a standardized wording for this information. I know that was the goal some editors had with this, as not subst-ing the templates allowed for a uniform approach and ease of making mass alterations to this wording if needed, but as just stated, there is no consensus for a uniform approach, so the prose and reference formatting should not be locked behind a template. While in most cases this wording probably will be fine for an article, an editor should still have the option to easily adjust the wording and citation in article, without it then affecting the other transclusions of this template as is currently happening. Creating a boilerplate text for these aggregators for editors to subst into an article can be a useful tool to get started with this information, but that's all it should be: a tool that anyone afterwords can adjust and alter if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Guidelines exist as expressions of underlying principles, not as rigid dogma. In this case, the underlying principle, helpfully articulated in the guideline itself, is that we don't want to make it more difficult to edit the content when it needs to be customized or otherwise adapted to fit the specific circumstances of an article.
 * However, in the discussion above, you and the others opposed to this template were unable when challenged to name any hypothetical circumstance whatsoever that would require customization. The only issue raised was Erik's objection to the template's current wording, which is a reason to propose changes to the wording, not to delete or subst-only the template. (I would also note that, even if there is some circumstance that requires customization this template couldn't handle, the fix is pretty simple — just subst it in that individual instance.)
 * Centralizing information that is presented in similar circumstances is the fundamental reason that templates exist on Wikipedia, and the centralized discussion it fosters is core to how our consensus process works. If an editor's potential desire to change the presentation of information out of personal preference (rather than something about the article that prompts a need for customization) was a reason to make templates subst-only, then every template that includes any substantive content would be subst-only. Which would be a disaster, since it'd mean disputes would play out diffusely on thousands of low-visibility pages rather than in a centralized space where they might actually be resolved.
 * So foundationally, the underlying principle of the guideline does not apply to this circumstance, making an exception absolutely warranted. Keeping this information templated makes it easier to update scores by facilitating bulk updates via Wikidata, and it centralizes discussion on wording changes, which is exactly what we want in a situation where the circumstances in which information is presented is the same. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak no I see the value in standardization (obviously, as I created it) and this does correct some incorrect statements that I've seen in the wild. I generally agree that obfuscating text is not ideal, but particularly with this template, it is easy to add relevant text in the consensus portion and anyone can add text before and after the template, so I think this is a sensible exception with some benefit. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. This RfC is essentially a rehashing of the two prior TfDs hoping for a different result. My reasoning is largely unchanged, so I will copy the bulk of what I previously wrote (with minor tweaks):Substing a template like this is an irreversible decision that would hamper future improvements to how we present this information on a mass scale. I therefore strongly oppose. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes This is quite clearly article text that should not be in a template, and thus forbidden per the applicable guidance. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not policies and don't "forbid" anything. From WP:P&G: "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." See also WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR (and WP:NOT and WP:WIKILAWYER): when following a rule (to its strict letter rather than applying it sensibly as it was actually intended) would produce worse results for the encyclopedia in a particular case, we should do the more sensible thing and not apply that rule (or that interpretation of it) in that instance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. This is not "article content" in the usual sense but is attribution-related boilerplate being consistently used to correctly attribute something (which when left to random-editor discretion is very often written incorrectly and misleadingly). It is not any more a TMPG violation than other templates that provide boilerplate attribution strings like . If there is some overriding need in a particular instance to change the wording, the template can be substituted and the text it emits can then be edited in that particular case. That is something that should be done after a consensus discussion establishing the need. The idea that random drive-by editors needs the ability to change this carefully constructed boilerplate on a whim is simply false. Also agree with the majority of Sdkb's rationale above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No per my earlier reason, and those offered by others above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. This is not article prose. It's a template with multiple parameters, closer in spirit to an external link template than a block of prose used in multiple articles. A decent test to see if something is article prose is: "If we put this text into an article and used section transclusion, would it work just fine?" This template fails that test. Also, when (looks for stick to beat dead horse) the template is finally changed to read "out of" instead of "/", per MOS, it will be a lot easier to fix all of the affected articles if the text is still applied via transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this template and the others listed combine for several thousand transclusions. Many editors are displaying their attitude just by transcluding the templates. The previous TfD also did not decide to make the template subst-only. I'm not convinced that the averages phrased by the templates are body content in the sense that templates are prohibited from generation. Rjjiii  (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons mentioned above. This text doesn't need to be changed other than the numbers which can be easily done. It makes the inclusion of audience score and words like Tomatometer or rotten less likely. Any potential changes can be done on a mass-scale. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - this is clearly article text that goes against the Template namespace guideline, and there is also no consensus for film and TV articles that there should be standard wording for review aggregators. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Templates exist as a way to centralize discussion and consensus around how to word things. No one would ever argue that e.g. the city infobox should be substed because WikiProject Cities didn't explicitly endorse the decision to have certain fields in it. But that's essentially the standard you're applying.
 * And in some ways, it's even worse, because there's basically no choice other than to use the city infobox for a city article, whereas here, if someone doesn't like the wording this template uses, they can just not use it (or change it). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not article text, that's not the same situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the same in regards to your consensus point, a template does not need consensus by anyone including a WikiProject to exist and be used. Indagate (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Adamstom echoes my thoughts precisely. This is replacing prose, it absolutely should follow the guidelines for templates, and the arguments for not (IAR over a Rotten Tomatoes template, really?) being stuff like "it's easier for some people to replace the terrible boilerplate RT stuff they're spamming in articles" isn't compelling to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's (at least in part) a deprecated WP:RUBBISH fallacy. If you disagree with the content of the boilerplate, then edit it. Not liking exactly what it says right this instant isn't an argument against the template existing, or against what it does, or against how it does it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to repeat from the previous thread: I support this template being subst only, where the specific scores can be shown via templates. The template currently prevents layperson editors from editing the prose that presents the scores and perpetuates one kind of wording. This wording presumes specialist knowledge of how review aggregators work and obscures the simplistic workings of Rotten Tomatoes. I've had to convert some templates, and it is not easy and a bit tedious, just to be able to reword the sentence. Again, I support templates for the scores as straightforward numbers to update, but having a template display only one way of wording, instead of having freeform text to change, is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This wording presumes specialist knowledge of how review aggregators work and obscures the simplistic workings of Rotten Tomatoes. So, as you were advised above, start a thread proposing it be changed to different wording you think is better. Making this subst-only won't fix your concern. Instead, substing out the current transclusions would in a sense freeze the current wording in place in the 1000+ transclusions of this template, preventing them from benefiting from future improvements to it unless someone goes around changing thousands of pages in bulk. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And on the spirit of Wikipedia, to me the spirit of Wikipedia is editing collaboratively to achieve consensus. Having this template allows for such centralized discussion, permitting a level of attention and refinement that a single sentence in an article would never normally receive outside of FAC. Blowing up that central forum, since someone as an individual might want to do something different on an individual article (not because there's anything specific to that article that warrants customization, but rather just because of one's personal preference), while simultaneously ignoring the opportunity to have a broader impact by collaborating on the text of the template — that is what seems anti-wiki to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons mentioned above. The average reader doesn't know what Tomatometer rating means, and being able to explicitly use the definition helps to understand/utilize it better. Otherwise all articles would be full of misleading descriptors like "...has an approval rating of...". ภץאคгöร 19:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes – The template is a work-in-progress solution in search of a problem. Retaining the template's transclusive properties boils down to these two stated goals:
 * 1. Enforce standardized wording for Rotten Tomatoes (RT) and Metacritic (MC)
 * 2. Automate the updating of RT and MC scores
 * In its two plus years of existence, a convincing argument has yet to be made that standardized wording is a necessity (there are multiple ways to express the numbers from RT and MC correctly). To date, I have only read anecdotal evidence from template proponents that this was an issue in need of a fix. Also, the idea of updating automatically appears to have stalled. Great idea, but one that puts the cart before the horse in regard to transclusion – not to mention the very real possibility that it never happens. The tradeoff in the meantime is added complexity for novice editors that don't see the citation or article text when they click edit on the page. We only want that tradeoff when the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but that's not currently the case.Exceptions to guidelines do occasionally happen. The justification here is lacking, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Automating the updating of scores is done by Template:RT data, these templates can be connected by a prose parameter in RT data, but that's the extent of their connection. Benefits of the standardised wording include consistency across articles, able to change wording on many articles with consensus, avoids describing scores as "rotten" or "fresh", avoids potentially confusing "approval rating", including wikilinks like 100% or 0% (talk section), and weighted average for Metacritic, etc, ensuring wikilinks aren't next to each other, able to update many articles like when they update website (talk section). Indagate (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have described some potential issues in the absence of consistency, but were these actual issues you can speak to? In my long editing tenure, rarely did I come across a film or TV article that used such terms or had such problems. Do you agree that there is more than one acceptable way to write the statements in prose? If so, why settle on only one form that hides text from novice users? This is the "tradeoff" that IMO fails justification unless it can be shown we had a real problem. The injection of this template on top of perfectly fine existing text, by the way, opens another can of worms reminiscent of MOS:VAR. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of this template is completely optional; nothing is being "enforced". But many editors like to use it because it's convenient, and because they know that, since templates like this are higher-visibility than lines in articles, care has been put into it and will continue to be put into it. To answer you directly, yes, there are absolutely multiple ways to write out the information. Anyone who wants to not use this template or to subst it out can do so. But those of us who trust other Wikipedians to maintain and improve this template over time (a trust I believe is wisely placed) should also be able to choose not to subst it.
 * Regarding novices, as a Teahouse host and primary maintainer of the introductory tutorial series, making things easier for them is one of my top focuses. But do I trust a novice editor who lacks the expertise to make their way to a template page to come up with better wording than a collective of editors who have refined this template over time? No, and nor should you. The wording of this template is not the only possible wording, but it's also perfectly fine wording, so the worst-case-scenario is that we stick with perfectly fine wording. No one is going to quit editing because they can't make an arbitrary change to a line about Rotten Tomatoes.
 * Lastly, to expand on the idea of future changes/improvements to this template, I'll copy a comment from the prior discussion this one is rehashing: &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Marvels, and other MCU have similar, has potentially confusing "approval rating" and wikilinks next to each other (which goes against MOS:SEAOFBLUE. The issue are only potential but appear common, and the template is only optional. The difference between transclusion and subst is the ability to make mass changes in the future, like when they update their website (talk section). Indagate (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One hand says the template is optional while the other hand says propagate to as many articles as possible for that mass change, "just in case" scenario (propagation is the only way a mass change would be successful). The hands seem to be sending different messages.Another point from WP:TMPG: "Templates...that contain text which is not likely to ever be changed should be invoked with substitution." A very small chance that the wording needs to change years or decades from now is no reason to avoid subst-only. Also leaving future updates in the hands of a centralized forum, a handful of editors, isn't always the right prescription to produce the best results. Creative solutions can also come from relative newcomers who are not set in our ways; a process that can become stymied when we force them to jump through hoops (i.e. the template namespace and Wikidata) or seek consensus for every new idea at a centralized discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2023
 * The "just in case" scenario doesn't need every article to have the template for it to be beneficial and save time and effort. The Metacritic website redesign I mentioned above was only few months ago, and text could be changed with consensus at any time if anyone proposes a change, so don't think it's fair to say the text is "not likely to ever be changed". Newcomers are much more likely to make mistakes in phrasing, include the audience score, etc, than create a new creative way of phrasing boilerplate text that would have consensus. They don't need to know anything about Wikidata to use this, just RT data but that can be separate, similar templates like Template: Metacritic film prose have no Wikidata integration. Indagate (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a quick clarification that "relative newcomers" may also include editors who have been here for some time but are simply new to the film/TV realm on Wikipedia. Since there are so few exceptions of templates like this one in running article text, even editors with significant experience may be thrown off. Nice to see a use-case example of a change implemented by the MC template, but an already prevalent method is to include archived URLs in citations, especially for websites that catalog information in database-like fashion that are subject to change. Since Wikipedia is not a catalog or database, it doesn't need to be up-to-the-minute in sync, and archived URLs already fill that specific kind of need. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes - This template is not only unnecessary, but also against the Template namespace guideline. LancedSoul (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No The arguments opposed convinced me this is unnecessary. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Please notify participants from the 2021 TFD to avoid the appearance of canvassing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the last commenter was 14 days prior and I do not see any meaningful additions to the RfC in the next 10-15 days happening, I have submitted a closure request to have someone close the RfC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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 which includes '%' when Wikidata includes it (as it should). Some Wikipedia editors have incorrectly removed '%' from Wikidata to make   work. The suggestion would make it work without breaking the Wikidata format for the field. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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, The Doctor Who  (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. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)