This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Text and/or other creative content from Batwoman (season 1) was copied or moved into Pilot (Batwoman). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
There's some disagreement over how necessary this information is. I support having it as long as it applies, since it's a relevant descriptor that not every show or film with a fresh Rotten Tomatoes score will necessarily have. I don't know of rule on Wikipedia that bans it, and dozens of other pages include it. Caivu (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Certified Fresh" is not in any way an example of puffery. It's a factual, provable designation; a work with an RT score either has it, or doesn't, and that can obviously be shown "[using] facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." The phrase provides more context for the given RT score since it has certain criteria that must be met, which not all works with Fresh ratings meet. By your logic, stating positive RT scores in an article would itself be puffery, since those are referenced precisely the same way (by using neutral citations), but that's clearly not the case. Caivu (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is "provable", doesn't make it a encyclopedic term, it remains a peacock word. I recommend reading the linked guideline: "to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information"; i.e. it does not plainly summarize the verifiable information. The positive score is a statistic and thus the "verifiable information"; "Certified Fresh" is a descriptive term. -- /Alex/2100:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding your reasoning for thinking this is a peacock term. If some film or show received an award called "Best In The Universe", we'd still include that info here because even though that's a grandiose name, it's just the name of the award and not a subjective statement about the quality of the work. "Certified Fresh" is the exact same thing (and also verifiable, so I don't know why you say it's not). Caivu (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Certified Fresh" is not an award or any form of category, the comparison makes no sense. I have also never said it's not verifiable; reading my responses properly before responding would be appreciated. -- /Alex/2101:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison was about the name of the thing in question, not about "Certified Fresh" being an award. You seem to think that the phrase "Certified Fresh" is a subjective quality statement, when it's simply a designation given to certain works that meet specific criteria on RT. It is, in fact, a category. That's all it is, so it's confusing to me why you take issue with it. This cannot be a case of puffery like you say, because there's literally none of that going on. Additionally, you did in fact say that such a designation was not verifiable: "The positive score is a statistic and thus the 'verifiable information'; 'Certified Fresh' is a descriptive term." Caivu (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "name of the thing" is irrelevant. Awards are specifically-titled entities that are allocated to the series in question. "Certified Fresh" is a Rotten Tomatoes-specific term that provides no actual detail about the series.
I did not such such a designation was not verifiable, again, so I will repeat myself: it does not plainly summarize the verifiable information. The verifiable information is the statistic (i.e. percentage) that the season holds on Rotten Tomatoes. "Certified Fresh" does not plainly summarize that statistic, it adds fancy words that are relevant to only one site. The peacock example given is Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter. Using this RT term gives a sentence in the same vein; it's as if we're saying "Season 1 of Batwoman is the defining figure of the series and a brilliant season."
I believe we're going around in circles here. If you are still not satisified with my response, I suggest you take this discussion to a wider community. -- /Alex/2105:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
