Jump to content

Talk:The Babysitter: Killer Queen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:The Babysitter 2)

Number 1

[edit]

TB:KQ has been number #1 on Netflix at least temporarily[1] but it is difficult to tell if that is actually notable. (It seems as if it was number #1 on Friday, September 11, 2020, and possibly other days too.) Forbes says it was #1 for two days.[2] If anyone does add it to the article please choose your words carefully and don't overstate the significance of this, after all it is based only on the top ten list released by Netflix. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed or Negative Reviews

[edit]

I've been trying to edit the project so that it says that there was mixed reviews considering the fact that Rotten Tomatoes has A. more reviews than Metacritic and B. is more accurate than Metacritic. However, another anonymous user has been undoing my edits because they say that Metacritic is more important than Rotten Tomatoes. I don't believe that for a second unless it has more reviews than Rotten Tomatoes does. Which do you think is better? The one with more reviews (RT) or the one with less that the other anonymous user has been insisting is the more important source when RT is equally as important (MC)? 70.106.239.34 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments. I am not the only editor reverting these changes. Also the article said reviews were negative before I started editing this article.
Metacritic clearly states that reviews were "generally unfavorable". Metacritic is a reliable source. If you want to ignore a reliable source you need to start a discussion on the article talk page and gain a local consensus to do that. I said this repeatedly. I did not say Metacritic is more important, don't claim I said something I did not. I said it was a reliable source, and when a reliable source clearly says "generally unfavorable" you need have good reasons to say otherwise. Subjectively interpreting sources is a bad idea, and contradicting sources is also a bad idea.
Rotten Tomatoes almost always has more reviews listed than Metacritic, some editors might agree that the sample size of Metacritic is too small to give a fair view and that is certainly worth discussing but more reviews alone are not immediately a reason to contradict or ignore Metacritic. You claim RT is more accurate than MC, how so? Citation needed. Taking both RT and MC as equally important as you suggest, might be something that editors would discuss and consider, and then after discussion there might be a local consensus to change the summary. For that again you need to start a discussion.
There were also references to UsaToday[3] and Cinemablend[4] which seemed to be there to further show that the reviews were negative. The Rotten Tomatoes score has increased slightly over time, and stands at 41% last I checked. However, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't do mixed and by their own standards anything less than 60% is "rotten" and that is _negative_. The scale matters, in some exams 40% gets you a D grade and a pass but that is not the scale Rotten Tomatoes uses, less than 60% is fail. Looking at both RT and MC together my opinion is that it is fair to summarize the reviews as generally negative. Other editors might see it differently and now that you have started a discussion some might say they agree with you and there might be a local consensus that agrees with you, but again a discussion had to be started first before ignoring Metacritic.
On a more general note the article for the film Bad Boys for Life seems to be a case where editors have chosen to say reviews were positive despite the fact that Metacritic said reviews were mixed. There is room for some bordeline exceptions but I don't think TB:KQ is one of them but the consensus might not agree with me.
Also I probably should mention in advance that "mixed to negative" is nonsensical, unacceptable, awful writing, and the reviews should be summarized as either generally negative or mixed depending on the sources and the local consensus. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're an anonymous user, just like me. What makes you think that what you say goes? 70.106.239.34 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're attacking me and missing the point. It isn't about me, I'm only reiterating the existing rules: WP:BRD BOLD REVERT DISCUSS, with a dash of WP:MOSFILM. These kinds of discussions have happened before and will happen again. I'd like the rules to be clearer and articles to be more consistent but they aren't, instead if there is a disagreement we are supposed to go through the slow process of WP:BRD. I'm defending the WP:STATUSQUO and I wasn't the only one who reverted you (I was faster and did it more often but I definitely wasn't the only one[5]).
You've started a discussion, now we wait, and other users will add their comments. Maybe they will agree with you and I'll have to go along with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or maybe they wont. If you're in a hurry you can go to WP:3RD and request neutral 3rd opinions, or WT:MOSFILM and ask the editors who like to edit films articles to chime in with their opinions. The article is locked/semi-protected until Monday anyway[6]. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Screenrant: Why The Reviews Are So Negative. Cinemablend Bella Thorne Thanks Fans After The Babysitter: Killer Queen Hit #1 On Netflix "The reviews were largely negative for McG's second installment in the slasher franchise." -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are negative. RT score doesn't mean anything, since there are only "rotten" and "fresh" Tomatometers. Metacritic and the other sources clearly show the negative reviews. Stop vandalizing the content. nyxærös 10:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

70.106.239.34 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. You are free to revert their edits without explanation, per WP:EVADE. This would include ignoring their comments here. In terms of categorizing the reviews as positive, negative, mostly positive, mixed to negative or anything else, we should not do so. I don't care who thinks RT or MC is bigger, better or anything else. Neither one reliably says anything other than that they said something. We can quote MC's or RT's scores and summaries with in-line attribution. We cannot use either or both as a source(s) to say reviews were positive, negative, etc. They are numbers with summaries assigned to the scores by an algorythm without editorial oversight. To say reviews were positive, mixed-to-negative, positive-with-a-few-polarized-haters or anything else, you will need to cite an independent reliable source directly saying that. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I try to let the reviews speak for themselves, or I directly quote Metacritic "generally unfavorable" or I paraphrase Metacritic, ~generally negative~. I follow what the sources say, I try to avoid interpretation. More importantly than that I try to avoid over emphasizing the aggregators and I add review from critics,[7][8]
I was willing to give the anon a fair chance to discuss and try to gain consensus, but it took the article being locked for him to even start a discussion. If the Rotten Tomatoes score keeps getting higher (43% 30 reviews now) it might eventually be fairer to summarize the reviews as mixed, but I don't think we're close to that yet.
As for the newly changed wording, the pedantic use of "as of" is awful, clunky and pointless (that's what access-dates are for, and the number of reviews already provide context) but the consensus and the guidelines do support that verbose and ugly approach. That "leaning negative" quote is ok in the Critical response section I suppose. However, that last little edit changing the lede/intro to also emphasize that quote about early reviews does not seem like an improvement to me at all, and I think the previous generic wording was better[9] and think the intro should be to reverted to the previous WP:STATUSQUO (which was put there not by me but by User:Nyxaros iirc). -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic's "generally unfavorable" can be directly quoted as being Metacritic's definition for their numerical score. It cannot be cited or paraphrased to say reviews were or are negative. As it is mechanically applied by an algorithm, not subject to editorial oversight, it is not a reliable source. That you interpret the number MC or RT reports as mostly/generally/leaning/mixed-to- or otherwise positive/negative/polarized or anything else is your synthesis and cannot be used.
Saying the film "has" or "holds" a score is sloppy. Scores change over time as the sites add and remove critics. Often, the score we are reporting will remain unchanged for several years or will be "updated" by someone who doesn't check the cite for an access date. It is dated language, contrary to MOS:CURRENTLY. More explicitly, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response says, "It is also recommended to include the date the data was captured: ('As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10.')."- SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think has (or holds) is sloppy, I think "compiled" (or reported) adds an air formality that these aggregators don't deserve. There are so many film articles that are far more badly written than either of those not ideal chunks of boilerplate verbiage. But that's beside the point, it was only the change to the intro that I actually asked to be reverted.
Nyxaros change the intro, to "generally unfavorable reviews"[10] and then Summer added a citation needed request.[11] The whole point of this discussion has been that the "generally unfavorable reviews" or (similar wording to that effect) is what the sources are already saying, namely the two main review aggregators Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and they are already referenced in the article so they don't normally need to be referenced again in the intro (but they can be if you really want). Even the "leaning negative" quote added by Summer effectively saying the same thing but using a direct quote instead of paraphrase, but while that's fine for the Critical response section I don't think a direct quote from CINEMABLEND is an improvement for the intro, over a generalized summary. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this big long attempt to discuss what would be a reasonable short summary of the Critical response section, SummerPhD's unhelpful answer is to delete it entirely.[12] Not an improvement. -- 109.77.200.213 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not summarizing, you are synthesizing. To say the critical response was "negative", "kinda leaning toward positive", "dead average", "almost universally mixed" or anything else, you will need an independent reliable source that says that. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't summarizing either, you're deleting. How would you summarize the critical response? How would you improve the article?
The claim of WP:SYNTH rests on "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The point of this discussion to was to try and come to some reasonable agreement about what the sources do in fact say and include that in the WP:FILMLEAD. -- 109.77.200.213 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I was summarizing. I said 1) What an algorithm says is not a reliable source. 2) We do not have a reliable sources stating what critics said. No reliable sources say anything about what critics in general said, other than "Early reviews...were 'leaning negative', with critics calling the film 'uninspired' and 'embarrassing'. Other than that, we do not have reliable sources saying "negative"[13][14][15], "mostly negative"[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] "generally negative"[23][24] "generally unfavorable"[25] "mixed or negative"[26] "generally mixed to negative"[27][28] "mixed to negative"[29][30][31] "mixed"[32][33][34][35][36][37] "mostly mixed"[38][39][40] or anything else. Instead, we have several people who really, really, really wanna say what they think and are edit warring to try to get it in.
It's contested. Cite a reliable source, build a consensus to ignore one of the pillars of the project because this article is a special case or let it go. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is considered a reliable source. Summer asserts that "What an algorithm says is not a reliable source." I absolutely and fundamentally do not accept this assertion as a valid or logical starting point. Metacritic does not suddenly and arbitrarily become "unreliable" because of an algorithm. An algorithm is simply a method people have decided on, a choice they have made. Metacritic has chosen that their scores represent certain positive/mixed/negative, just as Rotten Tomatoes have decide anything less than 60% is negative (rotten) and anything above that is fresh (positive). Taking that an over complicated starting point like that makes a simple generalization impossible. Rejecting Metacritic because of "algorithm" is the special case and Summer is the one making it. As it stands the intro has no summary of the reviews, which is no good at all.
I think that based on RT and MC a simple generalization is possible, and that reasonable editors should be able to look at any film article and apply a consistent approach and take the scores of from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and logically and objectively decide if they count as mixed reviews, (generally) negative reviews, or (generally) positive. Any film article, a consistent approach, that's why I keep arguing the point.
I think editors besides Summer or myself should still be able to decide and add a simple generalization of the reviews to the lead/intro of the article:

TLDR: The scores are 48% from Rotten Tomatoes (40 reviews) and 22% from Metacritic (6 reviews), and the question is the same as as it was at the start, based on those 2 numbers can the reviews reasonably be summarized/described as (generally) negative or mixed?

  1. cannot be objectively be summarized
  2. can be summarized as mixed
  3. can be summarized as (generally) negative. -- 109.78.200.129 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I would say do not state "mixed", or "negative", at all. Just state clearly what the percentage numbers are from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, factually. And pick a few reviews to summarize, quote a few quotes, or paraphrase. Right cite (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mid credits scene

[edit]

On the river side the damaged looking Book of Devil is seen opening and its pages fluttering in the wind. Should this be included in the last paragraph of the plot? Ravi arnie (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's irrelevant to the plot. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Babysitter:_Killer_Queen&oldid=1236928460"