Talk:The Cuckoo's Curse

rmv imdb-sourced content, rmv unnecessary translation, rmv unnecessary italic text, restored permissible infobox dab (a compromise in transparency pursuant to common sense and the text in the body) Rmv absurd expansion needed section from RT and Metacritic (film has no single review on any of those aggregators, let alone from a notable website!

Hi Asqueladd,

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cuckoo%27s_Curse&diff=1215151037&oldid=1215125006

I realise that after my undoing your revision and your undoing mine, we could just continue doing that - but that would be the height of absurdity, don't you agree? 😉

Actually, I myself prefer not to undo other people's revisions (because I REALLY hate when it's done to one of my revisions). So in this particular case you certainly proceeded in a much more laudable manner. My own undoing of your revision could be only explained by loss of temper at seeing my changes described as "absurd".

To return to the crux of the matter here though: what I wanted when adding that tag to "Critical response" section:

was simply that Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose be added to that section - like it's already done on most film-related pages!

Yes, approval rating for the film is still unavailable on RT (and on Metacritic there's no page for the film at all) - but requesting that those tags be added to the section, what's wrong with that? It's like seeing deficient plot for a film and adding to it:

isn't it? So why was it "absurd"?

BTW, you now removed "Critical response" subsection which I added to "Reception" - why? Take a look at any recent film-related page, they all have it.

---

Szagory (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They all have what? Yes it isn't sensible to request expansion from RottenTomatoes when the film has not enough reviews in there (it has only 3) and RT thus does not provide the film with a score rating. RT requires 5 reviews to give a rating. Currently, the article actually incorporates more reviews (all of them from encyclopedically notable websites) than RT. I could say the same about Metacritic (the film does not even seem to exist on there). We should not write about the nothingness. Regarding sub-sections, section structure follows available content. Current section structure satisfies current content and there is nothing wrong with it.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

=> They all have what?

Take a look at any film-related article - e.g. just taking as example the two recent ones in which I myself made changes:

=> Damsel (2024 film)#Critical_response

=> Lisa Frankenstein#Critical_response

They all have this at the beginning of "Critical response":

"On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes,..."

"Metacritic, which uses a weighted average...'"'

And why? Because of { {Metacritic film prose} } and { {Metacritic film prose} } in the section. (Oh and BTW: those articles have subsection "Critical response" under "Reception", haven't you noticed?).

So, how else is one supposed to signal a request for those tags to be added to the section (once approval ratings become available on Metacritic and RT)?

Funny thing is: I saw somebody (I think it was user:MikeAllen) add such "expand request" to one of the articles without any critical feedback in it whatsoever - and I thought that it made perfect sense and that idea should be incorporated whenever an article would need it. And now that approach has been described as "ridiculous"... 🤔

P.S. And regarding that supposedly unnecessary translation of "El cuco" - it should be already obvious that "The Cuckoo's Curse" is film's title only in English. So first of all, it's possible that those words mean something else in Spanish (well, they certainly don't mean "cuckoo's curse", right?) And secondly, with lit. tag, at least one can see straightaway that "curse" in the name was added just in English!

Szagory (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you dealing in hypotheticals? When there are 5 reviews hosted on RottenTomatoes, you can add the approval rating and the average score (or request it). When there is a so-called "critics' consensus" on RT, you can add it (or request it). That is not the case. They don't exist "as of now" (many months after the film's release), so it's not constructive to ask for the addition of non-existent features.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dealing with "hypotheticals" though, aren't I?

All (or practically all) films have approval ratings, both on RT and Metacritic - and so will this film.

So knowing that sooner or later there should be ratings on those aggregators - how is that "dealing with hypotheticals" if I add a request for those ratings to be added once they are available? For me personally, I pitch my expectations for any film on basis of those two ratings (since ratings on IMDb are really unreliable, there's no denying that) - and the two templates specifically for adding ratings from review aggregators would give a different indication, I think.

And the text in my section expansion request said it all and made it very plain. Instead, that request was vilified as "ridiculous" (what's more, bulk of this discussion concerns specifically that section expansion request, but now I also get grief from user:ThaddeusSholto about IMDb sourcing, whereas all IMDb-related stuff in my changes was only in two sentences, with two cited refs...). And it all sounds to me so disproportionate, unjustified and misplaced that it just kills any desire to make information on Wikipedia truly useful and helpful which has actuated me into making changes previously. 🤔

Szagory (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "giving you grief" I am reiterating policy which has already been explained to you twice yet you persist in trying to use IMDB to source articles. You keep downplaying it but it doesn't matter if it was two, one, or seven hundred. IMDB is not a reliable source. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And I would also like to disagree respectfully with that statement of yours:

=> Regarding sub-sections, section structure follows available content. Current section structure satisfies current content and there is nothing wrong with it.

If anybody were to add a new subsection to "Reception" - say, "Accolades" or "Box office" - then that { {expand section} } request would be misleading and in the wrong place, right? So by creating a subsection named "Critical response" and putting that expansion request into there, I created the best place (both for information on critical response and for expansion request), didn't I?

P.S. Oh, and before I forget: there should be a short sentence or two added to WP:Lead about film's premiere, its release date(s) and a few words about critical response - which I added and you then removed...

Szagory (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

All (or practically all) films have approval ratings, both on RT and Metacritic - and so will this film. Excuse me? That (more than 5 reviews on RT or profile on Metacritic) is not the case for like over 75% of Spanish productions. And certainly not so for B-movie types such as this one. But whatever, if you think it surely will, one year after the film's premiere, I won't be the one spoiling your illusion. But it's not the case now in the present. As for the distributor, it is implied that Filmax is the distributor in Spain, as you can read the meaning of full sentences. You are creating fuzz about pretty much nothing, other than projecting how this article could be a bicycle if it had wheels and the unacceptable addition of imdb-sourced content.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)