Template talk:Metacritic film prose

This template was considered for deletion on 31 March 2022. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Untitled

Why is the wording of this template so completely inconsistent with the wording used by the template for the other review aggregator? {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} -- 109.79.67.53 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic calculates their score in a different way than Rotten Tomatoes, since it uses a weighted average. We should try to keep these approximately similar, but there are some differences to reflect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this template is also not consistent, it would be more logical if both templates were {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{Metacritic prose}} -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is because Metacritic also has albums, video games, etc., so it's necessary to distinguish that this template is for film. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that there is more than one Metacritic template is not the point. No version of this or any other template should use unnecessary abbreviations as the default template name, it is bad design. Programmers can provide a short version as an extra option but the default version should be as clear as possible and say Metacritic not MC (and Rotten Tomatoes not RT). -- 109.79.162.193 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:MC film to Template:Metacritic film prose. The result of the discussion was moved.

Move / reword

@Sdkb: Would it be better to remove "the film" in the prose so the template can also be used for television shows? See Severance (TV series)#Reception. Also, the IP above makes a point that in the title, MC should be Metacritic. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina, since there's categorization, too, it might make most sense to create a new similar template for TV. Let's wait for the TfD to be closed, though, so that we know there's consensus for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MC film → Template:Metacritic film prose – Make clearer the distinction between this and Template:Metacritic film, and reflect Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose. Indagate (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearer name. Nardog (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unknown parameters

Hey @Nardog:, how can we add unknown parameter search without breaking subst then please? Indagate (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done using {{Ifsubst}}. Nardog (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nardog, but that's broke live versions where archive used, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice_League_(film)&action=edit&section=14 Indagate (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, hiding the empty parameters if |archive-url= isn't given is still possible with {{issubst}}, but that seems too complicated so I've ditched it. Nardog (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good Indagate (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assigned?

The wording of this template seems needlessly pretentious. I don't recall it being this awkward and clunky before. Why is the score "assigned" and not simply "given" by Metacritic? (I do not think it would be appropriate to use the word "report" to describe the interpretation that sites like Rotten Tomatoes do either.) It does not seem as if the wording assigned by this template gave much thought to the existing wordings frequently used in Wikipedia or past discussion such as WP:RTMC.
Why write:

Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 100 out of 100, based on 200 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".
instead of something simpler like:
Metacritic gave the film a weighted average score of 100 out of 100, based on 200 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".

The latter seems so much simpler, but I'm sure most editors could come up with a better wording than the current version (1) or something resembling what editors have actually been adding to articles for many years. -- 109.77.198.206 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can replace the template's wording with your own wording. No policy or guideline requires use of this template or the wording that it has. I've written my own wording in different ways. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New owner will require update to template

On October 3, 2022, per this press release, Fandom Inc. acquired Metacritic, and other holdings, from Red Ventures. This template will need to be updated (sorry, I do not know how) to show Fandom rather than Red Ventures as the publisher. Thank you. Jmg38 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Indagate (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Along with the website's redesign, it appears the scores are no longer indicated as "generally favorable/unfavorable reviews" nor "mixed or average reviews", but now simply "generally favorable/unfavorable" and "mixed or average". Should the template be updated to reflect this change? Οἶδα (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Indagate (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy response! Οἶδα (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List as substonly template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} that involves this template and listing it as a substonly template. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spellnum per MOS

@Indagate's recent edit adding Template:Spellnum per MOS seems to break on film pages where the number of critics is already spelled out in words. For example, Janet Planet currently shows a Lua error because the parameter is filled out with a nine instead of 9.

Can we get someone to bot fix pages with errors? Or does someone else have a better solution? Iiii I I I (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]