Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@

• Support. As long as it's optional, I don't see any harm in it. Songwaters (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

   Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @

One issue I see (previewing One Child Nation with {{rotten tomatoes prose|{{RT data|score}}|{{RT data|average}}|{{RT data|count}}|consensus=As illuminating as it is accessible, ''One Child Nation'' probes a painful chapter in Chinese history with piercing clarity.|ref=yes|access-date={{RT data|access date}}}} as a sort of test) is that this template adds "%" and "/10", whereas those things are already built in to RT data, so those will have to be made compatible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that the same as "audience score"? Kire1975 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Kire1975 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please tweak the template so |url-status= is only included with |archive-url=, to prevent articles from being included in Category:CS1 maint: url-status? (e.g. Super Crooks) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Drop me line on my user talk page if you need more help with templates and CS1 errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RT has two scores, and it is NOT clear which is being used here. Simply putting in "critic" helps to clear this up. @

@

talk

) 22:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@

Some Dude From North Carolina: I suppose we'll have to wait for someone else to weigh in. I might agree with you if it was 10 or 20 years ago, but the trend has been to give more and more credibility to the general audience/public vs. experts on the internet. UserTwoSix (talk

) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

As an example I might point to Murderville#Reception which has a section only "Reception" and you can see the wording without the template. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I support adding the word "critics" since RT reports two different ratings. Also, the slash should be changed to "out of", per the usage at RT and WP's own MOS (see above). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd also support adding the word critic. Yes, technically it's already implied, but Rotten Tomatoes really doesn't emphasize it, whereas they do emphasize the audience score, so it's likely to be a helpful clarification for readers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying "critic score" or "critic reviews" seems unnecessary and verbose since the critics score comes first and has always been the main thing, and Wikipedia does not allow the

Audience scores. (I would also be slightly worried that making the distinction will only encourage the people who continue to frequently add "audience scores" or "audience reviews" to film and television articles.) For any reader that is confused the words Rotten Tomatoes are wiki-linked if they need further clarification. -- 109.78.200.28 (talk

) 21:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In my comment above, I thought that we were discussing adding "critic" right before the average rating, not before "reviews". I'm somewhat ambivalent about this (and not sure if the apostrophe is needed either). I wish that Rotten Tomatoes would just focus on their historic core, which is aggregating critics' reviews, rather than trying to become something broader: they currently have the audience score right after the Tomatometer in just as big font, and the average critic rating is extremely hidden since you have to click to get to it. On the one hand, it's not our job to fix their interface/mission, but on the other, it's causing a lot of potential confusion among readers that makes the wording calculus trickier for us. I'll put an invite at

WT:FILM to try to get some more eyes here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

23:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

bikeshed effect. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk

) 09:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely not use this in a widespread manner. There is no community consensus to use it that way, and I believe editors should have the flexibility to word the content from RT (and Metacritic as well). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Erik could try and propose the template for deletion again if he does not think it should be used, but if it is here people will use it. It is already happening, the template exists, people are using it more and more. It is a predictable and inevitable result of the deletion discussion failing. That was the consensus even if we don't like it, so we have to continue to have these discussion over and over and try to gradually improve the wording as best we can. The only other alternative I can think of is that several people in deletion discussion argued that it should only be allowed as a substitution template, perhaps that is something that could be explored as it would offer a bit more flexibility. (I don't think this template is ideal but it is still better than some of the weirder wordings some editors think are a good idea.) -- 109.79.175.86 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I find it strange that User:Sdkb has gone ahead and made several changes to this template but in particular added a never substitute warning [2] to the template, despite several people in the deletion discussion expressly argued for the opposite. -- 109.78.203.101 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

IP, that deletion discussion resulted in a consensus to keep. I've made several changes to the template over the past year supported by PAG or consensus—if you have multiple specific objections, name each of them. Regarding substitution, that notice is in the documentation partially because this template doesn't currently have the technical capacity to substitute without introducing technical code we don't want in articles. I think it'd be a bad idea to substitute it, given that that would negate many of the reasons editors !voted to keep this template. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by PAG, that jargon is obscure to me. On substitution User:Sdkb makes a good point, the suggestions in the discussion that it be made into a substitution template goes against the points User:Sdkb made in that same discussion pointing out the main benefit of this template that it would more easily allow things to be kept consistent. Thanks for clarifying that.

I would name more of the minor complaints I have about this template but the issue I already raised about

MOS:SLASH as this template continues to do. -- 109.76.199.220 (talk

) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:RT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Template:RT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Indagate (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on this, at this time, there are 302 articles that transclude this template. As a reminder, the fact that this template exists does not mean there is consensus to use it in place of written article text. There are no policies, and no general or subject-specific guidelines, that endorse this template's use over written article text. Applying the spirit of

Again the template exists, people are going to use it. People are out there actively converting articles to use this template[3][4] You can try and convince him not to use it but that user is only the most recent one I've seen, there are others. It is happening and it is going to keep happening. Comments on the talk page are not enough. Even banner warning on in the template documentation probably wont stop people from using this template (and I say that because Template:Webarchive has long had a warning against using it that no one pays any notice).

Unless you can convince people to delete this template it is going to keep getting used. It is just too convenient when adding to articles that don't already have the aggregators listed. Frankly I'm going to use it it too, because even though it is flawed in some ways, it beats arguing with certain editors who have even weirder and worse ideas about how to word the aggregators blurb. Maybe you can convince a bot developer to replace uses of this template, but again there are people actively and enthusiastically adding this template (and I'm even grudgingly and unenthusiastically using it because it beats the alternatives). -- 109.76.199.220 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've relayed to

WP:TMP, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." Implementing the template does a disservice to the casual editor by keeping the ability to edit the article text hidden away from them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 16:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The count has gone up (to 315) not down since Erik started this discussion. I agree in principle when he says "Implementing the template does a disservice to the casual editor by keeping the ability to edit the article text hidden away from them" and it would probably be better if we could stick to those higher principles, if we could discourage editors from raising the barrier to entry by adding complicated templates or obscure jargon or any other difficulties. But

Template:Film_ratings

and that was a big ugly awkward template, and there used to be strong and clear consensus against using it. Discouraging them from using a much easier and more convenient template like this is going to take considerably more time and effort. The time you're taking to discuss it here is only the tip of the iceberg.)

Erik, you may as well propose this template for deletion again, your logic seems to point that direction anyway. -- 109.76.199.220 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

One month later, the template has been transcluded 357 times. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Now it is 398 times. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I checked. A majority of the new additions in the past couple weeks are newer film articles that never had a reception section. Editors are choosing to use the template, which is a legit move. The others were in older film articles where the reception summary was poorly written and subsequently overwritten with the template, also a legit move. However, I have come across a few examples where perfectly acceptable prose was getting overwritten unnecessarily, and I usually revert those back on sight. That's an improper use of the template, especially when {{

RT data}} is already being used. Count was at 400; now at 397. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 17:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought the proposed deletion of this template was technically correct and I did expect this template to be gone already. But so long as this template exists it does not seem unreasonable to use it. It can be quite convenient. (I have found the template {{Rotten Tomatoes data|prose|ref=yes}} useful, and if I recall correctly it also increases the usage count of this template. It is especially convenient if I'm on mobile and do not want to type any more than is absolutely necessary.) I think it is reasonable to use this template if editors have failed to

provide a proper inline reference, so please do not revert those cases without adding a proper inline reference. I try to use it in cases where editors have not only failed to provide a proper inline reference but also have not listed the number of reviews counted for context, which means the wording requires a certain amount of rewriting anyway. -- 109.78.192.111 (talk

) 06:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

In cases where the only thing missing is a reference, like the ones I reverted, feel free to add one. You don't need this template for that. Changing the wording unnecessarily is akin to a

MOS:VAR concern and should be avoided (or discussed at the very least). I will make a note for future reference to add a citation where one is missing, but the template should not be solely used as a citation hack. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a deliberate or accidental choice; possibly MOS has changed since this template's wording was established. "7.30/10" is clearly not a fraction or a ratio; if you are reading it out loud, you would never say "average rating of seven point three zero tenths". Instead, you would say "seven point three zero out of ten". I have fixed this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SLASH does not recommend using "out of 10" in place of a slash; just the opposite in fact, as Some Dude From North Carolina points out. Yes, you wouldn't "seven point three zero tenths", but that doesn't make it not a fraction. It's 7.30 out of ten possible points. Use of the slash is more concise anyway. Songwaters (talk

) 22:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As you write yourself, It's 7.30 out of ten, which is how we should write it, per MOS. Which section of MOS justifies the use of a slash here instead of the English words "out of" that match how the rating would be read out loud? Please quote and link to the section of MOS that allows this usage in prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I never said MOS:SLASH says anything explicitly about whether we should a slash or "out of" in the case of average ratings from Rotten Tomatoes. What I did say was that the average rating should be considered a fraction. Sometimes, we would say "tenths" to describe the average rating, specifically if it's something like 7.00/10, which is easier to say ("seven tenths"). Also, just because we would say "out of" when saying it out loud doesn't mean we should use those words in text; we say "1 8th of a mile" out loud, but we type "1/8 of a mile" in text. Bottom line, let's keep the slash for concision. Songwaters (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree.

MOS:SLASH says that slashes in prose can be used for pronunciation, fractions, two-year periods, ratios, and expressions or abbreviations where a different construction would be ambiguous. This situation meets none of those criteria, so a slash should not be used. MOS:SLASH does not allow an exception "for concision". The Rotten Tomatoes pages also use "out of". Click on the "99%" at Casablanca, and you will see "9.40 out of 10 average rating". We should obviously not make up our own twisted "fraction" logic that conflicts with MOS in order to make our articles' prose more difficult for readers to understand. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 00:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The denominator is the largest possible score a film can have, and the numerator is the score that film actually has. Being commonly called "A Bth" is not a requisite of it being a fraction; it's also quite common for the slash to be interpreted as "out of". Just because you think my reasoning that the average rating is a fraction is "twisted" doesn't make it so. Also, I fail to see how a slash would make the prose more difficult to read; most people would surely understand what the slash means. The slash has worked just fine on Wikipedia's film articles for years and there's no reason to believe it has caused massive confusion then, let alone now. Songwaters (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason I bring it up is that if you look at Rotten Tomatoes itself it labels the number "7.30 out of 10 average rating" (as

numerals. The option to write percent or even "per cent" instead of % has already been coded into the template but few insist on actually using it). Digging into the edit history (the earliest version of the template didn't mention it[5] and) it was soon changed to the "out of 10"[6] by User:Koavf then shortly after[7] to "/10" by User:Chompy_Ace

.

Rules change, we move on (Wikipedia film articles frequently did not even bother to include the number of reviews counted by Rotten Tomatoes, and including the average rating too was itself a relatively recent addition). If this template is going do things a particular way I want to make sure it has been done deliberately at least, and preferably based on consensus, especially when apparently choosing to ignore other Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think there is a clear consensus to ignore

MOS:SLASH yet though. (Before anyone suggests "making it an option" I'm only interested in there being consensus for the standard default.) -- 109.79.69.44 (talk

) 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to establish one way or the other if there is a consensus to either follow

numerals. Some have argued against writing "out of 10" to keep the wording more concise, but if really editors wanted to keep this template concise we would omit the words "the review aggregator website" because the keyword Rotten Tomatoes

is already linked for anyone who actually needs further explanation.)

What is the best way to get an answer? Should I start an RFC or is there some other process that would be more appropriate to settle the issue one way or the other? (I'm vaguely aware of the Wikipedia RFC process, but I've never used it and there may be a better way to clearly establish consensus.) -- 109.76.199.220 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Putting a {{

WT:MOS might draw some additional participants here. If a consensus fails to emerge from that, an RfC would be the next step. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the MOS says you have to choose one format over the other for this particular situation, so it really boils down to a stylistic preference. And in that regard, I think Jonesey95 hit it square on the head. The source does not publish it as a fraction, and neither should we, unless it can be shown that an overwhelming number of sources are reporting these numbers as fractions. Is the fraction acceptable? Sure. Necessary? No. An alternate stylistic preference, while acceptable, shouldn't be the default. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I should note that I appreciated the advice from Sdkb about "{{

WP:RTMC. -- 109.77.199.151 (talk

) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Another point to consider that I just thought of... When existing plain text prose using "out of" is overwritten with a slash by the use of this template, it's in violation of

MOS:VAR due to the fact that more than one format is acceptable here. At the very least, if the template is kept, there should be a built-in parameter to allow for either preference. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion because wasn't aware of it and made similar amend to template, / to out of, and reverted by @TropicAces:. I'd say consensus in previous discussion leans towards "out of" but far from conclusive. I think the average is not a fraction, and "out of" is easier to read, so shouldn't use a slash. Indagate (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Although the existing wording has been around for a long time we can do better. In this context most readers can easily tell the difference between difference between "one tenth" and "1 out of 10" but they (and dumber systems like text to speech systems) shouldn't have to. I think the extra clarity is more important than brevity in this case. -- 109.76.131.151 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the punctuation after the passage The website's consensus reads be a colon instead of a comma? The Manual of Style reads that it is clearer to use a colon to introduce a quotation if it forms a complete sentence, and this should always be done for multi-sentence quotations. However, critics consensus on Rotten Tomatoes are complete sentences (sometimes more than one), usually containing multiple propositions, so it seems to me that this quote from the Manual of Style applies here.

I would have

yeah makes sense. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: Re your recent edit, Rotten Tomatoes has a standard scoring system, which is always out of 10, so is there really any need to check the datum? I worry it's just added complexity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Hi, I think it's necessary; since in Wikidata the % and /10 are part of the values of d:Property:P444, if the data are read from Wikidata they should not be added by the template, otherwise they get duplicated. --Epìdosis 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Have reverted the edits as they broke the template in articles like Top Gun: Maverick‎ causing the & and /10 to not show at all because P444 is populated in wikidata even if not used in articles. Please test in sandbox. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

However it seems that there is a problem of duplicated & and /10 elsewhere (e.g. Avengers: Endgame#Critical response). I don't know which problem is more frequent. --Epìdosis 18:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Have fixed the issue at Avengers: Endgame#Critical response by using the RT data template with its prose parameter instead of calling the RT data as paremeters of this RT prose template. That was a fixable misuse of template so should be far less frequent. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone modify the template's code so that when a film's score is 100% or 0%, the score links to List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, respectively? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done, added to Testcases as well Indagate (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb The template also works without the number of critics (see test cases), so I felt that it was a very big suggestion. I think this could motivate users to include all three fields. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This, along with {{

• For reference, the previous TfD regarding this template is here: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Review aggregator prose templates --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this has been discussed multiple times and editors were in favor of keeping it the way it is in order to standardize the language used in articles as well as to keep from introducing errors about the exact methods used, etc. I personally lean that direction, but don't have a strong feeling either way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that notion, but the guideline is pretty explicit about this. I can see this as a tool for a starting point for editors, but it still should generate the prose in article. I'm personally of the mind that I don't need this text to be standardized since there can be slight variations that still convey the same info. I know that could be a minority opinion, but for what this is, the text shouldn't be locked behind a template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Also agreed that we shouldn't have rules we don't follow: that helps no one. Would you also be amenable to the rule changing its language? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The fact that wikiprojects and template authors can sometimes get away with breaking a rule for a while doesn't mean the rule is faulty. The real question here is whether this short RT-related sentence really qualifies as what is meant by "article text ... content" in the rule. One could argue that this template serves a similar purpose to {{EB1911}} (and a counter-argument could be made that the latter is citation/attribution template for the sources section which is not defined as part of the article content per se). An argument can also be made that the template can be substituted any time someone feels a powerful need to adjust the text in it in a particular instance, while leaving the rest with the same boilerplate. But why is this something we need boilerplate for? And if we do need it, what is the rationale to change it in some particular case?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the rule was "faulty" or that is why the rule is faulty. The rules are all conventions that we make up and we can change them at any time if it helps us make an encyclopedia. There is 100% no reason for your weird hostility to me, so stop. As for why we need boilerplate language, one reason why is because of something I wrote above and you maybe didn't even read, which is that it keeps the language around the weight average methods correct instead of individual users mischaracterizing it, which I have seen in the wild before. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The result of the 2022 TfD (linked above) was "no consensus", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement against the general guideline. It may actually indicate the need for further discussion, and instead of having "delete" on the table, perhaps the next go at it should focus on "subst-only". --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also recommend

WT:ALBUM. Is there a reason you skipped it, @Favre1fan93:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, just added WP:ALBUM. Was just an oversight on my part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not substituting this template allows for quick and easy updates, which for many films happens every day early in their run. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The plain text generated by the template, or a slighly edited variant of it, wouldn't be any more difficult to update at the same film article. It's not an argument pro or con in either case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines on Wikipedia are not divine mandates. They all have underlying rationales, and we should evaluate them in light of that. When the underlying rationales do not apply to a particular situation, we are

not only permitted but encouraged

to make exceptions.

The template guideline quoted above is helpfully specific about the rationale behind its suggestion: this makes it more difficult to edit the content. So the salient question is whether this snippet of text is something that is frequently going to need to be adjusted/customized to a specific article. And I submit that the answer is a resounding no — this is among the most standardized pieces of text used on Wikipedia, and even edge cases (such as situations where we want to link List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) can be handled by the template.

As such, there's very little downside, and as Justin highlighted above, there is a lot of upside. It makes updates simple (and in some cases automatable), it encourages more consistent/neutral language, it provides standardization that makes it easier for readers to navigate, etc. As such, I would strongly oppose making it subst-only. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is currently no "mandate" (for lack of a better term) to use this template, nor to standardize it.

WP:AGG has similar wording listed, which just shows that there are multiple ways to present this info. If editors want to have a baseline for others to start off with with this formatting, go for it. I don't see why this template should be an exception to the guideline and ignore it. Editors should be able to access and adjust prose wording within articles and these templates currently don't allow that. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That guideline has been tested for this and similar templates in TfD before, the parts that are different for individual articles can be easily edited, the rest is boilerplate. Substituting it removes the benefit's that templates like this provides, of consistency if it gets changed and maintainability. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As I've commented above, no where has this template be set as a "mandate" or standardized wording for this text. It's merely a suggestion, to which some variation can exist outside this template's use and it is still ok. As such, editors should still be able to edit this text, if desired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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 | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What are the situations where you've had to change the wording please? The text can normally be the same so curious where it needs to be different. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What Indagate said. From your initial comment, it seems that you have an objection to the specific wording used here, rather than a need to customize the wording to a specific article. If that is the case, then what you should do is propose changes to the wording at this template, rather than substing it out. The ability to discuss such optimizations centrally and then push them out at scale if they have consensus is a benefit of this template (which is lost if substed out). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many ways that editors can present this information, including by editors who add this without this template. They should have the ability to freely edit the prose supplied by this template on article after it has been subst, without having to remove the template transclusion to make a desired change. This isn't a text we need to be "locking in" for editors. Good for a starting point if anyone wants it, not one to stay as such if a change has to be made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93. While standardizing text across hundreds of articles, if not thousands, sounds beneficial on paper, there's no reason to enforce specific phrasing in locked-down fashion. There are multiple, acceptable ways to write the same statement, and it has yet to be shown that it was a real problem before the template's existence. On the contrary, the problem now becomes the proliferation of the template across Wikipedia, which even the smallest adjustment to its phrasing, only requiring a small consensus among a handful of editors, could impact thousands of articles that were never edited by the editors involved in that discussion. Instead of asking why we don't need embedded text in the template, we should be asking and gaining consensus for why we do need it. For many years, WP:FILM could never agree on standardized phrasing for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and the like, yet those behind this template's existence believe this template somehow found the elusive magic bullet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days, and there hasn't seemed to be much more involvement. I think this is an important issue to settle, and will plan to create an RfC on the matter to hopefully generate wider community input if more voices don't chime in and create a clearer consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Where do you want to hold the RfC? Here? I assume it will include all of the templates with similar wording, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Here I think would be the best location. Yes, it would apply to this template and the two Metacritc ones (and any others I'm not aware of that are similar). I will give this regular discussion until the end of the week before starting any RfC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

[thumbs up emoji]. I also don't know of any other templates that work like this, but if I bump into any, I'll post them here, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. (If I had a dollar for every time that I had to argue about adding accessibility features to every single table here on Wikipedia, I'd be rich.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A standard template for this seems like a great idea in theory, but in practise there is no consensus for how this should be worded, and that has been the case for many years. (Look at

I seem to recall something a lot like this was tried before too. -- 109.76.196.7 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Per

WP:CONACHIEVE. Kire1975 (talk

) 03:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at

WP:RTMC and the talk page

A link to many many arguments about the wording was already provided in the above comment. (Minor arguements about specifc wordings continue below too). -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)