Template talk:Cite Rotten Tomatoes

Why does this even exist?

Also why use an ambiguous RT abbreviation instead of the words cite rotten tomatoes? -- 109.76.216.69 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template

Currently in the sandbox (here) is code to convert this template to a wrapper template of {{cite web}}, with comparisons in the testcases. After doing some work of late on a lot of citations, I don't see why this shouldn't be as such. If I recall, the initial creation of this was because of Rotten Tomatoes being italicized by {{cite web}}. As I said, by examining citations of late, I don't think this is an issue. It's more important that "Rotten Tomatoes" be in |website= (which Wikipedia italicizes) for COinS metadata purposes, than it not be, and I don't see the larger reasoning why we should forgo using {{cite web}} as a wrapper. If this is still an issue (which I hope it isn't), I feel an alternative would be to put "Rotten Tomatoes" as the sole entry in |publisher=, but I don't think that's really correct for the metadata reasons and the cite web documentation. Also please note this new code also adds the parameter |episode= for use on television episode articles, should they get individual RT scores. Notices to this discussion have been placed on WT:FILM and WT:TV, as the two projects who mainly use this template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this really need to exist? If the issue with using {{cite web}} is that it italicizes "Rotten Tomatoes" then surely that shouldn't be an issue because that should align with all other websites. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I equate this template in a similar way to the way {{Cite tweet}} exists, given that is also a wrapper. That said, I also don't have strong feelings with this remaining, unless there's something that can be helpful by having the specified parameters to generate the url that I'm missing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This change has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chompy Ace: Regarding your edits, please see Template:Cite_web#COinS for why what you did is incorrect. As a general rule, only one data item per parameter. Also WP:COINS for more info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Chompy Ace 22:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: How to unitalicize "Rotten Tomatoes" again? Chompy Ace 22:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't, and that was the point of making this change too. How the citation style's websites (italics), doesn't equate to how prose represents it. |website= is the correct parameter "Rotten Tomatoes" should be in, per {{cite web}} documentation, as |publisher= is incorrect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This template only exists because one editor cared obsessively about italics, he cared more about formatting than he does about underlying semantic meaning. He complained for years and years, and could not accept the fact that Rotten Tomatoes is a website published by Fandango Media, ultimately owned by Warner Bros. and that using existing templates to express that information used formatting that didn't fit with his ideas about how citations should be formatted. One editor programmer eventually gave in and created this template for him. This template offers no real benefit and has only caused more site specific templates to be created. If you change the formatting that prompted this template in the first place I except he'll show up if he hasn't finally burnt out. -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Found an representative example of one of the many rantsdiscussions about italic formatting that eventually lead to the creation of this template. If you look deeper you can probably find many more examples, this obsession over italics and formatting went on for years. The whole point of this template is to format Rotten Tomatoes differently, and the editor cared more about formatting rules than he did about the underlying semantic meaning of website or publisher. -- 109.77.207.152 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear User:Tenebrae is the one who cared so much about formatting that User:Trappist_the_monk was persuaded to create this template. Tenebrae has since been banned for an undeclared conflict of interest. -- 109.78.211.122 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2021

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 to "Cite Rotten Tomatoes" per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:Cite rt → Template:Cite rotten tomatoes – "RT" can refer to any number of sites. Expanding this template's name makes it clear what its purpose is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support rt could be anything - rotten tomatoes is much clearer. In reality it won't make much difference - one being a redirect of the other, but worth doing IMO. Nigej (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes. Why not use the proper capitalization while we're at it. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support with proper capitalization as the Nardog suggested. —El Millo (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support with proper capitalization per Nardog. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support with proper capitalization per Nardog. Chompy Ace 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment as nominator, I also support the capitalization stated above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes -Per WP:TMPG: "Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." This case is particularly important because there are news media (RT (TV network)) with which this could plausibly be confused. I might even suggest that we systematically deprecate the "cite rt" usages and use the new expanded name of the template instead. -- Netoholic @ 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}} per actually readable name. Apparently, there's also {{Cite mc}} and arguably {{Cite BOM}} that could use the same RM treatment. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

Italics

I think we should discuss the recent bold change by Darkwarriorblake to using |publisher= instead of |website= because it is incorrect according to the documentation for {{cite web}} which says The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). I know there has been concern before about italicising "Rotten Tomatoes", but it is a website and we italicise all website names. Funnily enough, Rotten Tomatoes is actually given as an example of a website name that should be used in the |website= parameter at the template documentation. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that Rotten Tomatoes is a website. I had this same arguement with the users running CitationBot when they kept switching websites like Variety to "cite magazine" because there's a magazine version of it. If I'm linking to it on the web, it's a website and should fall under "cite web". However, at every FA I've done in the last 2-3 years, and I've done a few, every single time people raise that RT shouldn't be italicized and should generally be matching with whether or not the respective Wikipedia article is italicized or not. I honestly don't care either way but the use of this template and the metacritic one in the articles I work on is a roadblock towards FA, so either the template changes or I don't use the template. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree with the cite magazine one which is also not correct. If the problem is that it doesn't match Rotten Tomatoes then that could be the solution, though I'm sure there have already been discussions about this over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in too because of my revert. An option could be the |via= parameter, but I don't think actually correct given what the documentation says about the COINS metadata. I think what's difficult to wrap heads around is that cite web is just displaying the parameter in italics, not that it should be formatted as such. The same thing would happen if you use cite web for an article on CNN or a local news stations such as WABC-TV or KTLA. Those should both be not italicized at their articles/in prose, but the cite template will render them as CNN, WABC, and KTLA when using the parameter |website=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that there is a good note addressing this sort of situation at MOS:ITALICWEBSITE. Key parts it says: When used by Wikipedia in a reference citation, any website or other online publication is being cited as a published work, by definition; Wikipedia does not cite companies, individuals, or other entities, only works published by them. As with sources in any medium, titles of minor works (e.g., online articles) go in quotation marks, and titles of major works (e.g. websites) go in italics, even if they would not be italicized in running text as services, companies, etc. ... Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources. This has been the subject of numerous consensus discussions, the most recently conclusive of which is WP:CITALICSRFC (October 2019). So that seems to support italics for website names in the cites even if the article name is not italicised. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that seems to support my stance. It doesn't help me right now but it will on the next FA I do because using "Publisher" to avoid italicizing is what I've been having to do. I think Citations are right up there with Crit Reception sections as my most hated things. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone objects to Rotten Tomatoes being italicized in refs, just direct them to WP:ITALICWEBCITE as shown by Adamstom. They can't make you change it after reading that. —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Italics

Doctor Who has a few stand-alone specials that aren't part of any particular season. For this section, I'm specifically discussing Doctor Who specials (2022). RT has labeled these episodes as PRECEDING_SEASON.SPECIAL_NUMBER (13.1` for Eve of the Daleks or 13.2 for Legend of the Sea Devils, etc.) The URL for these episodes don't include an episode number: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/doctor_who/s13.1. Excluding an episode number in this template, automatically places the title in intalics, even when it should be in quotes, as can be seen here/below. Is there a way to override this?

References

TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The title field is for the name of the series, not the episode, so this should say "Doctor Who: Season 13.1" not "Eve of the Daleks: Season 13.1". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the issue though. In the examples on this page, when citing an episode, the template normally displays the title of the episode as the title of the source, in quotations. Presumably because it's given an episode number. However, there is no episode number to give for Eve of the Daleks, so it would display the title of the programme and "season 13.1" which is factually incorrect because Eve of the Daleks is an episode and not a season. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't fully following when I answered the first time. Seems to me that the template either needs to accept some sort of blank value for episodes in this situation (i.e. episode=X which would trigger the episode formatting but not add an episode number to the URL) or there needs to be a separate type created for specials like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)