Template talk:Metacritic album prose

Not normalized

For background, see WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores. Several of us have been fighting an uphill battle for years to remove this misleading description of "normalized". We were making a lot of progress, to the point that very few new film articles simply copied the incorrect information from previous articles. This template set the process back a lot, essentially automating the error. Metacritic may call its scores "normalized", but that doesn't mean it fits the description at Standard score. Again refer to the link above for a more detailed explanation. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem

When used in a film article, the template uses the word "album" instead of film. This needs to be reworded. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modification suggested to reduce potential to be misleading

I suggest changing the wording of the template to more directly indicate that the first sentence is specifically based on a film's Metacritic score, not necessarily the more general critical reception to the film. As it stands now, if Metacritic shows negative reception but the reception overall when additional critics are included - as on RottenTomatoes - is mixed, the statement just says "[Film] was met with negative reviews from critics" with no indication that the characterization of the reviews as negative comes from Metacritic. (The fact that the Metacritic score immediately follows the statement doesn't resolve that issue because it comes across as just a more specific indication of the reviews being negative, not the *reason* for the statement that the reviews were negative.) If used in the wrong context, that could make it seem like the reviews were predominantly negative even if that wasn't the case. (The same kind of thing could also happen with Metacritic showing positive reception when the overall reception was mixed.) Alphius (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphius, There's nothing misleading about this as this is exactly what Metacritic is claiming. Do you have actual language to replace it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's misleading because the first sentence comes across as a general statement and the second sentence comes across as just a more specific statement that falls under that statement (with no indication that it's actually the only reason for the first statement or that the apparent general statement isn't necessarily reflective of the general reception). It's not a great analogy, but think of it like it has the potential to end up saying, "The color of the painting is green. At Metacritic, the painting received a score of 85% green." when the more general reception is in fact that the painting is blue and Metacritic's score varies from the general reception because it doesn't include as many critics. (For obvious reasons, it would be only be an issue in cases where Metacritic's characterization of the reception isn't reflective of the more general reception.)

Honestly, I think the best option would be to just remove the first sentence from the template entirely and only use the template to indicate the Metacritic score itself (an appropriate non-template-based sentence indicating the type of reception would presumably go at the beginning of the "Reception" section for an article and the shorter Metacritic score template could just go wherever in the section made sense, whether directly after that sentence or not). But if the entire content of the template was going to be kept, then something like "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications, {{{1}}} was met with {{{2}}} reviews from critics. This release received an average score of {{{3}}}, based on {{{4}}} reviews." would have less risk of being misleading. Regardless of the specific wording used for the change, the main point would be to more directly indicate that the characterization of the reviews comes from Metacritic. Alphius (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphius,

Done What do you think? See also {{MC film}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works, and it should fix the issue I was concerned about. Thanks! Alphius (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:MC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:MC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Template:MC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst'ing

@Indagate: What is the problem with marking this as substitute only or with only substituting it? I don't see how that's an issue and it's consistent with Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines to not store article text within templates. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline has been tested for 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. Indagate (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then we shouldn't have text encouraging subst'ing. It should be all or nothing. Do you think that posting to WT:ALBUM to get more opinions would be useful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the text encouraging subst'ing that you're referring to? Can do, opinions from TfD's should also be considered. Indagate (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's at {{Metacritic film prose}}: "It may be substituted if future changes to the prose are anticipated." I made both templates and get them mentally confused sometimes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really encourage subst'ing it, just acknowledges it as an option Indagate (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be an option if what you wrote is true: it should always be subst'ed or never. Otherwise, there is no consistency. I thought that was your entire point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think it should be subst'ed for the consistency and maintainability mentioned before, can't think of a reason or situation to subst, but open if there is one? The part of the template doc you mentioned means may not be consensus for never-subst to be included though, same for always-subst. Indagate (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subst'ing, again

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) 23:42, 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) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]