Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Add an iw

{{editprotect}} Add an iw to no:Mal:Rotten-tomatoes please. Nsaa 20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

An old request - not done yet. Can we unprotect this too? Rocket000 02:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request done. Protection has been kept on, but I've made a doc subpage so future edits can be made without edit requests. --- RockMFR 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rocket000 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add es:Plantilla:Rotten-tomatoes, thanks!!! --Pablo323 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Plis --Pablo323 (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

variable name

{{editprotect}}

please modify code as shown below to make optional the use of the variable name "id=". this is standard in other such similar templates.

[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{1|{{{id}}}}}}/ ''{{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}''] at [[Rotten Tomatoes]]

--emerson7 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

auto id

{{editprotect}}Changing the code to the below will allow this template to work without needing any parameters on most pages where the page name is the same as the movie name.

[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{1|{{{id|{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}}}}/ ''{{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}''] at [[Rotten Tomatoes]]

--Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 changed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Confirmed working at Solarbabies and Barry Lyndon. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Rotten-tomatoes → Template:Rotten Tomatoes – The site is called "Rotten Tomatoes", and for readability and simplicity in the usage of it, the template should be called so, too. This template might be in use quite a bit, but that shouldn't be an issue, because redirects are cheap and AWB can take care of it when it's editing an article anyway. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Not a big deal for templates but no reason not to move. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Lachlanusername (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support as this is how template naming has been going for a while. May as well have consistent and sane template names that follow real world usage. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ID

Please, change someone in the ID PAGENAMEE to PAGENAME.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 18:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That would break the link on every page that has a space in its title. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by this request? Anomie⚔ 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URL

Since there's both http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ and https://www.rottentomatoes.com/ available, could someone please change the URL in this template to protocol-relative format (per WP:VPP)? Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Will someone please revert the change effected above per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_external_links. The "https" prefix is causing the pages to not load correctly. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. RT serves mixed content; unencrypted active content is blocked by default in modern browsers, rendering RT unusable. Alakzi (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I tested it at the time that Bender235 (talk · contribs) made the request, the http: and https: URLs returned the same content. Presumably RT have altered their website since. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chances are the problem has only started to occur in the last few days otherwise somebody would have noticed it before this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

/tv needed

When there is a TV series at RT, we cannot use this template to link to them (eg. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/fargo ). Can someone either alter this one to accommodate them, or create a new template for them instead. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I'd like to second this suggestion. Or would a second template be appropriate? Template:Rotten Tomatoes TV? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Rotten Tomatoes TV created by War wizard90 (talk), 14 July 2015 -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

HTTP should be replaced by HTTPS. Rotten Tomatoes works with HTTPS, so why use HTTP?

MisterSanderson (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected Edit request on 13 January 2017

• ID=war_dogs_2016 is converted to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/War_Dogs_(2016_film)/
• The correct URL is https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/War_Dogs_2016_film/

Is there a trick to this? I tried ID={{War_Dogs_2016_film}} to no avail. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem is that the article War Dogs (2016 film) has parentheses in the title. And the PAGENAME(BASE) magic words are transferring it into the URL. Not sure how to fix this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The correct parameter is |id=, not |ID=. The template uses {{PAGENAME}} if no parameter is given, which is why it's trying to throw in "War Dogs (2016 film)". Primefac (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

Can the template be edited to pull info from Wikidata? Trivialist (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Also, see this ArbCom motion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2018

Add support for getting Rotten Tomatoes ID from Wikidata. (code) eflyjason (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Are you aware of this motion from the arbritration committee? Do you feel your proposed change is in line with this? Are you able to demonstrate consensus for your proposed change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Accessdate

As the ratings can shift as more reviews come in, would it be an idea to add an accessdate parameter link {{cite web}}? (Emperor (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Best practices for web citations require an access date. Without such a parameter, IMO it's better to use {{cite web}} or the like. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifying reviews page

There has always been tension over treating Rotten Tomatoes as an inline citation and as an external link. As an inline citation, it is used to provide the overall score and related details. It has nothing to do with listing reviews. As an external link, it is used to provide access to a bigger list of reviews than anywhere else. It has nothing to do with the score. However, because both are essentially the same link, some editors insist that if RT is an inline citation, it cannot be an external link. I don't find this fair because if a reader wants to see the list of reviews, they will have to dig into the references to find the link they need. So I am thinking, why don't we simply expand RT's EL template to append "/reviews" to the film-related IDs, and adjust the description? For example, for X-Men, this is the main link, and this is the list of reviews. We could present it as "X-Men reviews at Rotten Tomatoes". Thoughts on that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELDUP is also a relevant guideline to consider for this situation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting it this way would be a help I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Zyxw, pinging you as the most recent editor of this template. Can the above be implemented on a technical level? Any thoughts on the value of this distinction? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, see above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't see any problems against doing so - goes with WP:ELRC and helps readers. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for the template to be edited per above. Notified WT:FILM when this discussion started, no apparent disagreement with this. Could use someone like Zyxw who can understand how to edit the code, though. Or at least let us know where to find an editor who can code this change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: I don't think {{Rotten Tomatoes}} should automatically add /reviews to every movie link since the template is used in almost 22,000 articles. The existing code already supports appending /reviews to the ID used in articles. I've updated {{Rotten Tomatoes/sandbox}} to check for IDs ending in /reviews and if found add " reviews" after the movie title:

* {{Rotten Tomatoes/sandbox | m/xmen | X-Men }}

• X-Men at Rotten Tomatoes

* {{Rotten Tomatoes/sandbox | m/xmen/reviews | X-Men }}

• X-Men at Rotten Tomatoes

Examples were also added to Template:Rotten Tomatoes/testcases. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm very close to supporting this. I agree that, per WP:ELDUP, it's appropriate to have RT as both an inline citation and an EL for the nom's reasoning. Although I don't think we ought to change how articles are displayed to readers just because some editors misinterpret guidelines, my initial thought was that the /reviews link was probably more useful anyways as an EL and that we should change to using it on that basis. BUT... the reviews link doesn't include the critic consensus summary, which is a very important piece of review-related information. So I have to oppose, at least until RT gets their act together and adds the consensus to /reviews. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  I just added a bit to the documentation to hopefully help put to rest the duplication worries. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I'm not sure if I understand the reason for the rationale. Why does it matter if the consensus is on the reviews page or not? The "main" page of any given film doesn't explicitly highlight reviews. It's buried under What to Know, You Might Also Like, Where to Watch, Rate and Review, Videos, Photos, Movie Info, Cast & Crew, News & Interviews, and finally Critic Reviews. The goal of RT as an EL is to give readers a list of reviews that they can explore, more than what the Wikipedia article can sample. The reviews page is the most direct access to that. The "main" page is more appropriate solely as an inline citation for the consensus, always covered in the Wikipedia article. And Zyxw, not understanding your reason not to add "/reviews"? Is a technical disagreement? Any reason not to implement the sandbox code, perhaps with the template having "reviews" in the name too, to be more specific than expecting the main page? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, thinking about it, the RT critic consensus is almost always included in the article, so it doesn't have value as an EL. I'm still a little on the fence, but I'd be okay with this. The flaw is really out of our control—we can't force RT to abandon whatever pivot they're trying to make away from being a review aggregator and toward being some sort of IMDb competitor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't really see it as a flaw, more that in Rotten Tomatoes's view, the individual reviews are secondary, where the score and the consensus are primary. The revised EL template would be a direct pipeline to that "secondary" content, which in Wikipedia's view would be primary as a unique resource (more reviews listed in one place than anywhere else) that complements the encyclopedic presentation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It is not obvious to me what the desired change is here and whether that change has consensus. Please feel free to reactivate with a clear consensus and clear implementation to sync. Izno (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata tracking

Has there been any discussion in the past to add {{WikidataCheck}} to this template to track if the template matches the wikidata identifier for the rt id with categories? In a similar way to Category:Netflix title ID different from Wikidata and associated categories. Terasail^[✉️] 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)