Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Did you know 21 Jun 2026 – 7 Dogs (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Umais Bin Sajjad (t · c); see discussion 15 Jun 2026 – Submarine (2010 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gavetheman555 (t · c); see discussion 12 Jun 2026 – Aru Kararu no Isan (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion 11 Jun 2026 – YouTuber film (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by 1timeuse75 (t · c); see discussion 09 Jun 2026 – Confessions II – The Film (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Launchballer (t · c); see discussion 07 Jun 2026 – Riley (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Filmforme (t · c); see discussion 29 May 2026 – Iron Boy (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 25 May 2026 – One Person, One Vote? (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Cbmovies (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 17 Jun 2026 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 09 Jun 2026 – Cillian Murphy on stage and screen (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion 26 May 2026 – List of Pakistani submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Umais Bin Sajjad (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 27 Jun 2026 – Baragon (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pokelego999 (t · c); start discussion 26 Jun 2026 – Fritz the Cat (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RTSthestardust (t · c); start discussion 22 Jun 2026 – Guest House Paradiso (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Doomitron (t · c); start discussion 14 Jun 2026 – Him (1974 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 1timeuse75 (t · c); start discussion 14 Jun 2026 – AEIOU (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gosensgo1992 (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2026 – Auteur (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Sddarealone (t · c); see discussion 08 Jun 2026 – Casino Royale (2006 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Igordebraga (t · c); see discussion 01 Jun 2026 – A Fever You Can't Sweat Out (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gavetheman555 (t · c); start discussion 31 May 2026 – Quezon (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RFNirmala (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2026 – Frankenstein's Army (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by AdobongPogi (t · c); start discussion (13 more...) Requests for comments 03 Jun 2026 – The Furious (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Febetsh23 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Rotten Tomatoes Average of Rated Reviews

I saw this comment by Shawngets that Rotten Tomatoes has brought back the average rating and calls it "Average of Rated Reviews" with the note, "Only critic reviews with letter or numerical ratings are included in the average." So this is a bit messy because even scrolling through an example here, it seems like there are still quite a few reviews without such ratings present. I don't recall if RT determined an undisclosed score for every review, or we just assumed that? This seems to mean that we should not actually say (from the example) that, across all 282 reviews, the average rating was 6.60/10. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If that is the case, the average rating is useless for encyclopedic purposes if it only represents a portion of the reviews. A number of critics/publications don't provide a rating. As it stands, including an average rating in articles is misleading. Even if RT states the ratio of reviews the average rating is based on, that will have little meaning for readers if not all reviews have a rating (e.g, "... based on 100 reviews, with an average rating of 7/10 based on 76 reviews"). Lapadite (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how it is useless or meaningless. The actual values don't seem to have changed from before this stat was hidden, so this is likely just as meaningful as it has always been (which, in my opinion, is more meaningful than the actual RT score). They have just reframed how it is presented, and we probably should too as Erik stated. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought that the average score was more meaningful too, but if they never did any underlying scoring for all reviews, it's been problematic all this time. Which I find ridiculous since I know sentiment analysis is a thing and likely easier now than ever before. I'm skeptical that reframing will happen, because that means added wording. Most RT write-ups lack that, for example obscuring from layperson readers that reviews are only ever categorized as positive or negative. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that a more restrictive average rating is statistically or encyclopedically meaningless. The RT score itself is not representative of all reviews in existence, only the ones surveyed by Rotten Tomatoes. We assume it is a representative sample, at least of English-language speaking countries, and especially in the case of mainstream films. In the case of the average rating, RT would just be surveying those with an actual score—it is actually a "purer" representation of the ratings that are assigned by a review. There is no reason to assume that the average score would be any different for those that do not assign a score, in the event that they had done so. It just becomes a metric drawn from a subset of reviews, which is often the case for Metacritic too. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Nardog brought up a past discussion below that I completely forgot about. It seems like, in addition to knowing (and me forgetting) about this issue before, the sentiment at that time was that the template was tweaked to have a distinct enough separation. But if RT is making that upfront clarification now, shouldn't we? Though we won't have a count either way of how many of the reviews were explicitly rated with something. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have an issue in drawing this out a little more in the summaries; it seems like a straightforward thing to resolve: "Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 265 critics and judged 94% of the reviews to be positive, with an average normalised rating of 8/10 by those critics that had rated it." Or something to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with the vagueness of wording like this. "By those critics who had rated it" leaves room for the possibility that the critics who used ratings tended to think more favorably of the film than critics who didn't use ratings, or that the number of critics who rated it is vastly disproprtionate to the total number of critics being factored into RT's conclusions. I'd be happier if it was clear how many of those 265 critics had rated it. "Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 265 critics and judged 94% of the reviews to be positive, with an average normalised rating of 8/10 by the five critics who rated it." DonIago (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this specificity. Lapadite (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree this would be better but it would require us to count how many of the reviews surveyed had a score. Counting per se is not OR so it might be okay policy-wise, but might be a practical challenge. (Also IIRC some reviews appear on the site but don't count toward the Tomatometer. If they don't count toward the average rating either, then we might not be able to get an accurate count at all.) Nardog (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If it's a choice between saying it's based on some number of reviews but we have no idea how many, and not saying anything at all, I'd rather not say anything at all. The number seems potentially useless otherwise, as evidenced in my example. DonIago (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

might be a practical challenge

Indeed, and continuously so. It is impractical, unproductive, and problematic to expect editors to account for it in all applicable articles, regardless if it's a one time tally or on a continuous basis, which it inevitably will be since RT's review counts and scores are inherently dynamic and change over time, with its staff "always researching and highlighting reviews and essays from throughout movie history, often from overlooked or forgotten sources". Editors will just update the "average of rated reviews" (readily provided by RT) and not the number of rated reviews (not readily provided by RT), so whatever tally was previously added to Wikipedia will stay (not updated). We shouldn't even bother with that for the reason you mentioned. Οἶδα (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not that fussed over the wording; we can use alternative phrasing such as "graded it" or "assigned a rating" etc, but I don't see how we are able quantify the number of raters unless I'm missing something.... Anyon know if there is a way to grab it from the source code? Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? The ratings appear alongside pull quotes on the list of reviews so we could just count them, assuming they're all factored into the average. Nardog (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Some films have several hundred reviews. And are they all factored into the rating? Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be? Nardog (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

What if certain reviews (such as those by Top Critics) are weighted differently? Ultimately, Rotten Tomatoes gives us an average rating based on a subset of graded reviews and that's all we really know. I don't believe we should go beyond that in our exposition. Betty Logan (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no such "weighting" and it's pretty easy to confirm how the number is derived. You can just take the scores in the list and average them (though letter grades can be tricky). I don't ultimately disagree that counting them and giving the number in the article might be a little too OR-ish though. Nardog (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

For transparency and accuracy, RT has a responsibility to state the number, or at least percentage, of critics that provided a rating. For that same purpose, so do we. Thats's why I think the average rating shouldn't be used unless the ratio of reviews it's based on is given by RT. If it is used, we should specify that RT's average rating is based on an unknown portion of the selected reviews. For all the notable films released in a year, it's extra work to have to look through often dozens of reviews and keep up with incoming ones, especially for high profile films. Lapadite (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

We usually have a headline figure; for example, RT surveyed 265 reviews for Casino Royale, and 34 of the first 50 provided a rating, so in this case the reviews provide a rating by an approximate ratio of 2:1. I can see why a very low number of reviews providing a rating might be a problem (and we probably shouldn't include one in those cases), but I don't see why it matters if the rating draws from 150 reviews or 200 reviews. Once you are sure you have enough reviews for the sample to be statistically sound then the significance of the sample size becomes less important. Statistics is usually more concerned with orders of magnitude i.e. 10, 100, 1000 etc. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be a sound argument for including the figure in a given article vs not. Nevertheless, still impractical to update. And resolved easily if RT would just do the job for us. I'm not sure why they felt the need to more effectively communicate what the average rating represents (rated reviews) but not display a simple count of said rated reviews. Οἶδα (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall if RT determined an undisclosed score for every review, or we just assumed that? RT never did that; it seems you just assumed that. And you discovered it last year. What they've brought back is exactly what they had, they're just now clearer about what it is. Nardog (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I completely forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. What do you think should be done here? Erik (talk | contrib) 15:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – Here's the current wording used in {{RT prose}}:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, percentage of count critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of X/10.

The simplest solution that seems to satisfy the concerns above would be to add "subset of reviews" in some fashion. We shouldn't need to put a number on that. Perhaps we can change it to something like:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, percentage of count critics' reviews are positive, and the average rating among a subset of reviews is X/10.

There's a lot more we can do to cleanup the beginning of that sentence, but trying that now would likely run into more opposition. A baby step approach is more likely to gain immediate approval. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified that the rating is only based on a portion of the reviews so I support any neutral wording that conveys this. I like your suggestion. I agree we shouldn't be going around manually counting hundreds of reviews trying to do RT's job. Lapadite (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Οἶδα suggested "and the average of rated reviews is X/10" at the template talk page here. That's pretty good too. Fine with either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I still think without saying how many reviews are included in that average rating that we're not serving our readership. If 50 reviewers reviewed a film but only five of them included a rating that RT is taking into account, the average rating becomes meaningless or even misleading. DonIago (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Valid point, but likely an edge case. Perhaps the right approach is that in edge cases like that, we either omit the average rating altogether or use custom phrasing to include the number of reviews, since the number is small. The decision can be left up to discussion on talk. Such guidance can be added to MOS:FILM and {{RT prose}}. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I made the point earlier that, as it is, the average rating is misleading and meaningless as it doesn't represent all selected reviews, and for that reason it shouldn't be used at all. But if we're still using it, I'd prefer not encouraging editors to waste time counting hundreds of reviews, which potentially leads to mistakes too, not to mention other editors unaware of this might challenge it down the line. I think if an aggregator is not transparent or accurate in their content we should make that clear to readers when presenting it. Lapadite (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If an aggregator isn't being transparent/accurate, then my preference would be that we don't include the opaque/inaccurate information, but yes, absolutely if we are going to include it then we should make it clear that we have concerns about the data we're reporting. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Back when they removed average ratings I petitioned to have the figure removed from the RT prose template and that went absolutely nowhere, despite the rating not even existing anymore. I would be surprised if you could actually succeed in having it removed from that template or suppressed in articles altogether. In the meantime, as hinted above, user can count the number or rated reviews and suggest on relevant talk pages that the number is too low to be meaningful. Certainly not a perfect solution though. Οἶδα (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Given that when that template came up for discussion here the prevailing view seemed to be that it should be substituted if not deleted entirely, I'd happily support deleting it altogether, and I've been considering boldly changing it to auto-substitute. However, I was the one who'd initiated the discussion regarding how it should generally be handled, and there didn't seem to be a lot of collective will here to do anything about it at the time. DonIago (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Veering a bit sideways, but... As mentioned in that RfC (in several comments and the closing summary), it would have to be formally decided by consensus in a TfD. Two prior attempts to delete or relegate to subst only failed in past TfDs. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear from my review of TfD that switching a template to auto-substitution requires a TfD? DonIago (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't fault you for not seeing it, because it's not clearly spelled out for templates. You have to weave together different threads for it to make sense.

• At WP:TFD#REASONS, there's advice to "Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate."

Demoting to subst only is a form of correcting use. This has been discussed there more than once, but consensus was never reached.

• You might think an RfC is the next step, but at WP:RFCNOT, we see that RFCs are not to be used for deletion processes.

It will be clear in the next bullet why "subst only" is a deletion review process.

• At WP:TFD#Discussion, we see that some acceptable !votes include "subst, subst and delete, or similar."

This demonstrates that TfD is the appropriate venue to formally demote a template to subst only when consensus cannot be achieved on the template talk page.

Now you could move forward with your thought of being BOLD. But given that you are aware of past TfDs where there was consensus against deletion and possibly a weak consensus against subst only (or at least no consensus), I wouldn't recommend it. Further discussion bringing something new to the table has the best chance of success, but more importantly, it will take significant participation from this project. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This has stalled. Can we get consensus on the language to update the RT template? Many film articles use this template and an editor has reverted noting RT's update for readers. Lapadite (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

In that editor's summary, they stated

the average is by-definition only including rated reviews

As I stated at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose, there is nothing in "90% of 130 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10" that clearly defines "average rating" to mean the average of rated reviews. It is just two figures joined together by "with", which I would think most unitiated readers would assume are related measurements drawn from the same set of reviews. I'm not sure how it is obvious that "rating" in "average rating" is specificially corresponding to the ratings published in the reviews themselves. Rotten Tomatoes is already in the business of assessing unrated reviews in the form of the Tomatometer percentage. And a "rating" can be anything depending on the system: numbers, letters, words, or whatever. And RT "rates" reviews as positive/negative to calculate that percentage. So how are readers supposed to know that their "average rating" is not also assessing reviews without ratings (i.e. all of the reviews surveyed), but is rather a product of a specific subset of the total? Readers can just as easily understand it as another RT-derived aggregate based on its own scoring methodology. Although it technically is, right? Because they are also factoring in letter-rated reviews, which would require (subjectively) converting letters to a numeric value. So it isn't even an arithmetic mean ("average") of numerical ratings. It's just another aggregate of subjective judgments like the Tomatometer. If we are to include it in the template, I would hope that aspect was as obvious as "percentage of positivity" is. Οἶδα (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly I'd rather those templates (that one and the Metacritic one) be deleted entirely, or at least be set to auto-substitute. As I noted above, there was a previous discussion here that seemed to favor such an approach, but little collective will for taking the steps to do so. As such, I kind of feel like updating the templates should be a moot point...at least until an attempt to delete them has failed...but if we're going to discuss this, then I think I said everything I had to say above. To wit, I don't think we should mention an average rating at all unless we can at least be explicit as to how many reviews that average rating is being based upon...and we likely shouldn't include it at all if it's not based on a reasonable number of reviews. Your other concerns just make a stronger case for not including the average. But I'd rather the templates be deleted entirely. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree completely and would support any movement in that direction. No consensus in 2022 shouldn't prevent that. Οἶδα (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Then can we get an RfC going for deleting or updating template? One of the two needs to happen, as it is right now the template is misleading and removing it from newer articles is sometimes reverted. Lapadite (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We've already had an RfC a bit over a year ago and the consensus was to discourage use of the templates. In general editors seemed to favor, if not deleting them, at least auto-substituting them when they're used. You are welcome to nominate them at TfD, and I'll almost certainly happily support deleting/deprecating/auto-substituting them based on that RfC and this discussion. I don't see that anything has changed to make me feel better about the use of those templates. DonIago (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

How timely; Indagate (talk · contribs), who has been perhaps the strongest advocate for the use of these templates, just reverted my removal of them on one article. I've reverted their reinsertion of the templates and reminded them of the RfC. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussing deleting them here is not productive, hence I didn't reply until you tagged me, TfD would be required so not this page. I linked and quoted the RfC so didn't need your reminder. I've reverted your edit as goes against the status quo for that article, "the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually", so the RfC isn't a reason to change long-standing use to your preferred wording on specific articles. Indagate (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored this part of the RfC finding: "Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is." If you continue reverting my edits to restore the template before there is a clear consensus favoring your changes, I will assume you are editing tendentiously. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the part of the closure I quoted... The RfC is a finding of opinion, it can recommend anything including removing or substituing templates, but that's not actionable in specific articles without a discussion in the appropriate venue, in this case a TfD. Removing it from specific articles where already used is changing existing style, going against guideline MOS:VAR. Please either get a new consensus at TfD, or just stop trying to force your preferred wording into articles as seems to be disruptive editing currently. Indagate (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As there's a germane discussion in this thread that may result in just such a TfD, let's see what other editors have to say on the matter. Also, please don't misrepresent my actions; I have substituted the templates, I have not forced preferred wording. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We can ping the closer, Thebiguglyalien, to this discussion if further clarity is needed on the closure summary. To me, it's pretty clear that the RfC's outcome is not actionable, meaning it does NOT justify the blanket removal or blanket substitution of RT and MC templates across articles. It goes on to state that those who oppose their use "will need to demonstrate that consensus has changed within the community". That has yet to be demonstrated. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said there, discouraged but not forbidden. Speaking as an editor and not as a closer, my suggestion would be to take it to TfD or a Village Pump, leave one comment expressing your thoughts, and then let it play out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of how editors may feel about the templates, I feel a TfD is likely the best option at this point to settle the questions surrounding them that apparently have not been satisfactorily addressed by the prior RfC. I would prefer another editor open said TfD, as I don't trust myself to word it as well as others might...but if nobody steps forward within a day of this message, I'll take a stab at it. DonIago (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If the RfC consensus is not binding, what's its purpose? Discouraging the template's use means little in practice if anyone can simply disagree and keep using it and there's no formal consensus to point to. I'm not sure why a further vote wasn't had to actually implement this when the majority already agreed to avoid using it. Plus the MOS says it's not a requirement. The process to implement when agreement exists can be unnecessarily slow and pedantic. Multiple editors here and at the template discussion agree that film articles should specify that the average rating is based on a portion of reviews that were rated per RT's new language, so there can be a binding consensus to at least update the language on the template. Lapadite (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There is now a TfD regarding Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose, which can be found here. I recommend further discussion as it applies to those templates be tabled until the TfD has concluded. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Etymology of "offline editing"

Hi!

I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject can provide some additional information on the etymology of "offline editing". I did some cleanup on post-production articles this January but it has been brought to my attention that maybe this term is used differently in various circles. Please do share any insights on Talk:Offline_editing. Thank you all! I love Wikipedia, and it is my favorite resource for the world's information! David Cako (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Spacetime Chronicles review request

Hello,

I recently revised Draft:Spacetime Chronicles after it received a G15-related decline due to broken references and accidental markdown formatting in an earlier version.

The draft has since been rewritten in a shorter and more neutral encyclopedic style using sources including Annecy Festival, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily, Cineuropa and Cartoon Brew.

Would someone from WikiProject Film be willing to review the draft and suggest improvements if needed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spacetime_Chronicles

Thank you. Stefanobertelli1981 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Plot length discussed at Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway § Plot getting too lengthy, and further edits made, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. George Ho (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Treatment of CinemaScore

Exhibiting case - Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 0% of 46 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 2.5/10. The website's consensus reads: "A startling lack of taste pervades Superbabies, a sequel offering further proof that bad jokes still aren't funny when coming from the mouths of babes." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 9 out of 100, based on 19 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale, the same grade earned by its predecessor.

As brought up in the article talk page, there's a two-fold problem with CinemaScore:

1) Time and again, when CinemaScore is mentioned on a movie article, I find that it is greatly at odds with the general receptions shown in other review aggregation sources.

2) And yet, these film articles do not state why CinemaScore consistently misjudges the consensus, nor even point out this glaring oddity in the Receptions sections. (Consider what it would be like if the last sentence in the example above states "On the other hand, audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale, the same grade earned by its predecessor.")

CinemaScore, which polls opening-day audiences, should not be treated as simply "another place where everyday people share reviews" like RottenTomatoes or IMDb etc. Just stating it among these other receptions in an unqualified manner does a disservice to all of these articles. (Note that receptions include both aggregate scores from average viewers as well as individual film critics.) This firm is more interested in getting feedback from people most likely to be potential fans rather than collecting an overall perception.

If the CinemaScore score is to be mentioned, it should be relegated to where it is arguably more relevant like the box office (because apparently there's some correlation between its score and the box office performance). Or the articles should actually talk about what CinemaScore is doing. Example: "CinemaScore, (insert what it actually does and how its score is processed), gave the film an average grade of (results)." ~2026-34873-35 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with you and prefer to reference CinemaScore as part of box office performance because it's better intertwined with that. The grade is based on opening-weekend audiences who self-select to see the film (especially driven by marketing), where critics will watch a film whether or not they really want to. So there's an element of expectations vs. reality here, like Killing Them Softly getting an "F" grade because audiences didn't get the cool Brad Pitt film they expected.

Plus, the grade along with the box office metrics fits better with the opening weekend gross, the second weekend drop (or lack thereof), and so forth. I think we should state "opening weekend" more consistently and keep it part of box office performance. I think there's a runaway habit of putting CinemaScore with review aggregators because it's past a tipping point of where that had been the unthinking norm, and it's hard to undo. Whenever there's a new film article, it's set up that way because that's what editors have seen before. Not sure what you'd like to do here? You can be bold and edit to fit it better on whatever article you work on. Unless you're looking for a wider consensus for how to use it? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think moving the CinemaScore to the box office section would really address the user's concerns, which is that the actual reported CinemaScores apparently don't align with what this user personally feels that the audience response should be. That should not have any bearing on this discussion. As I stated at the other thread this user started, CinemaScore is included because it is a verified, scientific poll of actual audience members in contrast to the unverified, unreliable "audience" ratings that are found on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb. See also MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, also CS is essentially measuring a different thing (what audiences think when they choose to see a film) than what RT or MC are assessing, at least for our purposes (what critics thought of the film). It doesn't surprise me that there would be divergence there, but I don't see that as a mark against CS; it's just an additional data point. I'm not sure I personally care what audiences thought, but it's nice to have the option to include a reliable audience metric for those who do care, I suppose. DonIago (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think they mix valid and invalid concerns. I think the CinemaScore grades have value but are poorly placed. I do disagree with their point that there's a misjudging that goes on. I'd argue that the misjudging comes from the implicit encouragement to compare all these scores. It's like saying in one sentence that a film grossed X amount based on Y budget, to tell readers, you should compare these numbers, in spite of a more complex reality. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the framing of this is wrong. There's no consensus for Cinemascore respondents to "misjudge", and people are allowed to have their own opinions. I don't think moving it makes much sense, because it's still about "critical reception" (in the sense that audiences are critics) not just box office (which is measuring something similar but different.) I think the bigger issue with the cinemascore is that without the context of what the CinemaScore is, it's much less useful (people who know what they're looking at can see something like critical praise and an F cinemascore and understand that there was an issue of targeting or marketing with the film, which might be backed up in other sources, but might not. Likewise, the differences in scores that different genres get, particularly horror, is a bit of useful knowledge that regular viewers cannot be expected to have.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Audiences aren't critics. The "Critical reception" section's predominant content what film critics say about the film. The CinemaScore grades were only added to be part of the set of aggregate scores despite not being a comparable metric. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The obvious answer might be to just call it "Reception" rather than "Critical reception"? DonIago (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I find that it is greatly at odds with the general receptions shown in other review aggregation sources.

Aren't you conflating audience scores with critics scores? They are not the same sample so of course they are routinely at odds with each other.

CinemaScore, which polls opening-day audiences, should not be treated as simply "another place where everyday people share reviews" like RottenTomatoes or IMDb et

We do not include audience ratings from Rotten Tomatoes (Popcornmeter) or IMDb on Wikipedia as these are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew, per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. Οἶδα (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@adamstom97 & @Οἶδα:

"CinemaScore is included because it is a verified, scientific poll of actual audience members" - I've seen this "CinemaScore is a good, verified source" argument a few times in the archived talk pages, but the issue is that it can be seen as a verified poll measuring the wrong thing, or at least, not measuring the thing that readers are expecting when they come to see the "Reception" part of film articles.

Readers of reception sections are, at a default level, looking for content that tries to show a consensus across a general population. They're not looking for some specific methodology that's locked onto opening-weekend polls from probable fans. If such a poll is listed it should be specified that it's targeting something quite specific. Responding to "Aren't you conflating audience scores with critics scores?", it does say above "Note that receptions include both aggregate scores from average viewers as well as individual film critics." Rather, I describe the issue as conflating CinemaScore with context-less "audience scores" without more clearly defining the nature of that audience, given that a multitude of movie articles demonstrate that this audience is not what the readers are thinking of by default.

What I mean is, when you repeatedly see movie articles with the lead & reception section talking about "panned" or "overwhelming negative" reviews, and then within the reception section content there is "CinemaScore gave it a B-", without any explanation why it did so and without any kind of sentencing structure that points out this glaring contrast, it would make the readers stop and think, "Wait a minute, something is odd." (By sentencing structure, I'm talking about how the paragraph in the Superbabies example is written as if CinemaScore is part of that negative reception consensus when it's contrary to it.)

As an aside:

"We do not include audience ratings from Rotten Tomatoes (Popcornmeter) or IMDb on Wikipedia"

Uh, the film articles do routinely include them. Just look at the Superbabies example above.

There's also a problem when you whittle down reputable sources until CinemaScore is the only one left, treating as some gold standard of a source when it is clearly skewed towards people who already had a level of eagerness to see the movie (and focuses on the opening period), and this caveat/disclaimer is not pointed out for the reader's benefit. ~2026-35219-58 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. If you're sayng that articles should more clearly communicate to readers what exact audience was sampled, well then do that. If it's not possible then it's not possible. I don't have an answer for you on that. Otherwise, MOS:FILMAUDIENCE states that polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak, may be used... So you're going to have to prove they they are unreliable sources with a "methodology that's locked onto opening-weekend polls from probable fans" that is not of encylopedic interest. The sheer level of WP:USEBYOTHERS I routinely see for both CinemaScore and PostTrak in high-quality mainstream publications strongly indicates otherwise.

it does say above "Note that receptions include both aggregate scores from average viewers as well as individual film critics."

Well then specify it's an aggregate of audiences polled. RT scores in articles usually already specify that those are instead based on critics' reviews. For example, at It Ends with Us it says:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 55% of 198 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 5.6/10. The website's consensus reads: "Earnestly performed if marred by clunky dialogue, It Ends with Us is surprisingly at its most graceful when handling the more provocative elements of its melodramatic source material." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 53 out of 100, based on 42 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews. Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale, while those surveyed by PostTrak gave it an 85% positive score, with 69% saying they would definitely recommend it.

That is clear enough. The only potential issue is that it falls under the "Critical response" heading, a problem which DonIago already proposed a solution for. And which MOS:FILMAUDIENCE already offers advice for.

Uh, the film articles do routinely include them.

No they do not. Popcornmeter is not included in articles nor are user ratings from IMDb. Any articles that do happen to include them are not evidence that the standard doesn't exist. They're just WP:OTHERSTUFF, and that is not a valid argument.

Just look at the Superbabies example above

I looked. I see no Popcornmeter rating or IMDB ratings. You're likely referring to the CinemaScore there. That is not Rotten Tomatoes (Popconrmeter) or IMDb. Οἶδα (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

AI or LLM at Rambo articles? Need Advice.

There's been quite a bit of activity on the First Blood and John Rambo (film) articles. An IP (Special:Contributions/~2026-32229-45) has been adding material that, at first, seem beneficial but once you get to reading them... well, they don't feel like they were written by a (human) editor but rather by a program [1], [2]. The Talk:John Rambo (film) page got my attention. Apparently LLM-generated text has been detected? I honestly have no idea what it means but I can tell it's not good. But the IP has been citing The Rambo Report book. I don't own that book myself, so I can't tell if the IP is plagiarizing texts from the book or using AI to get around it. Either way, something funny's going on.

What can be done? Should I revert everything back before the IP's edits per WP:QUO? Armegon (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

RT and MC film prose templates at TfD

There is a TfD regarding Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose, which can be found here. Your input regarding the disposition of those templates is welcome! DonIago (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging the editors who participated in the RfC and who have not participated in the TfD at this time: @Rosguill:, @Favre1fan93:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @MapReader:, @Adamstom.97:, @Nardog:, @TheJoebro64:, @ARandomName123:, @Trailblazer101:, @MikeAllen:. DonIago (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for neutral editor: Draft:Glasshaus

Hello, I'm reaching out regarding Glasshaus, an independent music and film company based in Brooklyn, NY, home to a record label, concert series, and award-winning production studio. A draft article exists at Draft:Glasshaus, originally created by myself, an editor employed by Glasshaus (now disclosed on my user page and on the draft talk page). The draft has a COI tag and Glasshaus would like to have it revised for NPOV by a neutral editor before submitting it to AfC.

Press coverage exists in The Hollywood Reporter, Essence, NPR, Complex, The Fader, KCRW, Tidal Magazine, and Okayplayer (URLs below). The company has won two Gold Telly Awards (2025) and received a Webby nomination (2025).

Would anyone be willing to take a look and help revise? I am happy to provide additional source material and to answer factual questions, but want the editorial judgment to be entirely yours.

Press Coverage:

– The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/music/music-news/concert-film-bilal-live-at-glasshaus-questlove-and-common-1236055736/

– Complex: https://www.complex.com/music/a/tracewilliamcowen/bilal-recruits-common-questlove-live-glaushaus

– Essence: https://www.essence.com/entertainment/bilal-glasshaus-concert-film-exclusive/

– NPR (Bullseye with Jesse Thorn — Bilal interview): https://www.npr.org/2024/08/02/1197961171/bullseye-with-jesse-thorn-jazz-and-soul-vocalist-bilal

– NPR (New Music Friday): https://www.npr.org/2026/03/13/nx-s1-5745084/new-music-friday-best-albums-march-13-2026

– The Fader: https://www.thefader.com/2026/01/14/annahstasia-new-live-album-annahstasia-live-at-glasshaus

– KCRW (Today's Top Tune): https://www.kcrw.com/shows/todays-top-tune/stories/annahstasia-take-care-of-me

– Tidal Magazine: https://tidal.com/magazine/article/bilal-how-to-make-a-live-album/1-95666

– Okayplayer: https://www.okayplayer.com/bilal-new-live-album

Awards:

– Telly Awards press release (46th Annual): https://www.tellyawards.com/press-release/46th-annual-telly-award-winners-announced/

– Telly Awards: Bilal: Live at Glasshaus — General/Live Events & Experiences (Gold): https://www.tellyawards.com/winners/2025/online/general-live-events-experiences/bilal-live-at-glasshaus-feat-questlove-common-robert-glasper-burniss-travis/336884/

– Telly Awards: Bilal: Live at Glasshaus — General/Entertainment (Gold): https://www.tellyawards.com/winners/2025/online/general-entertainment/bilal-live-at-glasshaus-feat-questlove-common-robert-glasper-burniss-travis/336915/

– Webby Awards (2025): Bilal: Live at Glasshaus – Events & Live streams (Nominee): https://winners.webbyawards.com/2025/video-film/general-video-film/events-live-streams/332411/bilal-live-at-glasshaus-ft-questlove-common-robert-glapser-burniss-travis

Silsal17 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Remember (The Amazing Digital Circus)#Requested move 20 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Remember (The Amazing Digital Circus)#Requested move 20 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ring 0 resolved?

Hello - I was browsing the list of movies missing entries and noted a red AfC link for Ringu 0: Bâsudei (2000). However, a search pulled up an existing article for Ring 0: Birthday, which I believe is the film in question. Is an additional article warranted for creation, or is this red link outdated? Magnetopology (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)