User talk:213.8.56.118

Terminator Salvation

32% approval is clearly negative. Even if you divide reception into thirds (0–33% = negative, 34–66% = mixed, 67–100% = positive), 32% is still in the lowest third. That's just common sense. The "Reception" section of the article is full of negative critical opinions, with very few positive comments. Saying "1 out of 3 though it was great" is whitewashing the overwhelmingly negative reception this film received. The converse of that is, of course that 2 out of 3 though it sucked. Another way of putting it is that 68% of critics had either mixed or negative opinions of the film. There is a discussion about this at Talk:Terminator Salvation#Negative vs. Mixed. Feel free to comment in that discussion and work towards consensus, but please don't change the text again unless the community consensus is that such a change is appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion page has 3 different users saying that the appropriate term is "mixed to negative" or something to that effect. I don't think we really have an argument here, my friend. I read a lot of articles on other films, and while there has been negative reception to this film obviously, it is misleading to just say "negative reception" - some very notable critics gave it a mixed or a positive review - and the actual reception section below cites these opinions. If you read the discussion page, then users have agreed on this matter - they cite the metacritic score, and they agree that it is mixed to negative. Can you please give here some leeway and agree too on the mixed to negative or something close? It is more accurate... the rotten tomatoes score is 5 too - right smack in the middle = mixed. It IS more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your reply here as (as the notice on my talk page says) I like to keep conversations in one place so they don't get disjointed. You'll notice I was the one who started the talk page discussion, and I've no problem with changing the wording if consensus is clearly that that's the appropriate thing. But there never was a consensus, the discussion just sort of died out after a couple of days. Your reading of the discussion is confusing to me: You say "If you read the discussion page, then users have agreed on this matter"...That's not how I read it: My initial post was open-ended, and after that 3 editors favored "mixed to negative" while 2 favored simply "negative". Hardly a consensus at all. I'm also confused by your claim that "some very notable critics gave it a mixed or a positive review". Who are these "very notable critics"? The only positive comments I see in Terminator Salvation#Critical reception are from Simon Edwards of Total Film and Devin Faraci of Empire, and the latter is immediately followed by a negative opinion from the same critic. Then there are 3 or 4 mixed opinions, with the quoted comments leaning toward negativity ("the worst big budget summer release I’ve seen in some time"). Conversely, there are 3 glaringly negative opinions from Roger Ebert, Hollywood Reporter, and USA Today. I'm not sure what you mean about the RT score being "right smack in the middle"...it's 33%, which is on the low end.

Anyway, when all's said and done I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is on the talk page. But you need to observe WP:BRD: Just because you express an opinion in a discussion doesn't mean you should jump right back to the article and restore your preferred version. You need to wait for others to reply and consensus to become clear, especially when it's a topic that has been previously discussed. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

there is an average score of 5/10 along the 33% approval rating, it's two different scores. Empire and Total film are very notable, and maybe was consensus was a bit strong, but among users, clear majority for mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, it's an agreement based on compromise and weight of arguments. I'm not saying Empire and Total Film aren't notable, but to me their positive opinions seem outweighed by the more negative opinions given by all the other sources, particularly Ebert and USA Today which I would say are more notable. Anyway, curious how at RT the average score could be 5/10 yet the approval rating is 33%...makes me wonder how that's calculated. RT has a much larger sample size than MC for this film (250 reviews to MC's 35), so IMO the RT score is more reflective of overall critical opinion.

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation

Hi, you make good points. The way RT is calculated is how Ylee explained it. They simply choose a somewhat arbitrary "I like it" or "I don't recommend it" that the reviewer wishes. So even if a reviewer gave a film a good review, he might say "I don't recommend it". So 33% means that 2/3 of the reviwers said "I don't recommend it" rather than "Go watch it". They didn't say "The movie is awful". They didn't give a negative review. If we go by RT, then 5/10 is more accurate in reflecting that the reviews were mediocre. But "mostly negative" is flat out wrong. Notable reviews which were positive or mixed were Wall Street Journal and Rolling Stone (in addition to the ones int he article). These are very credible places. It's like the NYT for Broadway shows. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---