This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
@Gonnym: Why is your version better? I'd say it has unnecessary separating of score and number of reviews making harder to interpret, unnecessary explain of scores, unnecessary caption after sub-heading, missing useful wikilinks to their articles, out-of-date scores, citations had unnecessary all-caps, citations had out-of-date publishers. Information should be up to date, easy to read, and consistent across articles. Indagate (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A caption is never unnecessary as it describes what the table is for. That is always useful for people who use screen readers. Regarding the separating of the scores and reviews, while you believe it makes it harder to interpret, I disagree. The columns clearly say one is the score and the other the number of reviews. How is that not clear? Regarding the missing links, do you mean the films and TV series? If so, then per MOS:REPEATLINK those are already linked quite a lot in this article already.
Regarding out of date information - anything that is out of date can and should be updated. But if you do that while making a lot of other changes, then that is not something you can expect to be kept while manually reverting the rest. Do a single update just for that. The all caps is what those cited sources used, if you believe en.wiki MoS says to change what that is, then do that (I'm not 100% sure you are correct though but I'm not sure you are wrong either). I have no idea what out of date publisher you mean. A publisher in general cannot be out of date as it should be the publisher at the time. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Caption seem unnecessary when preceded by formatted heading which say similar thing, thought screen readers would read that
They are in same cell in other articles, easier to see that the number of reviews isn't a separate score when reviews is next to it, only three rows so the header isn't far from any row in this case though but would be worse when more entries in franchise and should have a consistent style with other articles. Readers could easily get confused between score and number of reviews when just a number and ref in cell, important distinction. Plus your version has reference twice for each occurrence, can make it less clear they're the same, and readers can think they're different sources.
Links go to the specific reception sections unlike other links so are unique and helpful for reader. The pages look linked only to pages, not to a section in other occurrences. This is in a different section to other links and a good distance from them.
All caps is not what sources currently use at least, and inconsistent with other articles.
Publisher would be out of date because update reference so would have todays access date so should have todays publisher, not the publisher from when citation was created
Can take List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Critical and public response as an example, featured list with table of this sort. No table caption as heading immediately before, and hatnote same as I added here. Scores and reviews in same cell. Pages are linked there and just above in box office section, in addition to further above in article, but to different parts of destination pages. All have Citation templates I added here which are versions of Cite Web, so publishers are up-to-date. Indagate (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you start with updating the figures first. If you want to link to the specific article's reception sections then go for it. A WP:HATNOTE is not meant for text in italics to describe a piece of text or a table. Any usage you see that uses that, is contrary to the actual guideline. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better to update figures when come to conclusion about them being in one or two cells otherwise more work, updates visible in history so can be seen.
Ok, can not include the hatnote, example page I linked to is protected so I can't edit.
Cite Metacritic / Rotten Tomatoes is a wrapper for Cite web so same style, just means there's consistency in strings like website and publisher. If one of the websites suddenly doesn't work then url-status can be turned to dead for the template instead of individual articles so archive used or find articles that needs archive quicker. A single citation template doesn't seem appropriate for every reference in an article. Why use cite web when specialist citation templates exist? Indagate (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because they offer nothing that the regular cite web templates can't do. If you don't want to make smaller edits, that's your choice, but if you think we are going to agree on everything you are very mistaken. Gonnym (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They offer what I said, consistent website and publisher strings, easier to update across articles. They exist and used on many articles so consensus for use there, 859 for MC, 1043 for RT. Why not use? Would be easier to make changes when hopefully make the cells together again, we don't have to agree, can get opinions from other people. Indagate (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
