User talk:YoungForever

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Disruptive Editing On List of Riverdale Episodes[edit]

YoungForever, I'm truly sorry for my disruptive editing on the page List of Riverdale Episodes because I was having difficulty adding to the page which I believe I have figured out. I'am still new to Wikipedia editing and it takes me a bit to understand how to edit a page a specific way. I hope you understand.

Sincerely,

Mitchend17  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchend17 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC) 

Another Life (2019 TV series)[edit]

Hello YoungForever,

Regarding your reverting my edit of Another Life (2019 TV series), you commented "We don't include audience score from Rotten Tomatoes as they are no [sic] from critics." Is there a written policy, rule or something you can reference?

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles on films and TV series that have included the audience score, for example,

You Talkin' to Me? (film); The Eighteenth Angel; Hope (1997 film); Rx (film); Stalled; The Sight (film)

just to name a few.

If there is no established policy requiring the exclusion of RT audience scores, then I believe your reversion was not necessary. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary) My edit was certainly not vandalism and I do not think it could be described as having made the article worse. I believe it added information that readers might find interesting.

In addition, the sentence I added ("However, the site's audience score is 60% positive based on 1277 user ratings") made it clear that it was an audience score and not a critic score. It also seems to me to be pretty clear that it was meant to point out the contrast between the critic score of 6% and the audience score. I have seen similar things done before. It is relevant information and is in no way confusing.

If there is no hard and fast rule against including audience scores, I would like to see the edit restored.

Regards,

Carlozatwiki (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlozatwiki: Go read up MOS:TV. User ratings are not critic ratings. Audience viewership (ratings) refers to Nielsen ratings. User based ratings aren't reliable because they are user based. In short, they aren't audience viewership announced by Netflix. Also, the section is call "Critical reception" for a reason, it's not audience reception. — YoungForever(talk) 20:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
YoungForever, Thanks for your reply. I read MOS:TV and found nothing stating that RT's audience scores cannot be used.
You mentioned viewership, but the RT audience score is not a measurement of viewership, it's one of many ways of looking at the reception of a TV series or film. Yes, on this particular page the section is called "Critical Reception," but in fact on many Wikipedia articles the section is simply called "Reception," for example:
Frontier (2016 TV series)
Distorted (film)
So, I propose a compromise: changing the name of the section on Another Life to "Reception" and including my addition of, "However, the site's audience score is 60% positive based on 1277 user ratings."
Here are examples of film and TV series pages with "Reception" sections that include both RT critic and audience scores:
Mexican Gangster
Baby Daddy
Thanks,
Carlozatwiki (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carlozatwiki:As I said, it is not appropriate to include user-based ratings on the reception. Hence, user-based audience. It is not a reliable source. Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION which it states: Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. In the case of the general public, we use ratings to determine the popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion. This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information. The audience score is a "fan poll". The general audiences are not professional reviewers. — YoungForever(talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
YoungForever, "Be careful when searching for reviews..." but I didn't present it as a review. I presented it as exactly what it is: an RT audience score. In addition, "be careful" does not equal "this is not allowed." I still fail to see where using an RT audience score is prohibited, and, as I have pointed out, they are in fact used on Wikipedia. As I wrote when I made the edit, "I added a sentence about RT's audience score, because the discrepancy between it and the critic score is so dramatic." So I wasn't merely adding it for the sake of adding it, but because I found the discrepancy interesting and believe other readers might, too.
I have suggested changing the section name to "Reception," (which is a heading that also appears on Wikipedia) in order to further remove any chance that readers might mistakenly think that it refers to a "critic's review." Since I've offered a change to a good-faith edit I made, and it seems you are refusing to accept that, could you now make make a good-faith effort to reword or change my edit in some way? Thanks, Carlozatwiki (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carlozatwiki:You are failing to see that they are not reliable. As I said "fan poll" aka user-based ratings are not appropriate to use. Your WP:OTHER argument is invalid as it represents only a small minority. As I said before, user-based reviews are not professional reviews. — YoungForever(talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
YoungForever And as I indicated before, I'm not trying to pass off the RT audience score as a professional review -- and I've proposed a change that would make that even clearer. Carlozatwiki (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Carlozatwiki see WP:UGC, I hope that answers your question. Its a matter of policy not personal preference. Esuka (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Esuka:. It does answer my question: there is not a hard and fast rule against using RT audience scores. This is evidenced by what it says on the page you linked to, i.e., "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." Clearly, "generally" is the operative word here. If there was a strict policy of not using such things, that word would not be used. Just as "be careful" is a key term on the MOS:TVRECEPTION page YoungForever referred to. I am not saying these scores should be used always -- or even often -- but that in some instances (for example, when the difference between the numbers is great, as it is in this case) it's something that could be of interest to readers and valid to include. I've suggested a change to the edit, and am open to other changes that might address whatever concerns anyone may have about readers mistaking the audience score for a tally of professional critic reviews. Carlozatwiki (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

YoungForever and @Esuka: I ask you both to consider the fifth pillar of Wikipedia:

  • "Wikipedia has no firm rules Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected." Wikipedia:Five pillars

Thanks, Carlozatwiki (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlozatwiki: What part of not reliable source that you don't seem to understand? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can't add things without a reliable source. On WP:UGC, which states Although review aggregators—for example, review aggregation sites—such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not. The policy is there whether you like it or not. If you choose to ignore all policies and guidelines, veteran editors will revert you. You aren't improving or maintaining Wikipedia as you chose to ignore all rules. Please see WP:NOTIAR. — YoungForever(talk) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute,YoungForever. What in the world are you basing your accusation that I've chosen "to ignore all rules" on? Carlozatwiki (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carlozatwiki: You keep on insisting to add the user-based reviews from Rotten Tomatoes when it is clearly not appropriate to add on the Reception as they are not professional reviews. "User-based reviews" from Rotten Tomatoes is equivalent to IMDb reviews. — YoungForever(talk) 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You really need to let this go and move on. I personally think Youngforever should remove this entire section on her talkpage and ignore you. If you attempt to add user reviews you will be reverted. She has acted in good faith and explained something you clearly either don't understand or refuse to accept, that's on you not her. Esuka (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wu Assassins[edit]

Hey, YoungForever – I haven't checked the article's sources, but I assume that the genres "martial arts" and "supernatural" are sourcable?... TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I wasn't the one who added the genres though. If you watch the web TV series, you would notice that martial arts and supernatural fiction are used throughout the series significantly. — YoungForever(talk) 01:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep. But that's not how genres work on Wikipedia – they have to be sourced to some reliable source (in the article), or it's WP:OR. Note: I'm not saying you are at fault here at all – I'm just saying that the genres need to be sourced. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: I just went ahead and added the reliable sources for Martial Arts and Supernatural fiction...there are actually several reliable sources on the article page itself. Yes, I went to the reliable sources website pages to double check. — YoungForever(talk) 02:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The InBetween[edit]

I made the changes of deleting the links because I saw no logic in the links leading to the episode description chart on the exact same page just a partial scroll above the viewership chart.

If the links led to different pages about the episodes, I'd have no problem; but leading to the page that you are already on I have a problem with --- especially since that page isn't that long.

Or am I missing something? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D: How you not seen other TV series Television episode ratings tables? They all or most are linked like that. Go see Television episode ratings. Your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT attitude is not going to work here. — YoungForever(talk) 04:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Why Women Kill[edit]

Hi YoungForever, I understand why you removed all those episode titles – #6 and #7 titles are not officially released, at least not on WGA directory – and that's why I left them in code comments rather than published. I do wonder whether it is necessary to remove the commented titles since it would be easier to update when CBS releases a new episode. Skywayer (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skywayer: Still, they are not sourced. As I stated, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we don't know if they are the official episode titles. We don't add speculations in hidden comments.WP:NOHURRY. — YoungForever(talk) 19:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever: All right and thanks. Skywayer (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your AWB script[edit]

please check it's working correctly as it's removing short descriptions, see [1]. --Denniss (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Denniss: I added it back in on the Bruce Willis article, I am not sure why AWB was removing some of the short descriptions. That wasn't my intentions. Most of the short descriptions are still there. — YoungForever(talk) 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)