Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose

Removing average rating

It has been 5 months since Rotten Tomatoes removed average ratings from their aggregation system. At some point, average ratings should be removed from this template to reflect the system as it exists. Right? Of course, though, this would require correcting all current uses of the template. Οἶδα (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The average rating is still included in the HTML though. Nardog (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok? Who wants to dig into code to find a rating? Rotten Tomatoes has had this disabled for months so they obviously don’t want it to be shown on their website. Don’t think it’s a glitch at this point. Mike Allen 08:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't update. And it was difficult to know how html works, now imagine the new users or IPs. Rotten ratings will soon appear in which users updated the main rating but left the old average rating... Theys York (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

users updated the main rating but left the old average rating

I have found this to be true on multiple occasions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It has been over nine months since RT removed average ratings and they have not returned. As such, this issue has not aged out of relevance. I was about to post here again and, just before doing so, I noticed there had been some commentary over at Talk:Rotten Tomatoes which had followed shortly after the above discussion. As @Medxvo alluded there, citing an RT entry for information that is only discoverable by inspecting the HTML source code of the webpage amounts to original research and renders the article unverifiable (WP:V). The citation is to the webpage and what it presents to readers, not to its source code. Readers therefore cannot check for themselves and verify average ratings without having to research beyond what Rotten Tomatoes has published and made visible to its regular readers. Citing the HTML source would be equivalent to citing information found only in the binding glue of a book, not on any one of its pages. I was also unable to find any past discussions supporting the use of webpage source code as a citable source in articles. Οἶδα (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Just curious...are there archived URLs in any of the citations that provide that data? I haven't checked yet, but it's worth considering. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm certain there are countless such examples given the fact that the template supports archived URLs. But I'm not certain (because I can't be) of how many of those examples are defaulting to an archive URL. Because those uses of this template would need to not be used with |url-status=live in order to suppress the current RT page, as RT does not feature average ratings anymore. Or the template would need to not be used with |ref=yes and instead be used in tandem with a regular citation that includes an archive URL that also does not use |url-status=live, so that the current RT page isn't being cited. Either way, I would think that the number of pages currently forcing an archived copy of RT for the sole purpose of citing something that is obsolete would be rather small and ultimately unwarranted given that 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". I would think this template would be intended for citing RT's website, not for forcing readers to a past copy of it in order to retain something on Wikipedia that RT has decided to no longer publish, as time moves on and its review counts continue to change. Οἶδα (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: Average of Rated Reviews feature

See: https://movieweb.com/rotten-tomatoes-average-rating-feature-return/

Sometime around the end of last month, Rotten Tomatoes removed all mention of the average rating from their FAQ. However, Rotten Tomatoes has just now added a new feature called "Average of Rated Reviews". They're calling it a "fresh take on our previous Average Rating", but it appears to be the exact same as the average rating:

The previous FAQ stated:

The Average Rating is an average of the individual critic scores, based on a 1-10 scale. Each critic's original rating scale (e.g. star, letter grade, numeric) is converted to a number between 1 and 10, and then the numbers are averaged. Reviews without individual ratings are not counted in the Average Rating calculation, and a minimum of five reviews with individual ratings is required for an Average Rating to be calculated. The Average Rating measures the overall quality of a film or TV show based on an average of individual critic scores. The Tomatometer simply measures the percentage of positive reviews for a given film or TV show.

The current popup states:

Some critics (but not all) include letter or numerical ratings with their reviews - these are averaged here. Reviews without ratings are not included in this calculation.

If anyone can tell the difference let me know. But it appears the above matter is no longer relevant. The only question I have now is if we should update the template to say "average of rated reviews" instead of "average rating"? Because it does seem misleading to say On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of 130 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10., when that sort of implies the average rating is based on all of those 130 critics' reviews when really it's only based on the smaller percentage of reviews that use ratings in the form of stars or letter grades or numbers. Thanks. Οἶδα (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say the current wording is misleading since it doesn't say the average rating was based on all of the reviews surveyed, but if we wanted to be clearer we could say something like "Of the reviews that gave a rating, the average was 7.8/10." Nardog (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

For readers unfamiliar with Rotten Tomatoes and its features, what else could it be based on? 90% of 130 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10. Placing the figures together with "with", I would think most unitiated readers would assume those are related measurements drawn from the same set of reviews. The Tomatometer itself is a rating of reviews which regularly do not have ratings themselves. 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? Perhaps RT agrees by not naming it the "Average Rating" anymore. "Average of Rated Reviews" is phrased rather specifically to leave no doubt. Οἶδα (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of your reply is. I just suggested a wording in case we wanted to be clearer. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You said you wouldn't go so far as to say the current wording is misleading. I just wanted to illustrate how it could be. That is all. Your suggestion could work. We could also simply say "and the average of rated reviews was 7.8/10", which is how Adamstom.97 has been adding it into articles. Οἶδα (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe the new rating is the same figure as the old one, based on the examples I have looked at, they have just renamed it to clarify that it is the average of "rated reviews" rather than the average of all reviews. It seemed like a good clarification to add to our articles as well, and is similar to our wording which clarifies what the RT percentage actually means (i.e. number of positive reviews). Note that there has been a wider discussion about this development over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Rotten Tomatoes Average of Rated Reviews. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks for letting me know! Οἶδα (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand it could be to some; I just personally don't find it misleading because it is, at least to me, obvious that since not all reviews give ratings and those that don't don't have assigned ratings on RT (like on Metacritic), the average must be derived from only those that do. Nardog (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

those that don't don't have assigned ratings on RT (like on Metacritic)

I would agree if RT wasn't already in the business of assessing unrated reviews in the form of the Tomatometer percentage. 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. The issue is that "average rating" does not exactly communicate "the arithmetic mean of critics' original numerical ratings". 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 numerical rating or something else of the sort. I would think the easiest answer here would be to just adopt their "average of rated reviews" phrasing. Οἶδα (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I made this suggestion at WT:FILM:

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.

Seems like the easiest and simplest change to me if we're going to make one. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Οἶδα's suggestion is fine but I think using "rated reviews" alone is too ambiguous as it's unclear for readers whether RT or critics rated the reviews and it doesn't note that the average rating is based on a portion of reviews, which I think is what's most important for readers to glean. We read up on the process and keep up with the changes, but readers generally don't. Readers shouldn't assume that all or most reviews are represented by the average rating. A more wordy and more precise alternative could be: "and the average rating of the subset of reviews with critic ratings is x/y". But GoneIn60's works for me. Lapadite (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Or, following RT's explanation:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of 130 critics' reviews are positive; among reviews that include numerical ratings or letter grades, the average is 7.8/10.

Or if we want to go shorter:

90% of 130 critics' reviews are positive; reviews that include numerical ratings or letter grades average 7.8/10.

90% of 130 critics’ reviews are positive, and the reviews with numerical ratings or letter grades average 7.8/10.

90% of 130 critics’ reviews are positive, and the average of reviews with numerical ratings or letter grades is 7.8/10.

90% of 130 critics’ reviews are positive, with reviews that include numerical ratings or letter grades averaging 7.8/10.

It's easy to get bogged down in the specifics of phrasing, so I'll support anything that is clearer. Οἶδα (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we update the template? Many film articles use this template and some editors have been reverting the updated language. Lapadite (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Rephrasing

I believe that the current rephrasing is required:

"Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports an approval rating of percentage based on count reviews."

This makes it clear to people not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes that the website aggregates reviews from elsewhere and merely reports on them. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's the current phrasing:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, percentage of count critics' reviews are positive...

Personally, I think the identifier "review aggregator" already explains that these reviews are being aggregated. I'm not sure the proposed change is much of an improvement, if at all, and in fact seems less concise. And the phrase "reports an approval rating" at first glance may seem like Rotten Tomatoes is approving not aggregating. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: but it says it's reporting from elsewhere, though, so it's beyond me how you could take that to mean the website itself making the value judgement. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I said at first glance. The term report can be defined as "give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated". It could seem like they are approving in some manner and then sharing that finding. I don't interpret it that way, but someone unfamiliar could. The Film project has used "approval rating" in the past (see WP:RTMC#Use in articles), so I don't necessarily have an issue with moving in this direction. But again, it is also less concise. Curious to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't like using "approval rating" as it means less to someone not familiar with RT than saying % of reviews are positive like we do currently. Indagate (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TFD nomination

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:Tfd|heading=Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The template needs some fixing

This thing needs a fixing, for example the words of "are positive" needs to be removed and i think that's it to avoid delete the temple. ~2026-36431-47 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Those words seem essential to the meaning of the sentence, are you suggesting replacing them with something else? Please use TfD page for deletion discussion. Indagate (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)