109.76.239.61

November 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Get on the Bus, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 talk 04:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Get on the Bus

The RT citation was for its genre which is "drama". Don't remove that. If you wish to use RT for another citation. See wp:NAMEDREF for a how-to. Jim1138 talk 04:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Get on the Bus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 talk 04:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, it was for "Drama". Jim1138 talk 04:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No content was removed! I explained all my edits with edit summaries. I don't think any of this criticism was necessary or fair. It would have taken less time to add a named reference than it did to tell me to add a named reference. It was very strange that information about Rotten Tomatoes did not include the reference to Rotten Tomatoes beside it and it seemed highly unlikely anyone was in any doubt that the film was a drama (or that the genre required a reference or that Rotten Tomatoes is even an appropriate source when anyone does have any doubts about the genre). There are clearly many things that could be done to improve the article, please add any suggestions you have about how to improve the article on the Talk page as I may not see any further comments on this page. -- 109.76.239.61 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing

Your edit was unnecessary end of, the tomatometer and metascore are widely known and correct terminilogy Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC) You are now editwarring quoting general guidelines that have no specific context and your attitude is domineering Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I agree the plot is too long but why dont you rewrite it instead of taking the lazy tagging option?

• Apologies, I got a bit heated there, the end of a very long day. The ROTC link is an essay and carries no weight and the MOS says nothing about terminology except that the consensus should be included such as no consensus which you removed. There is a discussion ongoing that you may be interested in that is linked from the WP:MOSFILM talk page that is about whether the specific dates of the rotten tomatoes and supposedly metacritic ratings should be used with a specific date in an as of format as they change over time, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I keep trying to reply, please stop reverting and changing your comments. -- 109.76.239.61 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I found several problems with the article and tried to improve it in good faith but my edit was reverted without any edit summary or explanation which is not exactly friendly, and you accuse me of being hostile.

Stuff exists so it may acceptable and Wikipedia gets better by being good enough and people changing it, but there is nothing to say it is "correct". Good articles, WP:MOSFILM and WP:RTMC all avoid using the site specific jargon and uses phrases such as "score" or "average rating". Also the text fails WP:RELTIME. Feel free to ask for a neutral WP:THIRDOPINION.

The article plot summary is too long, it is easy to check using Wordcounter.net. I can try to shorten it, but that may be difficult since I haven't seen the film yet. It isn't exactly friendly to jump to accusing someone of being lazy. -- 109.76.239.61 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand that essays such as WP:RTMC carry less weight than guidelines WP:MOSFILM and the core basic rules but the discussion you mention only started today! Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators#ASOF.

I think listing the number of reviews used to create the score is plenty enough context but if you want to use Template:As of that would be an improvement over "currently" and I can get behind that and go do something else. (Rotten Tomatoes does change quite a bit, and they recently added a whole lot of new critics that they consider acceptable which has changed a lot of scores. Metacritic scores hardly change at all.)

This seems offtopic. If you could instead make an edit to the article instead of a revert perhaps we can make some improvement to it and agree to disagree on other matters. -- 109.76.239.61 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your response, will leave it as is but I still think saying no consensus is valid. Thanks for the link on counting words as i've been counting them manually, will try to rewrite the plot when i've more time but havent seen the film either, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Wordcounter.net was the first thing I found when I went looking and it was good enough, but I'd be amazed if there aren't already scripts, tools, or Wikipedia plugins for wordcount as well. -- 109.76.239.61 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ASOF at Review aggregators

Hi. Just a procedural note to let you know that a RFC has been opened on this question at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---