Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 18

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

• Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metacritic film prose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In March 2025 an RfC on the use of these templates concluded per Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) that: "There was consensus to discourage (emphasis theirs) use of these templates. Editors overwhelmingly consider these templates to be unnecessarily restrictive in their style. There are also concerns that the templates conflict with the template guideline about storing text within a template, and that the specific wording used by the templates introduces original research and puffery. Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is." However, RfC obviously isn't a deletion discussion, nor can a local consensus be used to dictate content or style.
That said, based on the wording of the closing comments and the assessment of the consensus, it would seem reasonable to at least substitute the templates when they're used and advise editors that their usage is discouraged. However, editors favoring use of the templates have taken the wording of the RfC closure as an indication that it is not appropriate even to substitute the templates. That would seem to beg the question of what "discouraging" their usage would look like in practical terms. As there are also now questions regarding how Rotten Tomatoes presents their average of rated reviews, I am, with great reluctance, forced to bring these templates here so that these questions can, hopefully, be more explicitly addressed. While I am nominating them for deletion in deference to the findings of the RfC, I would also be amenable to having the templates be automatically substituted when they are used. However, that will not address the questions surrounding the average of rated reviews. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Past discussions (for reference):

• 2021 TfD: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 18#Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose
• 2022 TfD: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Review aggregator prose templates
• 2023 RfC: Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose/Archive 1#RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?
• 2025 RfC: WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 87#Rotten Tomatoes prose

Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Deletion preferred, auto-substitute as an alternative per opening comments. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: When the close says By-and-large, this consensus is going to be a reccomendation, it's an awful close. A RfC should end with some kind of result - either consensus for something or no consensus (status-quo). A "consensus to maybe, if you wish, to do something, but also, you don't have to" is not a valid close. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It's easier to have a prose rather than just typing the same thing over and over. If anything, getting rid of the prose will actually cause more problems. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Then don't try to enforce WikiProject advice as if it were P&G, or to bypass scrutiny at TfD by invalidating a template through another process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the email sent to me by MadbesWiki: I am not the one who wishes to delete this, I suggested this page as the correct venue where binding consensus can be determined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:TG. Rotten Tomatoes should not be be excepted from that and thus used to hide text in thousands of articles. I read through both previous TfDs and am not convinced by those cases to keep. The few more substantive cases to keep were ultimately convoluted ways of encouraging a one-size-fit-all solution rather than encouraging consensus at given articles like any MOS:VAR issue ever. Auto-substitution is valid per WP:TG, but I don't see auto-substitution actually discouraging the use of these templates throughout this very large topic area on Wikipedia. As Trailblazer101 stated in that RfC, implementing auto-substitution would just be prolonging the issues and necessity for this template, and would ultimately negate it and likely lead back here down the road. It won't do much to meaningfully stop users from replacing and forcing text into articles. Because, as GoneIn60 wrote: Though touted as optional, it is frequently used by bot-like warriors trying to be quick on the draw, not only in newer film articles, but also back in older ones overwriting perfectly fine text. We've even seen it happen in FAs. This violates the spirit of MOS:VAR in more ways than one. Because it also hides text, some level of Wikipedia expertise is required to know where to go to seek change. So while it seemingly makes one aspect of things easier for some, it can confuse and bewilder others. I have seen this myself on many occasions. A minority of editors end up adding the template into articles. But, as Kingsif stated in the second TfD, where they are adding it, they are instead replacing similar wording that already existed there. All that does is change the existing style, which transgresses MOS:VAR because there is never a substantial reason for such a trivial wording changes. The same concerns apply to {{Metacritic film prose}}. {{Metacritic album prose}} as well. Anyone familiar with the album topic area on Wikipedia knows the overwhelming majority of album articles that include prose on Metacritic aggregates do not use {{Metacritic album prose}}. I myself have written many album articles and have done so in a variety of styles when representing those scores. I have not faced any issues there. Believe it or not, there was a time on Wikipedia before {{RT prose}} and {{MC film}} and it was not very long ago.
  And as discussed at WikiProject Film, the RT template is currently hosting text for a feature that is incredibly unclear and misleading, and which users have agreed is either ultimately meaningless and should thus be discouraged in articles altogether or decided on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually a meaningfully representative sample, a challenge which I suggested is impractical and problematic. But actually changing the template is like pulling teeth. In the second TfD, Sdkb stated:

  Rotten Tomatoes itself hides the average critic rating, requiring an extra click to get to it. Let's say that they decide in the future to stop reporting it entirely. And let's say that the community decides that given this, we don't want to include it in articles. What happens then?

  Well, guess what? That hypothetical is not even a hypothetical anymore. In the time since TfD #2, that actually happened and for nine months of the average rating feature literally not even existing anymore I still couldn't get it removed from the template despite petitioning to do so. That left countless articles outdated as editors continued to update Tomatometer scores and review counts but then inappropriately left the old, nonexistent average rating combined with it. This affected uses of RT data in articles as well after Wikidata values were not appropriately updated. Elsewhere users began updating the average ratings using the HTML source code of RT webpages, resulting in original research and rendered those articles unverifiable. As Erik pointed out, the argument that:

  If there's no template, it becomes an arduous slog through every film article on Wikipedia to remove the information

  That only makes sense if you also want the template to be in all articles, which contradicts the stated premise that using it will be optional. Either way, cleaning up such changes will always be a slog and that in itself is not reason to force extremely specific wording into articles. Wording for which there is zero consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  You mentioned:

  In the time since TfD #2, that (Rotten Tomatoes hiding the average critic rating) actually happened and for nine months of the average rating feature literally not even existing anymore I still couldn't get it removed from the template despite petitioning to do so

  What was the reasoning they chose not to remove it? I'm curious about the reasoning. That being said, I don't think we should get rid of the template just because the wording is slightly outdated: that seems like a stronger argument for updating the template. Arcinati (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  The reason? The same reason as everything else related to this template: No consensus. And even when we do largely agree, nothing ends up changing. Hence the "actually changing the template is like pulling teeth"

  I don't think we should get rid of the template just because the wording is slightly outdated

  That specifically pertains to the average rating. My point was not that the template should be deleted because the average rating wording became outdated. Rather it emphasizes one of the practical problems with storing article text in a template. We should get rid of the template (or at the very least auto-substitute it) for that same WP:TG concern I've outlined above and below. And as I said above: That left countless articles outdated as editors continued to update Tomatometer scores and review counts but then inappropriately left the old, nonexistent average rating combined with it. Meaning thousands of articles continued to display information that editors could no longer verify (WP:V) from the cited sources.

  that seems like a stronger argument for updating the template

  Huh? That was exactly the problem. The issue persisted because there was no consensus to update it. Despite the average rating...literally...not...existing... anymore. That should have been an easy change with unanimous agreement. And yet even in that instance it wasn't. Οἶδα (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Got it! I just read the discussions in Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes_prose#Update:_Average_of_Rated_Reviews_feature and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Average_of_Rated_Reviews. I find I actually generally agree with your proposed changes, and personally think it should be an easy change too. That being said, it's clear others disagree with both of us, which unfortunately blocked consensus. I respect that decision-making process though: I don't think we should just get rid of the template because we don't like the wording that process left in place. Arcinati (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete or auto-substitute. I generally like the language used in the template, but I don't see the benefits of restricting editing in this way. As the first point in WP:TG says: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." – notwally (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - No one has indicated what the text might be edited to that might affect any other article. It encompasses the percentage, the rating and the consensus in a text format? How is it "extremely specific"? What would anyone want to change it to in the future? If a change needs to be edited into the text on a particular article, they can delete the template and edit the page themselves. It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year. Kire1975 (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you go try replacing the template with the identical untemplated wording in a few articles (let alone actually try to use alternative phrasing!), and see how you get on… MapReader (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be going against MOS:VAR, same as replacing untemplated text with template which would also get reverted. I haven't seen an actual reason for different wording in any specific article, so please say if there is one, the template can also be changed to support anything if needed. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• How is it "extremely specific"?

  How is it not? If all the template did was spit out data like {{RT data|score}} {{RT data|average}} {{RT data|count}}, there would be no controversy. The controversy only exists because it generates a specific prose. It is an extremely specific way of communicating RT's review aggregation. The fact that it includes three static variables does not make its prose non-specific. The template still dictates a very specific sentence structure, a very specific ordering of information, and a very specific presentation/contextualizing of the data. The Tomatometer percentage, review count, average rating, and critics' consensus are all combined into a standardized block of prose that is used across thousands of articles. All chosen by a coterie of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. The latter being, you know, the solution to every other MOS:VAR issue ever? So the thousands of article-level editors who chose to introduce the template's prose into articles at a given moment in time are not realsitically part of the consensus that determines how that prose is later changed because it is changed at the template level. The article text simply changes, undetected. That would not be the case if the template was auto-substituted. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical reception exists. If there is disagreement at an article, change should be determined by editor consensus at the given article's talk page. There are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers, especially in the case of the "average (of rated reviews) rating".

  What would anyone want to change it to in the future?

  Because how we present and communicate information is changed all the time here on Wiki. That is a normal part of collaborative editing and not a problem to be solved by templating prose. And if you're not convinced that "anyone [would] want to change it to in the future" then why do certain editors constantly change the existing text in articles by replacing it with these templates? They are doing this. All the time. And the text being hidden makes it all the more easier to replace article text when it looks as if it is only being removed and replaced with data, because it less obvious that the article's wording, style, and presentation have in fact been changed. Again: why should a centrally controlled prose template override normal article-level consensus? We should not be hiding text in thousands of articles. Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

  It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year.

  As stated below, you have not addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Keep. ~2026-36001-71 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Oklamajojoruski (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of you have addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. DonIago (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete these templates cause as many problems as they solve. There's a big difference between "I like it" and something this encyclopedia project should be encouraging. As User Notwally pointed out starting by ignoring the basic principles of WP:TG is a pretty bad. Edit: Switching to subst only would give some editors the convenience they crave and reduce the need to understand yet another template for ordinary editors, people who don't edit film articles regularly for example. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Οἶδα's arguments. If deletion is not preferred, the next best solution is updating the template's language on RT's average rating update and auto substitution. Lapadite (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kire's arguments. When reading articles about movies, I find it summarizes the movies' critical responses in a succinct and consistent way. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  But why is a template needed to do that? It's invisible to the reader, and people who want to summarize responses in a "succinct and consistent way" can do so by copy-pasting the text, without violating WP:TG in the process...or the template can be substituted, as mentioned more than once above. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per previous discussions. Benefits include the ability to make large-scale edits to the prose as required, such as when Rotten Tomatoes change how they present their data as mentioned in the original post, the text for all articles using the template can be amended to text that has consensus. Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article, so using the template reduces effort, prevents inconsistences over time, and reduces watchlist spam for article watchers. Small details like punctation can be optimised in the template prose instead of editors fixing individual articles for what they think is best making them different to the majority. Language used in some articles has been promotional, subjective, or misleading, so prose templates promotes WP:NPOV. Inserting this into an article can be easier than writing similar text from scratch. WP:TMP says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content", so doesn't forbid this so exceptions are allowed, boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception, not seen an actual reason to change the text for specific articles. The use of the template is optional regardless, no one is forced to use it so no wording is forced into articles. Indagate (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Benefits include the ability to make large-scale edits to the prose as required, such as when Rotten Tomatoes change how they present their data as mentioned in the original post, the text for all articles using the template can be amended to text that has consensus.

  Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?

  Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article

  Again this argument is completely bogus it because only makes sense if you also are suggesting that the template should be in all articles, which contradicts the entire premise that its use in aricles will be optional. And it is optional. And will continue to be optional. So "cleaning up" articles to match future changes from RT will always be a slog and that in itself is not reason to force extremely specific wording into articles. Wording for which there is zero consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles, so any edit wouldn't be "undetected". The templates are template-editor protected for RT, and extended-confirmed protected for Metacritic, so cannot be edited by inexperienced editors. Similar argument could be made for so many templates which are used on a similar or greater scale.

  I am not suggesting all articles should use these templates, I said use of them is optional, no one's disputing that. The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually, problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.

  There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template, it can be amended if consensus for new wording by using Template:Edit template-protected if needed. Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic as mentioned, such as giving judgement in WP voice or unclear phrasing like "approval rating". Indagate (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you're going to say that the use of the templates is optional, then I have to ask why you felt it was appropriate to revert me when I substituted them on more than one article. If they're optional, then surely I have the right to substitute them? DonIago (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The templates were already used on those articles long-term, the option to translcude them was chosen before you substituted them, future changes to the template such as wording changes when RT changes how they present rated reviews as you mentioned won't be reflected on those articles. We have option to substitute them when adding to an article for first time, same as how we have option to transclude or not use them at that point. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it sounds patently ridiculous to me to claim that use of the templates is optional, but apparently only when they're brought to an article for the first time. That also flies in the face of the RfC closing comments, which said explicitly that their use should be discouraged. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The RfC closing comments also said "the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually" which can be done when someone creates a reception section, using them when similar text also in the article would generally go against MOS:VAR which goes both ways. Not sure what you don't understand but please ping the RfC closer if you need further clarification. The RfC also closed with "previous discussions have not found consensus to act on these proposals, so those opposing their current use will need to demonstrate that consensus has changed within the community", doesn't seem like any new argument has been introduced here from the previous TfD's? Indagate (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles

Yeah... and they don't. I don't know why you're suggesting that any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if it is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article to see the TfD notice. And none of the past changes to the template were even the result of TfDs.

so any edit wouldn't be "undetected"

At the article-level it absolutely constitutes undetected changes. That was the entire point. Unless there is a mechanism that tells the editors and watchers at a given article that the text of that article has been changed then those changes, by definition, go "undetected" there.

The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually,

The maintenance "benefit" grows only in proportion to how many articles adopt the template. If usage is genuinely optional, and widespread adoption is not the goal, then the "benefit" is much smaller than suggested. And achieving those same results does not require hiding article prose in a template across that subset of thousands of articles. Templates which, again, have constantly encouraged replacement of locally developed text.

And this "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors.

problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.

Convenience has costs. And the cost here is hiding text in literally thousands of articles. If mass-updating prose were sufficient justification, then many forms of article text could be templated. I'll say again: Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template

You're conflating consensus about a template's existence with consensus about imposing particular wording across thousands of individual articles. The text is used at the article-level, not at the template.

Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic

Not unique to templates. We do not create prose templates whenever some editors occasionally write poor prose. Again: by that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Οἶδα (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I fail to see the validity of removing these templates. The use of both the Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic templates helps to ensure consistency across the films detailed on Wikipedia.

Such consistency/uniformity across Wikipedia should be sought for as it also ensures parity - one film is not treated as more deserving of more detail than another film in this regard, as all films feature the average of opinion expressed on the same two external film review sites.

In turn, that also helps to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia for treating all films equally in that regard. ~2026-35740-30 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Uhhh...why are you convinced that templated text ensures "parity" between articles? Whether a film article uses one sentence or another to present the same data Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic does not mean either film is being treated as more or less "deserving" than the other. You are allowed to present information with different wording. One review aggregator prose template will never change that fact. Equal treatment (read: parity) between articles is the result of us applying the same content policies and sourcing standards to all articles. It does not come from us forcing identical wording across thousands of articles. Οἶδα (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Given all the comments regarding recommending substitution, is it at all possible to force it to always be substituted, and if so, would that solution be desirable or not? Assuming this isn't possible/preferable, I would delete the template alongside auto-substitution upon deletion. GooseTheGreat (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a valid reason for removing these templates. They provide a convenient and consistent way to present commonly repeated Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information, rather than requiring editors to retype substantially the same prose across many film articles. Concerns about wording, overuse, or replacing existing prose can be addressed through documentation, article-by-article consensus, or discouraging blanket use; deletion seems disproportionate. A previous RfC discouraging use is not the same thing as consensus to delete, and keeping the templates preserves a useful optional tool for editors who find them helpful. Avocadoes (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You're saying you find the template convenient (WP:USEFUL). That does not address why the text needs to remain hidden behind a template rather than substituted, and thus exempted from the basic principles of WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Οἶδα and notwally's arguments. I don't feel that consistency between film articles is more important than having the text easily editable by anyone who wishes to improve the article or change the flow to read better. This is the article body we're talking about, after all, not parameters in the infobox. Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I like it as it is - I think it serves a clear function - and I think it would be unconstructive to remove it. TheMovieGuy (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT. Whether you personally like the template does not address the concerns raised under WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question: How will removal or substitution affect bots like RottenBot, the bot formerly running that retrieved and replaced Rotten Tomatoes data? –Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC) edited 07:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for both. This template, when used properly with wikidata, saves a lot of time and minor edits when a RT or MC score adjusts.

Filmforme (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is an argument for using {{RT data}} and {{Cite RT}}/{{Cite MC}}. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template. {{RT data}} can be used in any text. There's no Metacritic equivalent to {{RT data}} either way. That must be updated manually. And the same few values are updated in the same way whether the text is templated or not. So that doesn't really save time. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. It is needed in articles. Now articles about films look weird. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL+WP:LOOKSGOOD. That does not address why the text needs to be stored in a template rather than substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it serves a clear & precise function for the reader. Do not remove it. Valueyou

Another WP:USEFUL argument. Οἶδα (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete due to presumption against storing article text. It seems the benefits can be retained through templating it out as a widget or something rather than as prose. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: If this is being listed now as 'Keep' and 'No Consensus' then the awkward Talk page notification banners ought to be removed as well, for example, as it still appears on Killers of the Flower Moon. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This TfD hasn't closed yet. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong keep! Statistics is a fickle field and more often than not I as a mathematician register misleading formulations, especially since RT and MC use categorically different statistical methods. These templates offer participation for editors without deeper knowledge into statistics and their culprits. We in deWiki therefore have followed your procedure for our own handling of this aspect. --Eiragorn (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why substituting the templates or hard-coding the numbers would adversely impact your ability to do this? Nobody's talking about removing RT or MC scores. DonIago (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

From my professional experience a lack of statistical understanding is very widespread. When the text becomes editable again (e.g. by substitution) it opens the door wide for misleading wordings. The status quo may not be perfect but is at least statistically sound. --Eiragorn (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The templates as they stand allow for editors to insert numbers without any regard for what RT/MC actually say, so I don't see how this is a valid argument with regard to these specific templates? DonIago (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You just proved my point. Statistics is not numbers but what they mean. And to convey this correctly one has to word carefully. --Eiragorn (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Then you might want to read elsewhere in this TfD, where it seems clear that there are significant issues with at least the current wording of the template. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that but it's still substantially better than most I encounter "in the wild". And this is yet another reason to keep: the text inside the template can be improved for all articles at once while deleting/subst-ing would solidify the imperfect status quo. And since the majority also among WP editors does not have deeper statistic knowledge these "burned in" wordings would deteriorate even further over time. --Eiragorn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Kind of indifferent, but I do think this template would be significantly more useful if it somehow automated updating RT scores and wasn't just a prose formula... I guess that could be interpreted as a weak delete. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} and associated templates were supposed to address automated updating of Rotten Tomatoes scores, but I cannot say how well that actually worked in practice, those templates always seemed massively overcomplicated to me, and in practice updates seemed to be too slow and some editors would overwrite them and update manually instead. But that is separate from this template and tangential to this discussion. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-20754-35 @Locke Cole I think User:RottenBot possibly provided this feature, they did with {{RT data}}, but it looks like the last edits were 2021. Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TG and Οἶδα. A template shouldn’t be used to force standardised, formulaic text into articles, and it’s not as if the insistence as it is by some film editors on pushing identical wording into every article enhances the output of our project ("…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike….") Further, the terminology used within the template is contestable and yet by having it locked within the template it becomes almost impossible to challenge; as SMcCandlish has oft commented, "universal acclaim" is WP:PUFFERY that ought to be deprecated site-wide as unencyclopaedic - as a literal statement it is of course impossible to prove or cite, and Metacritic’s use of this term for scores of just 81% or higher is self-evidently absurd. The template confounds this issue by using the sloppy term "indicating" in editorial voice, implying that it’s the article’s editors making this conclusion, when other phraseology might be more appropriate, such as "which according to Metacritic represents…". When I have introduced such changes into the odd article it’s always reverted on the grounds that there is somehow consensus for reciting the same formulaic text in every single film or TV article. That isn’t how WP is supposed to work. Indeed, it’s only the scores from RT and MC that represent actual data - are editors and readers not able to draw their own conclusions from a score of 90% and not have wording generated by a formula, which adds no new information or value for the reader, forced by rote into every article? MapReader (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I know we're on the same page anyway, but in case other editors see this before expressing their views...I feel I should be clear that I never wanted to be the one to bring this to TfD; I don't have a lot of experience with these, and I don't trust myself to word arguments about these sorts of things well. The tipping point for me was when I substituted the template on a few articles, figuring that would be seen as a reasonable compromise and true to the spirit of the closing comments of the RfC, only to have my substitution reverted. When there are editors who won't even allow other editors to depart from the template, there seems to be a significant problem that needs to be discussed. It's now bothering me that a number of the "Keep" responses above haven't even opined on the question of substituting the templates, instead treating this as a binary "keep" or "delete" scenario, even when my opening message was very clear that other options were available and might be worthy of consideration. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike…." isn't included in the prose templates so that's misleading, one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's which goes against WP:UGC as had to remove when templates not used, e.g. . "Universal acclaim" has been discussed before. e.g. here at WP:FILM where no consensus for removing that so please WP:DROPTHESTICK, the exact same wording including "indicating" is used regularly regardless of template so not a linked issue to these templates, it's only quoted from Metacritic and not said in WP voice, not for us to judge whether Metacritic is "absurd". Please focus on points related to the prose templates in this discussion. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right that the 'acclaim' wording is to illustrate a point and not in itself at issue. I'm not aware that there is any consensus about having to use the same formulaic wording in every article, despite your long history of reverting any departures from it, and the issue with the template is that it hard-wires this into articles contrary to WP:TG. That there hasn't previously been consensus to remove misleading PUFF terminology such as "universal acclaim" does not prevent the matter being raised again, as clearly it is pertinent. The word "indicating" inside the template (or when used otherwise) is very clearly in editorial voice since it is never placed in quotation marks. MapReader (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's

Editors adding WP:USERGENERATED material to articles is nothing new or unique. And not reason itself to template prose. Not sure why you think the template magically prevents users from adding audience scores to articles. The template is only for critics' reviews. And in the example you cited, the audience part just comes right after the critics part. If it had used the template, the audience part could still be placed afterwards. Nothing about the template stops that. And in visual editor anyone can add another RT citation in seconds to support that audience rating. Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - These templates provide some minimum consistency across the film articles on Wikipedia, while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data, shown in a consistent layout, provided by the templates. The convenience of having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates, but still allows users to adjust the other prose that fills out the section to reflect specific comments from a later review from a film critic.~2026-36097-01 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates

  You are confused. This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. It is about two specific templates that force specific text around that data and hides that text behind the template rather than including it directly in articles. {{RT data}} is completely different template and can be used in any text. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template.

  while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data

  This is rather incoherent. You are mixing two completely different things. The {{RT prose}} template does not in any way have to do with how we write about or balance (WP:WEIGHT) subsequent individual critics' reviews in the "Critical response" sections. That is determined by the core WP:NPOV policy which states that articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which we must consider and abide by. It is non-negotiable. Whether included reviews "align somewhat with the overall consensus of film critics" is not caused by a score being in a template that is being used to store article text around that score and does not depend on it either. Οἶδα (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Stand by what I said in the 2025 RfC. They're completely pointless. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 07:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: How would deleting {{Metacritic film prose}} effect {{Metacritic album prose}} the arguments against would seem to apply equally to both templates (and if this template is such as good idea why isn't there a template for {{Metacritic video game prose}} already?) Are there any further implications for other Wikipedia projects about deleting or keeping the Metacritic prose template that need to considered? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably would be worth merging those two templates as seem duplicated but {{Metacritic album prose}} can exist without {{Metacritic film prose}}, discussion can happen depending on result of this. Video games seem to use boilerplate text for Metacritic but only for the label like "universal acclaim" with the number in a table, example 1, 2, 3. Indagate (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - As a reader and only rarely an editor, I was never aware that these phrases were templates. But I valued them greatly. Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial. And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.Harmenator (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's why I said these templates cause more problems than they solve. There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores. I for one hate that some editors try to claim Rotten Tomatoes "reports" anything, like as if they are an objective news source, rather than people subjectively interpreting reviews, quantizing them into numbers and creating scores based on an undisclosed algorithm, which is absolutely subjective not objective reporting. I also hate the needlessly pretentious wording that Metacritic "assigned" a score, when "gave" a score would just as easily make the same point. (Above we have an editor complaining that quoted text, indicating "universal acclaim" is not clearly enough attributed to Metacritic. Consistency would be nice but no one is happy enough with the wording for it to be stable enough to be fixed in a template.) I wish we could have greater consistency but Wikipedia is loose and there is no willingness to enforce hard guidelines, this template causes as many problems as it claims to solve. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the conversation should shift to the wording of the template then, but as someone who uses the reception section of Wikipedia film articles quite often I think the deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves, especially for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template. Juanathanoli (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't articles be updated because the template wasn't there? It often doesn't automatically update, and if anything basic prose is easier for anyone to update. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves

  Such as...?

  for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template

  That. literally. never. happens. If the template is deleted, all instances will be replaced with the acutal text the template is currently hiding. There is no scenario where what you're describing happens. Non-issue. Οἶδα (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would also be better to stick to the factual data - that Metacritic gave a score of 50% - and drop the trite editorial-voice commentary indicating "mixed or average reviews" that some editors insist must always be tacked on the end, despite telling readers nothing that isn't blindlingly obvious from the 50%. MapReader (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial.

  It is not "contentious". We are not "discussing reviews". We are presentating aggregates in prose. And an aggregate is merely a subjective product with distinct variables created by a review aggregator according to its own subjective methodology. Presenting those few variables with different wording does not render it impartial. The template is completely optional. And will continue to be optional. Because there are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers. Per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required."

  And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.

  Again: "Undetected" at the article level, where the text is actually seen by readers and which is actually watched by the relevant editors. That was the entire point. Because the template is storing text and thus uneditable. Any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are not watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if those changes are actually seen at the article level. And unless the article text is changed through an actual edit to the page, the only other way it will only be detected is if the template is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article at the very moment the TfD is happening in order to see the TfD notice because it does not cause any changes to the article text. It does not notify the talk pages of articles using the template nor does it send warnings to those editors who added the templates to the articles. And none of the past changes made to these templates were even the result of TfDs. They were all chosen by a small group of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  STRONG KEEP: the reason that there is a push to delete consensus review aggregators from internet searches and use recommendations algorithms instead is that corporations that "exploit entertainment product" for profit want to limit or fully disable public response to the "entertainment product" from being accessible. "Entertainment product" and "exploit" are industry terms. Wikipedia is one of the only sites that provides access to the consensus reviews of films through the Reception Critical Response paragraph. This is a public service tool on a site that is open source and consensus based and should not be eliminated. Paurielarker (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  None of that seems pertinent to the question of whether the data plus accompanying standard text is inserted into articles by template? MapReader (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  You are confused. AGAIN: This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. Οἶδα (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:TG. I agree on "There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores." --Preferwiki (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the arguments about the phrasing of these templates being overly reductive — the lax definition of “universal acclaim,” for instance. I think it is fine for contributors to want to replace these templates with more accurate language, and I do not think that such changes should be reverted solely because of someone's judgment that it is inappropriate to replace these templates with even identical prose. The existence of the template should not be construed as some sort of immovable status quo. But if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates. I am quite certain that someone will reply to this comment with a detailed analysis of why I'm wrong and ignorant; luckily, that doesn't invalidate my vote. I don't think these templates are a universal good; I'd be happy for the same data to be presented in some other way (not necessarily prose!) that is largely standardized across pages. But the arguments for deletion have failed to persuade me. Andrewdupont (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You’ve done one of those posts that, while ‘voting’ one way (not that it is just a vote), set out clearly the arguments for the other! It’s the text within the template that IS the issue. Personally I would have no problem with templates that just drop in the data - the actual RT/MC score - which would keep these updated without editors having to do it manually. That’s the sort of job that templates are useful for. The problem with the current ones is that they force an entire, standardised sentence whenever they are used (which has the knock-on consequence that a few editors will insist on exactly the same phrasing even when the template isn’t being used, arguing that this is the consensus when in reality it’s simply the wording someone put into the template). MapReader (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates.

Because the template has not really changed ever since it was added to thousands of articles. It simply remains at its current wording because nobody can actually agree on any changes after the fact, not because actual consensus has determined the existing wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior to other acceptable formulations. That's just inertia. And if multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, that makes standardizing a single fixed phrasing in a template counterproductive. Deleting or at least making the template auto-substitute instead of storing the text actually reinforces the MoS. Also, there isn't WP:IMPLICIT consensus for the specific wording either, because there is only one templated version. Most editors add it because they find it convenient, not because they've reached consensus that its specific wording is superior. Οἶδα (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Again: I don't mean to argue that the templates are good, or even better than just paraphrasing the templates in one's own words. But I don't agree that “standardizing a single fixed phrasing” is counterproductive — mainly because I don't agree that the template's existence carries (or ought to carry) that mandate — and I do not agree that deleting the template “reinforces the MoS.” The inability to come to consensus over how these scores should be described is not created by these templates; hence I think deleting them won't actually solve any problems — just give them a slightly different shape. And even you admit that a deletion outcome would remove a template that many editors find convenient. I would be strongly in favor of a non-prose presentation of the same data, but deleting these templates is orthogonal to that goal. Andrewdupont (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Harmenator. I don't see a problem with how things are currently done. ~★ nmaia ^d 10:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per kire and indagate Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Has indagate actually advanced any policy-based support for his position, rather than try to defend his historical editorial-warring? MapReader (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please read my vote above for policy link which answers your question, plus further explanation of other reasons, your vote only included WP:TG and other parts which I explained is irrelevant. Disagree I've edit warred over this but regardless, this isn't the place to discuss that at all. Indagate (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Questions: Where are all the other non-substituted prose templates used across running text on Wikipedia? I can't find them. If there aren't any, are the commenters in this TfD aware of that? So why are editors convinced review aggregators be the sole exception to WP:TG and thus be used across thousands of articles in contravention of the basic principles guiding the use of templates on Wikipedia? Are we seriously suggesting this one topic is so special that WP:TG does not apply to it? Why don't we also surround United States census data around uneditable prose and just call it "optional"? And not to belabor the WP:POINT, but what prevents editors who disagree with the current wording of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from creating another template with different wording? Both would be optional. Οἶδα (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Other examples are {{Aired episodes}} and {{Television franchise episode count}}, examples of short boilerplate text used in the TV project, Also, {{Year article header}} used for year articles. WP:TG includes "normally" for that point, exceptions are allowed. Indagate (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is that all? The first one is used in 485 articles but I cannot find any past discussions at TfD or elsewhere determining its acceptability as a template on Wikipedia or compliance with WP:TG. The second one is only used in 24 articles and likewise has no discussions about it beyond a few merges of duplicate templates. I also cannot find meaningful discussion about {{Year article header}} despite its use in roughly 500 year articles. If these are the only examples, essentially 2 across all of Wikipedia, and there has been no actual discussion regarding the appropriateness of their function in the template namespace then it is dubious to claim that they somehow establish why WP:TG specifically includes the word "normally" or that they serve as proof that such "exceptions are allowed" to the top-level guideline that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." Especially when we're talking about templates used to store text in the ordinary running text of articles rather than templates with some ancillary article text function that might plausibly justify an exception. The 2014 RfC that introduced "normally" to WP:TG was also rather brief and unimpressive. Either way, "exceptions are allowed" is not, by itself, an argument that a particular exception is warranted. If anything these few examples would indicate how rare exceptions are here on Wikipedia, not that such exceptions should be expanded. And none of those 3 examples even approach the scale of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} or {{Metacritic film prose}}, which are currently being used across thousands of articles. And as Netoholic stated in that RfC, such exceptions would have to maintain their status as exceptions which "break" this particular rule by way of strong consensus. There is no consensus for these aggregator prose templates. They are highly controversial, and completely optional. Οἶδα (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Those are examples I found quickly, not an exhaustive list, you said you couldn't find any, likely be more examples but not easy to find. "Exceptions are allowed" isn't argument yes, as I've said previously boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception, not seen an actual reason to change the text for specific articles. Indagate (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  likely be more examples but not easy to find

  Then let's identify them. We have the time. Because you're not really addressing that point I was making. I asked for comparable examples because the argument you are advancing here is that review aggregator text summaries should be treated as an exception to WP:TG and that the word "normally" there explicitly allows for exceptions and thus specifically aggregator ones. Pointing to a handful of obscure templates and the mere fact that they exist does not establish that. Because, again, I cannot find any evidence that their function of storing article text has ever actually been affirmed (or discussed at all) as being acceptable exceptions to WP:TG, which expressly states that such content belongs in articles themselves. That is a complete lack of consensus for said exceptions. And a rather weak foundation on which to justify specifically standardizing hidden review aggregator summaries across thousands of articles. If such article prose templates were actually well-established exceptions, they should be easy of us to identify. Instead, after searching far and wide across Wikipedia, we are only discussing a tiny number of edge cases. All that suggests is that WP:TG is actually being followed, not that any article prose templates have to any degree been established as exceptions to it. I'll say again: such "exceptions" would have to maintain their status as exceptions which "break" this particular rule by way of strong consensus. But there is no strong consensus for these aggregator prose templates. They are highly controversial, and remain completely optional.

  boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception

  "shouldn't be edited"? Huh? That is the very point under discussion here and the source of all this disagreement. Why "shouldn't" the prose be edited? That's just begging the question, Indagate. Again, per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." If multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, then there is no basis for treating one particular wording as fixed boilerplate that ought to be protected from normal article-level editing. Because, again, no consensus has determined the template wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior. And if it's "boilerplate" then that also applies to just about an endless amount of article text across Wikipedia that could be templated on the same basis. But the perceived convenience of using a template to deal with such repetition is not sufficient reason to hide article text behind a template. Nor is the notion that you have "not seen an actual reason to change the text". Article text doesn't require evidence of a need for future edits to justify its continued existence at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per my past thoughts on this from previous discussions. At the very least, these need to be substitute only templates. The vast majority of the "keep" comments (not all but most) to me just boil down to "I like how this is used on film pages", which doesn't seem like that strong of support for keeping them. The prose should be easily editable for any editor on any page that uses it to make adjustments, not locked behind a template. I prefer outright deletion, but at the very least, subst'ing them will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, or alternatively modify to remove the prose element. These templates include useful data (percentage positive reviews, number of reviews—important for contextualising the percentage—and average rating) with more structure than {{RT data}} This gives a reader helpful encyclopaedic information about how the film was received by critics. But there's no reason they need to be presented as prose, and I think the consensus summary should be added intentionally and manually where it is actually informative, rather than mechanically and universally. Compare {{Music ratings}}, which uses a more structured box-score format. I think shifting this template to a box-score format (or replacing it) would preserve what is valuable while addressing the reasonable concerns about the prose. For the same reason, I'm against subst-ing it. Boilerplate prose is terrible; boilerplate prose that can incrementally drift from the boilerplate is way worse. Polonius (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment the WP:FILM equivalent to {{Music ratings}} exists, it is template {{Film ratings}} but there was a long term consensus against using it and it was deleted at least twice already. (Due to issues of WP:PROSE and also selection bias, aka WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTHESIS. See Template_talk:Film_and_game_ratings if you want to know more.) -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please can you all stop messing with wikipedia - the rotten tomatoes section is directly useful for quickly assessing a movie's reception and changing the template is unnecessary - deeply dislike the new ways rotton tomoatoes is being written ~2026-36696-89 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above.Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments raised above, I think it's a useful tool for editors and beneficial for readers. If the prose element is a specific concern, then fine with modifying as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  That the prose element is the concern is the reason they need to be deleted. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:USEFUL. Again, this isn't {{RT data}}. The prose element is entire point of contention here. Please familiarise yourself with the TfD you are participating in. Because modifying doesn't solve anything. Οἶδα (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  • @Οἶδα: Your participation in this discussion is coming very close to the line of WP:BLUDGEONING (in my personal opinion the line is very far behind you), please don't bludgeon the process. Nevermore27 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

    Hence why I indicated that I was only further responding below because I was specifically invoked and misrepresented. Otherwise, I'm done. I am now only responding because you specifically pinged me back here and lodged an accusation: This TfD is about whether article prose belongs in templates, not whether the templates are useful. Your original comment "If the prose element is a specific concern" suggested you fundamentally did not even understand what this TfD is about. So yeah, I'm going to respond to that. Unfortunately you chose to charge me with crimes instead of actually respond to what I wrote. Not responding further here, lest I be accused of further crimes by editors who would rather discuss my participation than the substance of the matter. Goodbye. Οἶδα (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"Crimes" please get down off the cross you put yourself on. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. If you personally find a template limiting your options, don't use it. It's not an argument to delete it for everyone.Beaumain (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not about individual decision. That would be an argument to keep an auto-substitution template. The argument to delete it for everyone is that storing article prose in a template is inconsistent with WP:TG and there is no strong consensus for these exceptions. if you don't like it don't use it. does not address that issue. And the specific text that the template produces and then hides rather than including it directly in articles, thus making it uneditable, is decided upon at the template level. Not locally at the article that an individual editor made the decision to add it to. Unless we're somehow now arguing that editors specifically chose the template because they prefer its wording to be centrally controlled. That would be... far fetched. Most editors add it because they find it a convenient way to add these aggregates to articles. Not because they've reached consensus that storing article text in these templates is clearly justified. It's only about convenience. And that convenience remains the same if the template were auto-substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  If editors add it because they find it convenient, it only makes a stronger point for Keep to me. Beaumain (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly the same for me. The prohibition on "useful" as defining worthiness for inclusion is for content, not tools. The entire point of templates is stated as "to help maintain consistent formatting and aid navigation between articles" - i.e. they are intended to be useful. The movie ratings template does exactly that. Templates are designed to be of a wide-ranging, uniform system across Wikipedia. If it was an infobox or stub this wouldn't be an issue and I guess it could be replaced by a simple chart type graphic with 4 boxes for review count, percent score, average rating, and space for 1 sentence of consensus summary - but I'm totally fine with it being 2 sentences with consistent formatting across every movie article instead. ~2026-37134-63 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. While I'm sympathetic to arguments that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content" from WP:TG, I really don't think this text is text that needs editing. The consistency is a net benefit to readers and at worst a minor drawback to authors. Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it. I've seen some interesting arguments from Οἶδα about (1) the wording ("universal acclaim") or contents (including average critic rating) and (2) substitution as an alternative. While I understand that we as editors want to have more freedom (especially when the template doesn't match our preferences), I think most readers actually prefer consistency over that. Substitution would make it harder to be consistent, and also make it harder to change the articles if RT/Metacritic do make broad changes. Arcinati (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Responding because you've specifically invoked me and misrepresented my points as being largely about "universal acclaim" or including the average rating:

  "I don't think this text is text that needs editing"

  Again, as I stated above: article text doesn't require evidence of a need for future edits to justify its continued existence at the article level. The opposite is true, i.e. article text belongs in the article pages themselves unless there is strong consensus to store it elsewhere. No such consensus has ever been developed, here or elsewhere...

  The consistency is a net benefit to readers

  Can you provide a specific reason for that? For why we should be treating one specific wording as fixed and thus protected from normal article-level editing? Why is that warranted? There is no actual consensus that the existing wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior to other acceptable formulations. So what is it about the "consistency" that specifically serves readers? Because, again, presenting those few variables with different wording does not render it impartial. The template is completely optional. And will continue to be optional. Because there are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers. Per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." The only consistency will thus be between the articles that happen to use the template. So again, the strength of that argument depends on widespread adoption of the template, which cuts against the premise that the template is optional. And it is optional. It always has been. Unless strong consensus is somehow reached that these templates should be the preferred method of presenting review aggregates. But that time is not now. We can't even presently agree on their very existence.

  Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it.

  WP:USEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT. That says nothing about whether storing text in templates is appropriate practice on Wiki.

  Substitution would make it harder to be consistent, and also make it harder to change the articles if RT/Metacritic do make broad changes.

  As I stated above: this supposed maintenance "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors. Οἶδα (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep because these are useful templates and obviously can be used to quickly summarize the prose and maintain the consistency among articles. I see no reason to delete them. M. Billoo 17:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Since when was it an acceptable use of a template to standardise the text used in multiple articles? MapReader (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't really know about this discussion but I think it would be good to decide something soon as the current appearance in articles means loads of them have this huge indentation, a big line and some little text, interrupting the article. I always like seeing the reception in percentage form, I'm not sure the website description is needed. ButterCashier (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is precisely that interruption in thousands of articles that drives all the participation in TfDs like this one. This is especially true when the template appears in the running text of articles, resulting in these huge indentations you mentioned. Generally, I have found TfDs to be the most widely and aggressively advertised discussion on Wikipedia. The sheer visibility of that interruption ends up attracting participants who often have little understanding of the underlying policy questions. They are mainrly reacting to the notice they've been bombarded with while reading any one of the thousands of articles using it. The discussion then gets filled with confused statements or comments that effectively amount to saying the template is useful, convenient, familiar, or performs some function (of course it does). NO PLEASE DON'T REMOVE IT. I LIKE IT. IT'S USEFUL. IT LOOKS GOOD. IT DOES [FUNCTION]. I USE IT. OTHER PEOPLE USE IT. IT SAVES TIME. I SEE NO REASON TO DELETE. KEEP. *reply*. *exit discussion*. Meanwhile the actual questions under discussion receive comparatively less attention from those participants. I don't fault anyone for participating, but it objectively makes it much harder to achieve consensus on the specific policy issues raised when most participation is only loosely connected to that. The way the discussion is advertised encourages more responses to the template's visibility and familiarity than about its compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: In part due to the comments expressed in the message immediately above this one, and in part due to having received an email from another editor I respect expressing similar concerrns, I've submitted a request that this TfD be closed. DonIago (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support early close and keep. No-one is obliged to use them, they are not complicated, save editor time and promote consistency. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC).
  

  There seems to be an implicit pressure to use them when, when I substitute them on a handful of articles that I was already watching (i.e. I was not on a fishing trip), I'm reverted and the templates are reinserted. If the templates are optional and no-one is obliged to use them, then I don't see why they should ever be taking precedence over equivalent (in that I literally just substitituted them) prose. Also, your comment doesn't seem to address why auto-substitution isn't a reasonable alternative. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this. If an editor decides to substitute the template at an article they frequent, they shouldn't be knee-jerk reverted, especially by an editor with little to no contributions at that article. There are various comments above by both sides that these templates are optional and serve primarily as convenience. Let's continue to treat them that way. There's more than one way to write the prose. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  The reverse could be argued too though (I'm not), if the same text as the prose templates at the point in time is used, then the prose could be replaced with the template by a frequent editor of the article. That principle goes against MOS:VAR, retaining established style, in this case translcuding or not the template. Indagate (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's probably arguable whether the use of these templates or not qualifies as a style choice. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Use of the template {{Metacritic film prose}} is absolutely a style choice. It is the preferred style of literally one specific editor (since banned), who changed it without discussion in April 2021 [(diff)]. It did not copy the style of text frequently used in Wikipedia film articles before that point. It was not based on any discussion Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators or consensus. Allegedly from what I was eventually able to find out it apparently follows the style of prose it follows the style of how Metacritic was use on Wikipedia music articles. (As they are both review aggregators I would have preferred if Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic prose had been written to be more consistent with each other.) So is there any chance of this becoming a substitution template this time or has the discussion died again? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of definition, the principle of whether it's established seems fairer and better for avoiding edit wars etc than a frequent editor being able to add or remove it, especially as can easily have two frequent editors who disagree. Indagate (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete or subst-only per my previous !votes. Izno (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete As per my comments in the previous three discussons. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Require substitution as a compromise of the comments above and per 1brianm7's rationale belowto bring use more in line with existing guidelines. Additionally, the substituted output should go from

  On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 100% of 900 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 10/10. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great."
  

  to

  On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, {{Rotten Tomatoes data|score}} of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|count}} critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|average}}. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great."
  

  which will I think address some of the concerns or maybe misunderstandings expressed by editors regarding the change. –Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC) edited 19:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, but Require substitution. The prose in these templates are a solid baseline for a Reception section, and in that regard they are incredibly useful. However they should not be a universal standard. Therefore, all current and future uses of these templates should be substituted, and editors should achieve consensus via normal editing as to whether or not to leave the template prose as is or to modify it appropriately for the article context, on a case by case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — Οἶδα's arguments are convincing to me, and I do not understand why we should bend the template guidelines in order to force the obfuscation and pointless standardization of perhaps the kind of content that requires the most editorial oversight in articles where they are used. These practices also give a massive weight to whatever is written on these platforms, which I am honestly unsure why anyone would think that is a good idea, because of how clearly problematic the very concept of average ratings and summary of critical reception are, let alone the flawed selection or inclusion criteria they use. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or require substitution. Per previous argument, WP:TG, and that hiding text in templates is an impediment for new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors. Not everything needs to go by the rules, and imo it makes more logical sense to keep it this way ~2026-35909-87 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't need to be deleted, let us not try to "fix" what is not broken. Munter He (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Really don't know why we don't have a side table for these for film but rather a spelled-out sentence. Look, the reason rating side-tables for games and albums exist in the first place is because it would be so awkward and not as simple and concise to present the ratings of reviews in prose form where you'd have to spell it out in several words "Roger Ebert gave the film 3-out-of-four stars", for instance. The prose is where a WP:SUMMARY of why critics thought a piece was bad, good or middling exists, with a simplified presentation of the ratings on the side only complimenting each other.

And on a side note, because I'm not bringing this up on the music WikiProject talk pages because I want to get this out there to people that don't work in them, it is so awkward to see those "Accolade" sections with a "select" table of "best" rankings, only for the prose to list out far more of them, like on GNX. The obvious instinct is to either get of the rid of the tables entirely (because it's all already regurgitated in the prose) or to put them all in the table. But because these best-of-the-year lists from The A.V. Club, Billboard, and the fricking Associated Press and Pitchfork were called "clickbait" by a community that doesn't know what the word means and doesn't know how these year-end lists are put together (the editors and writers of the source, not the publisher of the source, determines the rankings, so they're not "self sourced", contributor I'm not going to name), and because they honestly think that a ranking of the best of a whole fricking 12 months is the same as a review rating that can either be 8/10, 4/10 or 6/10 or some equivalent, they decided that keeping these tables that make up the entire screen with a limit of ten was a logical solution. As a person who summarizes reception all the time, I would prefer either prohibiting the tables entirely or making a side-template for them that makes up 10% of the screen to reduce article space. But I'm only bringing all of this up to show how little logic some of our contributors, even experienced ones, have. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 18:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment We do not need tables, we need WP:PROSE, it is a fundamental principle of this encyclopedia. Not only that the long standing consensus of Project Film was against using such side tables, so much so that template was deleted twice. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. No one is obliged to use the template. If it is limitative (and conflict has arised in a page due to its use), it should be discussed on the film's article talk page instead. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 19:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I never knew it was a template, but it is nice to see movies using this same format without looking different every time.

Mtjaws (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I haven't fully formed an opinion yet, but I will say that I find the WP:TG arguments to be profoundly unconvincing. Many editors are citing that guideline to basically imply that the existence of text in the template automatically means the template should be deleted. The guideline (not a policy) states Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. If it was a total prohibition, the text of the guideline would read "should never be used", not "should not normally". Whether or not this is a reasonable exception to the advice of the guideline is a legitimate dispute, but I don't see a consensus here as to whether or not this template fulfills that. Katzrockso (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as per Οἶδα and also because it privileges two websites in the reception section when both provide very little valuable information or replace with a tabular template which gives merely the figures. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – both are helpful, and we have no superior method of qualifying critical opinion on media of public interest. Rovingrobert (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't address any virtues that the templates have over straight prose (that could, for instance, read exactly the same way as the templated text), much less why the templates can't be substituted. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean quantifying, which is what RT and MC scores do, and quantifying critical opinions via some opaque distillation of the value judgement of each review is simply pseudoscience. Walkersam (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Rotten Tomatoes is an effective website, but Wikipedia editors have turned it into something that it is not: a diagnostic tool. The less emphasis on RT's percentage the better, particularly in movies that predate the website. The RT templates exacerbate the problem by bloating the copy and giving the website undue weight. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

In your humble opinion. I use this. A lot of people use this. Keep it as is. You wanna add something to it fine. But don’t delete it because you think there is something or some way better to present this data. ~2026-37724-88 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TG. If this automatically pulled up-to-date data I could see an argument for it, but as is it just facilitates data being out of date by complicating editing it. Having a particular sentence formatted exactly the same in every movie article should be a non-goal of WP (that's what infoboxes are for), and we should not be encouraging the status quo of relying on RT/MC standards for judging the notability and "score" of prose reviews. In 100% of cases pull quotes from notable reviews are more useful than these arbitrary "scientific" review scores. Walkersam (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The proposed (substituted) #NewOutput (above) and a bot like RottenBot could be a way to keep the prose up to date. Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - aside from compelling arguments made by Οἶδα and what was raised by Walkersam just above me, I specifically want to address the comment from Katzrockso as a reason to delete. While their point about the language "normally" is I think a good one, I think the valid counter is the widespread use of these templates (despite the discouragement to do so as a result of the March RfC and editors attempts to move away from them as noted in this discussion) itself is a normalization of the use of text in templates - for example, RT alone is used in 6,700 pages (per its template). With the volume of votes and comments in favor of keeping based solely on the usefulness of the template, the wide adoption of the template, or the user's preference to use it without regard to policy, guidelines, or even the points being discussed, I'm concerned any middle ground will simply have us back here for the same issues in six weeks time, or that a substitution will simply result in gradual changes until we reach critical mass again Darquis (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this comment by ~2026-35909-87 sums it up best: "i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors." When you have millions of articles, some of them on similar topics are going to have similar prose. As Indagate says above, "I haven't seen an actual reason for different wording in any specific article." That's just the nature of having a comprehensive encyclopedia with a limited number of volunteers. I don't want to spend my time trying to come up with new ways to phrase "this got a 78 on rotten tomatoes", and if you can come up with a brilliant new way of saying that, god bless you and go ahead and don't use the template. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I just randomly came back and saw a comment under my keep vote, but I was not notified. Just took a quick look and basically what I understand is that the nominator and the "delete" supporters are enforcing a line from WP:TG, and calling out WP:ATA. And thus I am confused from where should I begin with, because I consider that each of my defence argument would have a counter. For now, I am still supporting the keep and opposing the delete.

• I believe H:TQG says, "A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. It usually contains repetitive material that may need to show up on multiple articles or pages, often with customizable input. [...] Among other things, templates are used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way, to add boilerplate messages, and to create navigational boxes." It nowhere says to have non-acceptable use of a template to standardise the text used in multiple articles. Thus the comment under my vote should not be the concern here because many templates have been used for consistency since as early as possible.
• It may be correct that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." as per WP:TG. But, isn't the article text written in an encyclopedic style of language? At the Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose, it is obviously by name a "Rotten Tomatoes prose" and definitely by its use itself is also a "Rotten Tomatoes prose". So it is not an article text in wikivoice, but an externally quoted text complying WP:INTEXT.
• Also, it is not only a prose, but a logic gate template, which can categorize the films by its rating, and help in identifying the critical reception. It is definitely not a WP:NPOV or WP:OR violation as well.
• Manually copy-paste cannot always replicate. In the era where we witness AI-generated articles by various editors, it would create an unnecessary burden over page patrollers to check the film's reception when there would be wikivoice statements violating WP:SYNTH as well. Beside RT or Metacritic, there can be any other reference as well that can also be used with INTEXT ATTRIB to identify film reception overall and avoid biased statements. Additional wordings can still be used outside the template when properly sourced.
• RT or Metacritic are still critical reception only, while audience reception can be anything from fans or haters or xyz, just as similar as above WP:ATA concerns, with vague or extreme statements. We witnessed it with Snow White (2025) review bombing at the IMDb as well. And that is why we do not input fan reviews, but only critical and reputable reviews.
• I was one of those who still supported the use of averageRating when RT itself stopped displaying on its main page but continued using it in its source code. Since I was able to verify and prove it at that time as well, I considered it not a WP:V violation back then, thus complying WP:ONUS as well. But that is still only an optional parameter and we are only looking for compulsory parameters like the number of critics and the %age of approval as quoted by RT and are not in wikivoice. Though it is still visible for Barbie (2023) at its RT source code.

  "criticsScore":{"averageRating":"8.00"

In short, these templates are two of the quality control tools and are being used in thousands of articles. Deletion is not suitable option because it would still create a manual or automated bot job to remove it from pages. Similarly, substitution or replacement choices can vary from editor to editor and from article to article, MOS:VAR definitely forbids others from changing if there is one consistent formatting within a set of articles significantly edited by any reputable editor. Similar can be the defence arguments for MetaCritic as well. There can still be a counter to my arguments. Thank you! M. Billoo 06:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for consistency - besides, deleting this from thousands of pages would be useless spam considering the text will end up almost the same everywhere.. NotAGenious (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Avocadoes, Harmenator, Tbhotch, Beaumain, and others. I think uprooting this template from thousands of articles is more trouble than it's worth. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or subst. Article text shouldn't be in templates. Simple as. That editors can change the meaning of all articles by editing the template and not having to go through each article individually is bad. You should not be able to change an article without looking at the article text in it. An editor made the conscious decision to add the language displayed by the template in the article, not a choice to use the template regardless of which wording it might use. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as these optional templates are genuinely useful. They save me and other editors time by providing quick, clean, and consistent RT/MC summaries (especially for new or low-traffic film articles) and allow easy updates if the sites change their data presentation. WP:TG says "normally," so this is a reasonable exception. The RfC didn't call for deletion, and MOS:VAR goes both ways. Forcing substitution or deletion would create far more work for minimal benefit. Keep both. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Useful templates, provides consistency, saves time. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Skdb in the first RT discussion template TfD. The arguments to delete are unconvincing as well: pointing to WP:TG is unconvincing because this is a reasonable exception to that general rule: templates may make sense to use in cases where useful information is formulated similarly across many articles. Complaints about the wording or presentation, like average of rating reviews, ought to be fixed by editing the template; we ought to respect the consensus-making process instead of removing something that can be fixed (however frustrating it may be and however valid these concerns are). There also might be issues with people substituting the template for existing prose, but that's a behavorial issue that should be treated as such. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as a straight-up policy and usability violation. Prose doesn't go in templates and these templates have been a long-standing violation of this. The only possible reason to do this in a template might be if there truly was One And Only Correct Way To Do This, but that's not even close to true in this case. I wrote in the 2022 TFD that "unfortunately the use of a template will encourage certain editors to "fix" articles to one particular wording when actually many wordings would be fine, and some might even be better based on context", and, well, that absolutely came true. We shouldn't dismiss the usability violation either. As a reminder, new editors join all the time, and the process of editing text vs. what's displayed should be intuitive. Going to edit an article and being unable to find the text you just saw, because it's "hiding" in a template, is pointlessly unintuitive, and for what? Nothing. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox/imagelimit.css

Template:Neuropsychology sidebar/styles.css

Template:Paleozoic range

Template:Paleozoic 250px

Template:Party shading/Unionist/Hold

Template:Rockingham Loop

Template:RfX searchbox

Template:RugbyLeagueGame

Template:Sea World Monorail System

Template:South Lebanon detailed map

Template:Texoma FC squad

Template:Tormenta FC squad

Template:VCH volume

Template:Weekday in month recurring

Template:WikiProject Editor Retention welcome/Unsigned

Template:Wikidata fallback link for Olympians

Template:Women in Music/Collaboration of the Month Past

Template:World University Wrestling Championships