| Revision as of 00:02, 25 December 2015 editDatumizer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers42,788 edits →Review score aggegators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic: edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 25 December 2015 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Review score aggegators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic: Fixed your typo. Commented.Next edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| :I found a more relevant location to post this. Posting in Wikipedia_talk:Describing_points_of_view ] (]) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | :I found a more relevant location to post this. Posting in Wikipedia_talk:Describing_points_of_view ] (]) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Review score |
== Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic == | ||
| I but did not get a lot of feedback, so I thought I would ask again. What are we supposed to do in the case of review score aggregators such as ] and ]? The problem is these sites are offering ''opinions about opinions''. There is thus an added layer of complexity. Do we try to get the broadest sample of review scores? Do we ignore aggregators that are themselves not commonly cited in other media? have included such things as ], Misplaced Pages links directing traffic to other sites, and people's careers being on the line based on one site's score but not another's. I think this page should mention aggregators and how they are covered by the policy, and would like to see more discussion on this topic. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | I but did not get a lot of feedback, so I thought I would ask again. What are we supposed to do in the case of review score aggregators such as ] and ]? The problem is these sites are offering ''opinions about opinions''. There is thus an added layer of complexity. Do we try to get the broadest sample of review scores? Do we ignore aggregators that are themselves not commonly cited in other media? have included such things as ], Misplaced Pages links directing traffic to other sites, and people's careers being on the line based on one site's score but not another's. I think this page should mention aggregators and how they are covered by the policy, and would like to see more discussion on this topic. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :This topic has been addressed more than once at the ] and ] talk pages. These sites are not opinion pieces, with the exception of the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus statement. We usually cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for our film articles, but we are cautious of citing them for older films (like a classic). I will alert the aforementioned talk pages to this discussion. ] (]) 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:06, 25 December 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view). |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
- Archived discussions
- Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
- Archive_002 Closing out 2004
- Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
- Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
- Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
- Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
- Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
- Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
- Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
- Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
- Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
- Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
- Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
- Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
- Archive 017 to April 09, 2006
Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.
- Archive 018: Apr 2006
- Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006
- Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006
- Archive 021: Jun 2006
- Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
- Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006
- Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006
- Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006
- Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006
- Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007
- Archive 28: Mar - May 2007
- Archive 29: May – Sep 2007
- Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
- Archive 31: Feb – May 2008
- Archive 32: May – July 2008
- Archive 33: July 2008
- Archive 34: July – Sep 2008
- Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009
- Archive 36: April – Aug 2009
- Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009
- Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
- Archive 39:
- Archive 40:
- Archive 41:
- Archive 42:
- Archive 43:
- Archive 44:
- Archive 45:
- Archive 46:
- Archive 47:
- Archive 48:
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
Discussion on PoV / promotional use of overcapitalization
FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
The discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:ISMCAPS badly needs to be tightened may be of interest to WP:NPOV regulars. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015
 | This edit request to Blasta Food India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| Collapse comments about nonexistent article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Blasta Food India founded by Dinesh Maddineni in 2015 November 30th in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. Here in this they are working very well. Another thing is Blasta Food India is one of the best Start Up company from India. 113.193.114.193 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Policy suggestion: "First-Word" Deference (to balance the desires of competing groups in controversial topics)
If this is the wrong place to insert policy suggestions, please let me know. So I've called what I am thinking, "first-word deference". This has to do with balancing the desires of competing groups in controversial topics. In a controversial article, both sides can receive appropriate (not necessarily equal) time. But advocates of the position being described in a particular article would be mentioned first, and then the opposition would be mentioned second. So advocates would get the "first word", and opponents would get the "last word". Some might fear that this would encourage fringe theories to flourish. I don't think this would happen for a few reasons, as long as the policy was carefully crafted.
- Lets take the scenario where the opposing position clearly has better sources, are in the majority of the scholarly community, etc, it does not hurt their position simply by mentioning theirs second. It can be clearly mentioned in the article that while this is how "advocates" see this, the majority of scholars see it a different way.
- Allowing "advocates" to "speak first" ensures that minority views can be mentioned, and still holds in balance the idea of weight of sources.
- Allowing advocates to speak first allows advocates an adequate opportunity to define themselves and their movement in their own words.
Examples that come to mind are the scientific and religious debates. If you allow advocates to speak first, the article on Evolution would take shape first with sources that advocate Evolution. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned). While on the other hand, the article on Creationism would take shape first with sources that advocate that view. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned).
This idea of giving deference to the advocates I think might help to put out some fires and edit wars that tend to get started. It still allows for the best view to make a reliable encyclopedia, and yet it allows advocates to "speak first". Motmajor (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I found a more relevant location to post this. Posting in Wikipedia_talk:Describing_points_of_view Motmajor (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic
I brought this up in 2009 but did not get a lot of feedback, so I thought I would ask again. What are we supposed to do in the case of review score aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes? The problem is these sites are offering opinions about opinions. There is thus an added layer of complexity. Do we try to get the broadest sample of review scores? Do we ignore aggregators that are themselves not commonly cited in other media? Arguments have included such things as Alexa ranks, Misplaced Pages links directing traffic to other sites, and people's careers being on the line based on one site's score but not another's. I think this page should mention aggregators and how they are covered by the policy, and would like to see more discussion on this topic. SharkD Talk 23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- This topic has been addressed more than once at the WP:Film and MOS:Film talk pages. These sites are not opinion pieces, with the exception of the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus statement. We usually cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for our film articles, but we are cautious of citing them for older films (like a classic). I will alert the aforementioned talk pages to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)