This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
It could be a coincidence, but this sequel seems to have been heavily influenced by the anime Toriko. It would be interesting to know whether or not this is true. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.206.189.137 (
talk)
18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)reply
POV as fact
@
Koala15:: 70% of RT. Is that "generally positive", "mixed to positive", "favorable" or what? Whatever your answer, is it the same for 69%? How about 68%? At what point, for you, does it cross a line and become something else? How did you arrive at this "fact"?:
"
Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 70% approval rating with an average rating of 6.4/10 based on 115 reviews." THAT is a factual statement. Perhaps all of the reviews were essentially lukewarm. Maybe 70% thought it was the greatest film in the history of cinema. Maybe 30% wanted to hunt down and kill the filmmakers. Maybe 70% were ever-so-slightly positive and 30% "hated, hated, hated this movie." In my opinion, each of those possibilities is distinctly different from "generally positive". Your opinion may differ and that is fine, but it is not a "fact". -
SummerPhD (
talk)
14:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
70% beats 30% meaning the reviews were generally positive. If it was 50% i would say mixed, if it were 30% i would say negative. That's just how it is.
Koala15 (
talk)
14:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
You have not explained how your opinion that this is "generally positive" is a fact. That Metacritic reports a 70 on their pseudo-normalized scale as "generally positive" is immaterial to the straight percentage of favorable reviews given by RT. In this particular case, Metacritic has a score of 59, which they label "Mixed or average reviews".
You say "generally positive" reviews is a "fact". If this is true, Metacritic is wrong or "Mixed or average" means the same thing as "generally positive". Which is it? -
SummerPhD (
talk)
21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The source doesn't say that and that isn't what your edit says. The source says that 70% of reviews on RT were positive (which the text I left in states quite clearly). Your edit says that "reviews" were "generally" positive. Your addition is your interpretation of the material that I left in. The only thing your addition adds is
your opinion. The facts are there without it. -
SummerPhD (
talk)
00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The material you have added is not an objective summary of the sourced material. It is your opinion, nothing more. You still have not answered where you draw the line between "generally positive" and "mixed". Is 60% "generally positive" or "mixed"? 59%? 58%? and so on. Once you have answered that, answer this: Where did that line come from? It is youopinon that X% is "generally positive" and X - 0.00001% is "mixed". It is not a "fact". -
SummerPhD (
talk)
04:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Its definitely not my opinion, its common sense that 70% would be looked at as positive. 60% would be mixed and so on.
Koala15 (
talk)
14:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
We're making progress. You've almost answered the question: Where do you draw that line? (60%/60.0000000000001%? Maybe 69.9999999999% is mixed and 70% is "mostly positive"?)
Again, if it is so glaringly obvious that 70% is "mostly positive", what is added by saying that?
Why do we need to use a bland description here? We can use
this to say that Rotten Tomatoes reported that critics thought the sequel "lacks the freshness of the original" but still considered it to be "an energetic, visually inventive family movie".
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I would consider 70% to be 70%. That is
neutral and
verifiable, unlike "mostly positive", which is neither. I would not consider it: "good", "pretty good", "C+", "3 stars out of 5" or anything else some editor on here "
considers" it to be. Again, please answer the questions: Where is the line between "mostly positive" and "mixed" and what, other than your opinion, is added by saying something you consider to be so glaringly obvious? -
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Its not even my opinion, i think anyone with a brain would consider 70% to be a positive critical reaction. I don't know why your acting like we don't use this sentence on any other articles either. It's all over GA'S and FA'S.
Koala15 (
talk)
14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Rotten Tomatoes labels a review as either positive or negative. That means there is no middle ground. A film could get 90-100% regardless of whether critics found the film decent or one of the best ever. (If you compare RT and MC figures of The Avengers and Gravity, you'll see that is the case.) RT reports here a score average of 6.4 out of 10, which is closer to reality (as well as Metacritic). That's why we can't just translate 70%.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)15:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Personal attacks aside, I assure you I have a brain. Additionally, you don't seem to like the direct questions, which you still refuse to answer. -
SummerPhD (
talk)
18:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I had recently edited the article; but it was revised and deleted for being unsourced.
I had tried to find a source but I couldn't.
but I am sure that edit was true. Because I have watched both movies
I mean Aladdin disney animated film.
Aminabzz (
talk)
11:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply