This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Media franchises Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises 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.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

User generated content is not allowed, see WP:USERGENERATED. Fundamentally user voted web polls are not a reliable source WP:RS. Both WP:MOSFILM (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_response) and MOS:TVRECEPTION also specifically say not to use IMDB user votes.

User:DisneyMetalhead disagrees with this policy. I ask this editor to clearly state why an exception should be made in this case. I see no special reason that IMDB user votes would be especially notable here. If you think there is a special reason to ignore the rules then please state your case clearly and in detail. I encourage you to ask for WP:THIRDOPINIONs. -- 109.79.176.13 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:109.79.176.13; as I stated before, when a series of films has limited information, when the reviews differ from critic to public response, and when the table in question is specifically showing/depicting/portraying the differences in critic vs audience reception - what is the reason that the information would not be provided. The guidence you referred to specifically states: "generally unacceptable" (emphasis added). Secondly the second guideline you refer to is for TV articles. This article is about a film franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rules already say audience scores should not be included, if you want to ignore the rules the burden is on you to show there is a good reason to do it. I referred to other guidelines for emphasis, including IMDB scores is generally a terrible idea, and we have many guidelines discouraging it at multiple different levels. Fundamentally it is just not a reliable source. And even if you believe think the figures aren't fundamentally unreliable to begin with, they rarely show anything significant beyond a small positive bias, which can largely be put down to self selection bias. (Conversely critics can be unfairly harsh when forced to sit through yet another Adam Sandler film, since they don't actively chose what they see.)

As you say there are sometimes rare exceptions, such as the recent example being when Dave Chappelle's stand up show got very low ratings from critics, but very high ratings from audiences. Not only was there a noticeable contrast, this also received significant coverage from other sources. In the case of this film franchise there is only small divergence and there is no indication that it is significant or notable and there are no secondary sources suggesting there was any particular disconnect between the opinion of critics and general audiences. Even in cases like the The Flintstones (film), where critics hated it and audiences went to see it anyway, the huge box office better indicates that disconnect better than including IMDB scores would.

There are better ways to do it, whatever it is you are trying to do. Franchise articles tend to be full of lists and tables, not because they must but because that is the easiest way to get them started. The better articles gradually don't rely on them so much, I would also ask you to take note of one of the other fundamental guidelines WP:PROSE and instead of trying to show things using a table to instead use prose to clearly explain to readers whatever point you are trying to make. If you want to show that a family film was popular despite the critics there is almost always a better way to do that than using IMDB scores in a table, as I said box office analysis is an indirect indication of audiences liking a film that you could expand on. Some critics are simply better are reviewing a film on its merits and making it clear if a film is likely to appeal to the target audience, so you might select reviews like that and include them as general critical response or as counter-points. Retrospective reviews revisiting the franchise can also show that a film had continued interest over the years. It isn't always easy to find but but for family films such as these it might be possible to find ratings for when they were first run [Edit: on network television] or some special occasion when they were rerun. -- 109.78.237.56 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This project is put on Indefinite Hiatus. Any reference to the "Shrunk" movie should be removed and revised as "Future". The actors taken off the cast table as well, and the Shrunk Movie taken off the cast table, also anything that says TBA should be removed. It has been "On Hiatus" for too long now, and any "Posters" and "descriptions" for this film were mostly fan based and theoretical nonsense. Maxcardun (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]