Talk:He's All That

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the He's All That article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: American

	Film portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Generally negative reviews[edit]

Rotten Tomatoes score 30% 44 reviews. Metacritic score 35% 21 reviews "generally unfavorable reviews". This was summarized as "generally negative reviews". [Rephrased to "mostly negative reviews" in another version.]

Someone suggested "generally mixed to negative reviews". I do not believe this bold change of wording is an improvement but also wordings very similar to this have been repeatedly discussed and discouraged by Project Film. Example of one such past discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative

I hope editors will restore the previous wording and discuss before changing it again. -- 109.79.165.170 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will restore the original wording. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I don't have any problem with wording change by Cardei012597 as it says basically the same thing (personally I'd have said "negative" without the qualifier). I was surprised a long established editor would even suggest that mixed-to-negative wording at all, I thought it had been discussed to death so many times already.

The aggregator scores are bad, that seems clear enough. Some editors might argue against including any summary at all though. -- 109.79.165.170 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look out for such changes. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the discussion you linked to was hardly definitive on the question, and "positive", "mixed" and "negative" doesn't give enough "gradations" in critical opinion. Regardless, the actual reviews that are cited in this article are not "mostly negative", and that is far more important than whatever the review aggregators are claiming (which, let's face it, aren't definitive by any stretch). If "mixed to negative" is opposed, at this point the wording should be changed to "mixed" based on the actual reviews cited in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews, even the positive ones, are either negative or lukewarm, not necessarily a "mixed" response. The wording is good as it is right now. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The summary should reflect what is in the article, but first and more importantly the article should accurately and realistically reflect the state of the reviews in general.

If the Critical response section is placing too much emphasis on the more positive or mixed reviews that is a different problem and reason to expand and rewrite that section. -- 109.79.176.66 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can tag the section, until more reviews are added. Once more reviews are added, I can remove the tag. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character is derived from[edit]

The cast section includes a lot of "character is derived from" but it is not clear that there are any sources to support this or more importantly that it is noteworthy in the first place. I haven't removed it yet but if it remains unsourced WP:OR I probably will remove it after I've seen the film. (Not in any hurry to do that though.) -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.[1] Not a good way to do a cast section. -- 109.76.203.218 (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]