![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the Manuel of Style for tables, all tables should "Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within them. Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features available." This means using the ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" markup. Yet this template seems to omit that... Can we please update the physical template so that it renders using the table formatting
— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Does the current template contain support for Any Decent Music?. So far as I can see, the only aggregate site supported is Metacritic.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Album ratings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Contents |
This template’s title
parameter should not be enclosed in a box (a spanning table row), but instead have a true table
caption markup (|+
). It’s more semantically correct and it looks better IMHHHO ;-)
—
Fitoschido
[shout
track] @ 2 May, 2014; 03:56
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Has this been discussed somewhere? If so, please link the discussion. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion underway at Talk:WikiProject Albums – here – regarding symbols appearing in this ratings box. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 07:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering why there isn't (and requesting that there be) a ratings template like this for other forms of media, in particular movies. I don't see why movies would be less eligible for a template like this than albums. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It might just be me, but I've noticed that this template is now producing output that is aligned to the left, where it used to be aligned centrally (on my browser, at least). Is this a new feature? Personally, I find the central alignment more aesthetically pleasing. Thanks — sparklism hey! 08:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. What do we do about ratings for singles? Shouldn't there be a template for that, or a subfeature of this one? Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{singles}}
. So far, I'm tediously creating a manual table like
here and it's a drag.—
Smuckola
(talk)
19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
May I propose adding a field for this in the template? It's stupid to have an aggregate option only for Metacritic and have the table render it under the subheading "Aggregate scores" when there's really no need for the plural, or for overemphasizing one particular aggregate when it's usually written out in the first few sentences of the sections these templates are usually placed in. Dan56 ( talk) 02:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
|ADM=
parameter for
AnyDecentMusic?, and I've also added support for generic aggregate names with the parameter names I suggested above. You can test it out by using {{
album ratings/sandbox}}. One thing I was wondering - what order should the aggregation services appear in? At the moment it's Metacritic first, followed by AnyDecentMusic, followed by whatever is specified manually. Should this be changed to alphabetical order? Or is there some other order that would be more appropriate? —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
04:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Dan56: I've put the aggregation services in alphabetical order, and I've changed the parameter names slightly to make them more like the rev parameters. Now you can specify the name with |aggregate1=
and the score with |aggregate1score=
, and that continues with |aggregate2=
, |aggregate2score=
, etc. Let me know if this looks OK, and I'll update the main module. Best —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
05:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts turned Dan56's original proposal into an RfC in this edit; I have moved it to a new subsection to make the flow of discussion clearer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
|ADM=score
parameter, it's also possible to add it by using |aggregate1=[[AnyDecentMusic?]]
and |aggregate1score=score
. (You can also add any other review aggregator in this manner.) If it's clear that there's only a consensus to ever add Metacritic, then both of these methods should probably be removed. If there's any chance that aggregators other than Metacritic could be used in articles, though, then I think that at least the |aggregaten=
parameters should be retained. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
|MC=score
parameter extensively on album articles and I've found it to be really useful. Personally, I think ADM is fine to include in the same way. But do we really need aggregator-specific parameters? Since, as
Mr. Stradivarius points out, it's now possible to add any aggregator score to that section of the template using the |aggregaten=
parameter, it could be argued that MC & ADM should just make use of this functionality and depreciate the existing |ADM=score
& |MC=score
parameters. The discussion then should be about which aggregators to include in the template (i.e. which are
reliable enough), and we would possibly need to update
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE to reflect this.
— sparklism
hey!
12:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)ADM's notability/reliability has been questioned by some editors, so I'll reiterate comments I made elsewhere:
ADM's methodology - @ SNUGGUMS:, their methodology is explained by the site's editors here:
"It's not a straight average, ie the total ratings divided by the number of reviews. We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews. So an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews, which seems right to us. And an album would need more than 30 8/10 reviews to get a straight ADM rating of 8.0 (although it could achieve that rating with a range of 10/10, 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 etc reviews)."
Metacritic's methodology - The site explains their average as a product of giving more weight to reviews published by critics/publications which MC editors deem more important than others ( "How We Create the Metascore Magic", Metacritic. Both perspectives--ADM's and MC's--seem equally valid, but also a significant factor in the averaged scores being different for a particular album handled by each site. Dan56 ( talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Sergecross73: Should we close this, because it seems that mostly everyone agreed AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the template with Metacritic. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Video game reviews#CSS small font size for a discussion on increasing the template's font size for accessibility reasons. The albums template uses the same format and would likely require the same change. Not sure if there are any other similar templates, if you could help spread the word
czar
21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Can someone fix this, thanks. Hddty. ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this RfC at the Raw Power article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite Robert Christgau's reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the Village Voice in 1997. Dan56 ( talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What's with this edit? It doesn't look better this way. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 08:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This template seems well suited to other media. For example I am adding it to the page for the film Un uomo ritorna because I can't find anything similar for movies. Is there an existing generic template we should use instead, or is this the accepted template to use everywhere? Beth Holmes 1 ( talk) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Has the template suddenly gotten really big for anyone else? Lazz _R 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Boy (album)#RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? An RfC has been added that may be of interest to this group. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
We have to revisit this topic, because the editor Wioaw is re-adding these to various albums, and believes that no consensus is necessary to add them. I believed we had an understanding that such wording consisted original research on the part of Wikipedia editors, which is why they were removed in the first place, but please give your opinions on the subject. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well as fellow users on Wikipedia we should be aware of the fact that according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table on Wikipedia articles. As that's the case it's up to the various users of Wikipedia to gain consensus and discern how a particular review should be rated as either favorable or otherwise. As well if I'm not mistaken that'll be strange and very contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception in entirely removing favorable/unfavourable reviews of those albums from Wikipedia. Several reviews of albums/singles may rated either negative or positive by means of prose and this scenario shouldn't be a perplexing and troublesome issue to fully comprehend and understand for noted users on Wikipedia. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia. Wioaw ( talk) 19:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well User:Koavf that'll be within Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates where comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." Wioaw ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that non-rating language in the album reviews box "looks" bad. I've never added one. We have to put a little bit of onus on the reader to actually read the text of the article and to follow the reference links, if desired. I think that Richard3120 makes a good point about discerning whether a reviewer is actually declaring yea or nay--see Trouser Press as well (and not that the point of all music criticism is to declare yea or nay, anyway). If I had to commit, I would choose to exclude favorable and unfavorable. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 19:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well you should rather focus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception which would display the stipulated guidelines and procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia. Wioaw ( talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3AAlbum_ratings%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=955437440&oldid=953512252. What does everyone think of this change? Does this accurately represent our consensus and understanding of the proper use of this template? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well User:Koavf you should by now be cognizant of the fact that this discussion is being thoroughly rehashed. As such i'll again note with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." This statement is again self explanatory and easy to understand as it allows for and encourages the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums. As such an editor can go on to make alterations via consensus to reflect a review being according to prose either a positive, negative or indifferent one. Due to the fact that they are Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be again very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly. Wioaw ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well please bear in mind that instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources User:Sergecross73 Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception is much more through and comprehensive in the scenario of editing the critical reception section of album articles. With that being said I do agree that this would be a lengthy and extensive debate that'll lead to an identical outcome as has prior discussions upon the topic. Additionally User:Koavf I'll also like to point out that i've never used unfavourable in the template fields of the critical reception of an album's article. As that's the case Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception would again be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact once again that they're Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of album articles. Wioaw ( talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
What happened to the Album of the Year aggregator? Considering most articles have this, it seems to have disappeared.-- Majash2020 ( talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Related from 2015: /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Album_ratings/Archive_2#Alignment
Centering makes it harder to read and scan, because the eye has to hunt for the beginning of the next line, instead of returning to the same position every time. Readability should have priority over aesthetics in this case, imo. Example: /info/en/?search=All_Day_(Girl_Talk_album)#Critical_reception Jontajonta ( talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Album ratings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be useful to have Module:Check for unknown parameters here, since there are quite a lot of errors filled in (per this tool). I recently listed all the parameters used (from the module's code) in TemplateData section, and here's a list of every known parameter that should be listed in the module section:
ADM | MC | aggregate1 | aggregate1score | aggregate2 | aggregate2score | align | noprose | state | subtitle | title | width | rev1 | rev2 | rev3 | rev4 | rev5 | rev6 | rev7 | rev8 | rev9 | rev10 | rev11 | rev12 | rev13 | rev14 | rev15 | rev1score | rev2score | rev3score | rev4score | rev5score | rev6score | rev7score | rev8score | rev9score | rev10score | rev11score | rev12score | rev13score | rev14score | rev15score | rev1Score | rev2Score | rev3Score | rev4Score | rev5Score | rev6Score | rev7Score | rev8Score | rev9Score | rev10Score | rev11Score | rev12Score | rev13Score | rev14Score | rev15Score
Nuances:
|AOTY=
(album of the year), which was apparently added in February 2020 and
removed in November 2020 following
this discussion.
Primefac might be willing to run their bot against the category, removing all instances of the ill-fated |AOTY=
parameter. That would leave roughly 150 articles in the category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)| aggregate1 = Album of the Year | aggregate1score = {value}
as it still aggregates professional critical reviews.
Solidest (
talk)
16:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the Manuel of Style for tables, all tables should "Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within them. Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features available." This means using the ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" markup. Yet this template seems to omit that... Can we please update the physical template so that it renders using the table formatting
— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Does the current template contain support for Any Decent Music?. So far as I can see, the only aggregate site supported is Metacritic.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Album ratings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Contents |
This template’s title
parameter should not be enclosed in a box (a spanning table row), but instead have a true table
caption markup (|+
). It’s more semantically correct and it looks better IMHHHO ;-)
—
Fitoschido
[shout
track] @ 2 May, 2014; 03:56
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Has this been discussed somewhere? If so, please link the discussion. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion underway at Talk:WikiProject Albums – here – regarding symbols appearing in this ratings box. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 07:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering why there isn't (and requesting that there be) a ratings template like this for other forms of media, in particular movies. I don't see why movies would be less eligible for a template like this than albums. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It might just be me, but I've noticed that this template is now producing output that is aligned to the left, where it used to be aligned centrally (on my browser, at least). Is this a new feature? Personally, I find the central alignment more aesthetically pleasing. Thanks — sparklism hey! 08:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. What do we do about ratings for singles? Shouldn't there be a template for that, or a subfeature of this one? Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{singles}}
. So far, I'm tediously creating a manual table like
here and it's a drag.—
Smuckola
(talk)
19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
May I propose adding a field for this in the template? It's stupid to have an aggregate option only for Metacritic and have the table render it under the subheading "Aggregate scores" when there's really no need for the plural, or for overemphasizing one particular aggregate when it's usually written out in the first few sentences of the sections these templates are usually placed in. Dan56 ( talk) 02:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
|ADM=
parameter for
AnyDecentMusic?, and I've also added support for generic aggregate names with the parameter names I suggested above. You can test it out by using {{
album ratings/sandbox}}. One thing I was wondering - what order should the aggregation services appear in? At the moment it's Metacritic first, followed by AnyDecentMusic, followed by whatever is specified manually. Should this be changed to alphabetical order? Or is there some other order that would be more appropriate? —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
04:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Dan56: I've put the aggregation services in alphabetical order, and I've changed the parameter names slightly to make them more like the rev parameters. Now you can specify the name with |aggregate1=
and the score with |aggregate1score=
, and that continues with |aggregate2=
, |aggregate2score=
, etc. Let me know if this looks OK, and I'll update the main module. Best —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
05:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts turned Dan56's original proposal into an RfC in this edit; I have moved it to a new subsection to make the flow of discussion clearer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
|ADM=score
parameter, it's also possible to add it by using |aggregate1=[[AnyDecentMusic?]]
and |aggregate1score=score
. (You can also add any other review aggregator in this manner.) If it's clear that there's only a consensus to ever add Metacritic, then both of these methods should probably be removed. If there's any chance that aggregators other than Metacritic could be used in articles, though, then I think that at least the |aggregaten=
parameters should be retained. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
|MC=score
parameter extensively on album articles and I've found it to be really useful. Personally, I think ADM is fine to include in the same way. But do we really need aggregator-specific parameters? Since, as
Mr. Stradivarius points out, it's now possible to add any aggregator score to that section of the template using the |aggregaten=
parameter, it could be argued that MC & ADM should just make use of this functionality and depreciate the existing |ADM=score
& |MC=score
parameters. The discussion then should be about which aggregators to include in the template (i.e. which are
reliable enough), and we would possibly need to update
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE to reflect this.
— sparklism
hey!
12:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)ADM's notability/reliability has been questioned by some editors, so I'll reiterate comments I made elsewhere:
ADM's methodology - @ SNUGGUMS:, their methodology is explained by the site's editors here:
"It's not a straight average, ie the total ratings divided by the number of reviews. We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews. So an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews, which seems right to us. And an album would need more than 30 8/10 reviews to get a straight ADM rating of 8.0 (although it could achieve that rating with a range of 10/10, 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 etc reviews)."
Metacritic's methodology - The site explains their average as a product of giving more weight to reviews published by critics/publications which MC editors deem more important than others ( "How We Create the Metascore Magic", Metacritic. Both perspectives--ADM's and MC's--seem equally valid, but also a significant factor in the averaged scores being different for a particular album handled by each site. Dan56 ( talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Sergecross73: Should we close this, because it seems that mostly everyone agreed AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the template with Metacritic. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Video game reviews#CSS small font size for a discussion on increasing the template's font size for accessibility reasons. The albums template uses the same format and would likely require the same change. Not sure if there are any other similar templates, if you could help spread the word
czar
21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Can someone fix this, thanks. Hddty. ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this RfC at the Raw Power article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite Robert Christgau's reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the Village Voice in 1997. Dan56 ( talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What's with this edit? It doesn't look better this way. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 08:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This template seems well suited to other media. For example I am adding it to the page for the film Un uomo ritorna because I can't find anything similar for movies. Is there an existing generic template we should use instead, or is this the accepted template to use everywhere? Beth Holmes 1 ( talk) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Has the template suddenly gotten really big for anyone else? Lazz _R 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Boy (album)#RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? An RfC has been added that may be of interest to this group. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
We have to revisit this topic, because the editor Wioaw is re-adding these to various albums, and believes that no consensus is necessary to add them. I believed we had an understanding that such wording consisted original research on the part of Wikipedia editors, which is why they were removed in the first place, but please give your opinions on the subject. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well as fellow users on Wikipedia we should be aware of the fact that according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table on Wikipedia articles. As that's the case it's up to the various users of Wikipedia to gain consensus and discern how a particular review should be rated as either favorable or otherwise. As well if I'm not mistaken that'll be strange and very contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception in entirely removing favorable/unfavourable reviews of those albums from Wikipedia. Several reviews of albums/singles may rated either negative or positive by means of prose and this scenario shouldn't be a perplexing and troublesome issue to fully comprehend and understand for noted users on Wikipedia. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia. Wioaw ( talk) 19:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well User:Koavf that'll be within Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates where comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." Wioaw ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that non-rating language in the album reviews box "looks" bad. I've never added one. We have to put a little bit of onus on the reader to actually read the text of the article and to follow the reference links, if desired. I think that Richard3120 makes a good point about discerning whether a reviewer is actually declaring yea or nay--see Trouser Press as well (and not that the point of all music criticism is to declare yea or nay, anyway). If I had to commit, I would choose to exclude favorable and unfavorable. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 19:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well you should rather focus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception which would display the stipulated guidelines and procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia. Wioaw ( talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3AAlbum_ratings%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=955437440&oldid=953512252. What does everyone think of this change? Does this accurately represent our consensus and understanding of the proper use of this template? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well User:Koavf you should by now be cognizant of the fact that this discussion is being thoroughly rehashed. As such i'll again note with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." This statement is again self explanatory and easy to understand as it allows for and encourages the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums. As such an editor can go on to make alterations via consensus to reflect a review being according to prose either a positive, negative or indifferent one. Due to the fact that they are Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be again very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly. Wioaw ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well please bear in mind that instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources User:Sergecross73 Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception is much more through and comprehensive in the scenario of editing the critical reception section of album articles. With that being said I do agree that this would be a lengthy and extensive debate that'll lead to an identical outcome as has prior discussions upon the topic. Additionally User:Koavf I'll also like to point out that i've never used unfavourable in the template fields of the critical reception of an album's article. As that's the case Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception would again be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact once again that they're Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of album articles. Wioaw ( talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
What happened to the Album of the Year aggregator? Considering most articles have this, it seems to have disappeared.-- Majash2020 ( talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Related from 2015: /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Album_ratings/Archive_2#Alignment
Centering makes it harder to read and scan, because the eye has to hunt for the beginning of the next line, instead of returning to the same position every time. Readability should have priority over aesthetics in this case, imo. Example: /info/en/?search=All_Day_(Girl_Talk_album)#Critical_reception Jontajonta ( talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Album ratings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be useful to have Module:Check for unknown parameters here, since there are quite a lot of errors filled in (per this tool). I recently listed all the parameters used (from the module's code) in TemplateData section, and here's a list of every known parameter that should be listed in the module section:
ADM | MC | aggregate1 | aggregate1score | aggregate2 | aggregate2score | align | noprose | state | subtitle | title | width | rev1 | rev2 | rev3 | rev4 | rev5 | rev6 | rev7 | rev8 | rev9 | rev10 | rev11 | rev12 | rev13 | rev14 | rev15 | rev1score | rev2score | rev3score | rev4score | rev5score | rev6score | rev7score | rev8score | rev9score | rev10score | rev11score | rev12score | rev13score | rev14score | rev15score | rev1Score | rev2Score | rev3Score | rev4Score | rev5Score | rev6Score | rev7Score | rev8Score | rev9Score | rev10Score | rev11Score | rev12Score | rev13Score | rev14Score | rev15Score
Nuances:
|AOTY=
(album of the year), which was apparently added in February 2020 and
removed in November 2020 following
this discussion.
Primefac might be willing to run their bot against the category, removing all instances of the ill-fated |AOTY=
parameter. That would leave roughly 150 articles in the category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)| aggregate1 = Album of the Year | aggregate1score = {value}
as it still aggregates professional critical reviews.
Solidest (
talk)
16:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)