Template talk:Music ratings/Archive 1

Template section headings
If this template is going to have two separate sections, one for reviews and one for awards, there should be a separate heading for each section and an overall heading for the template. For example, Reception could be the overall heading, while Professional ratings could be the first subheading and Awards could be the second. The reason I'm proposing a change is that right now the template looks awkward, with the first section's heading being smaller and a different color than the second's. Tim  meh  03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the template: Aggregate Scores
I'd like to propose adding some syntax/fields to the template so that it allows it to display aggregate scores, basically a la Template:VG reviews. This would be useful to chronicle aggregate scores from MetaCritic, for example, in the same table-specific form as individual reviews are currently. Obviously, this shouldn't preclude the mention of such aggregate scores in the prose, but only to add them to the more objective, data-based presentation of the template. Drewcifer (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Aggregate scores are useful, and we can't just put them in the same list as the individual review scores, which would be misleading. Creating a separate subsection of the template for aggregate scores would be a good idea. Tim  meh  21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, also. And done. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably not aware of this, but it appears to me that use of aggregate review sites like Metacritic are currently discouraged by WP:ALBUM. Check out the last paragraph here. Personally, I am not against it, but I believe that it should at least be discussed at WT:ALBUM. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of Metacritic was allowed on that page, until it was accidentally removed in an undo edit. Gary King  ( talk ) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you be so sure that it was accidentally removed? Presumably someone would have noticed and fixed it. – Ib Leo (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go to the previous diffs from that one, you see that the person was trying to undo an edit that they just made, which they successfully undid, but for some reason also removed Metacritic. Presumably someone would have noticed and fixed it, but I've seen plenty of edits that go unnoticed all the time, especially vandalism in popular articles, so I'm skeptical. Also, there is no indication of its removal in the edit summary, so unless you're looking for that specific paragraph, then you won't be missing it. Gary King  ( talk ) 07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * True enough. I went through the archives of WT:ALBUM and couldn't find any discussion that mentions explicitly an exclusion of Metacritic scores. As I mentioned above I don't have any personal problem with this, so I will let the doubt stand in your favor. Cheers. – Ib Leo (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Isnt it enough to include the Metacritic information in the prose, as it is in the opening of most album articles' reception sections? The title "aggregate scores" might as well be "Metacritic score", since there arent anyother music aggregator sites included on Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fighting words!
The documentation starts out with a warning about intricate syntax and then a few warnings about not using the template properly. While the points are important, they shouldn't be the first content in the docs. An introduction makes more sense: let's describe what the template is for, and follow that with things to avoid. The docs currently read as if they were written at the end of a long argument and the first thing described is the points of contention... — John Cardinal (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I am not suggesting that we move or remove the Intricate warning. That's pretty common and I think readers recognize that the real content starts below such warnings. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Narrow Column for Citations parameter?
Can there be an optional parameter to include a narrow column for the citations? This would keep the ratings free from citation-clutter. I also think the non-starred ratings, like B+ and Christgau images, wouldn't require parentheses around them, which help "push" the citations away. For example: B+ as opposed to (B+)[1]  – Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  07:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been seeing more and more articles (including just now, the FA for Janet Jackson's Control) where a space is added between the rating and the citation. That I think is a great way to ease the clutter a bit. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think your proposal makes good sense. But I need to advice you to bring it up over at WT:ALBUM which is the governing project for the use of this template. It is quite new so I fear that very few people are watching it. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rating limit
10 review max is accepted or atleast known to editors of album articles. Can it be noted somewhere on the template page or should the template example at the bottom be showing 10 instead of 12? Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The consensus that formed at WT:ALBUMS was that the physical limit in the template should be kept at 12 until DASHbot is finished with moving all the reviews. Until then, we still have the guideline in place at WP:ALBUMS. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable reviews
Does Wikipedia have a list of websites which are notable enough to be mentioned as part of the "Critical reception" section? &mdash;C Teng(talk) 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes we do. Please read WikiProject_Albums and especially the subpage WikiProject Albums/Review sites. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses
From the current doc page: "Numerical ratings, letter grades and other non-symbol ratings should be shown using plain text in parentheses, like (3.5/10), (B) or (90%)." What's the reasoning behind this? Now, unlike when the review links used to be included in the album infobox, the ratings appear in their own cells in a table. The use of parentheses here seems unnecessary to me; I think they should only be used in cases where it's not an actual rating but a description of the overall tone of the review (e.g. "(favourable)"). –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a practice that's been around for a while, I believe. It was only recently added to the docs, but it's been in use for a long time. It's probably to separate the ratings from other text in the same cell; for instance, in Infoboxes, ratings are followed by "link", and so the parentheses separates the ratings. In Template:Album ratings, I've seen text in the same cell such as when the review was made ("January 2010"), etc. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now of course I can't find the original place I read it, but you're not supposed to use the "link" term, you're supposed to cite each rating with an actual reference. Album ratings does state, "This means a properly formatted footnote..." and "Do not use an embedded link with no information" (with "link" given as an example). Finally, I agree with, I only use the parentheses for "(favorable)" or "(mixed)" because these are not the official ratings, they are a one-word summary of the overall tone of the review. 3/5 or 6.8/10, I leave these in their cell as-is. The parentheses are simply too "busy" and cluttering and completely unnecessary in the tabled template. In the days when reviews were included in the infobox, the parentheses helped to separate the score somewhat. The star ratings simply stood out on their own. As an aside, I still think the template should add a "references" or "refs" column, but in the meantime, I separate the citations from the score with a single space. I find this makes the ratings extremely perusable and easy to read. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For "link" I'm talking about Template:Infobox album. Gary King  ( talk ) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Numerical ratings
The instruction says that the format employed by the review source should be used for the score parameter and that makes sense when using phrases like "favorable" or letter ratings like C. I find it, however, annoying and confusing to switch between stars and numerical formats like (4/5). Not only is this confusing to the general editor but it is confusing to view such templates, be they the ratings box or a list of ratings in the album or single infoboxes. The argument used in the documentation is "to accurately portray the score of the review", so I wonder what is inaccurate in using only the star template? We really should not differ between stars and numerical ratings because all they represent in the end are just mathematical fractions. And from point of view, a star ratings template is more informative to the general reader than a number 7/10. People like to think in images and symbols, so I suggest we only use rating for numerical ratings (and of course for stars used in the source anyway). De728631 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
Adding a new review and having to rearrange the already present ratings can be a difficult and tedious task involving copying & pasting skills and/or the updating of up to 20 values by hand. And making a tiny mistake can hide the whole box. Is it at all possible for the template to automatically alphabetize the reviews? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Edit protected To allow for typos, please replace the following

BOVINEBOY 2008 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   12° 24' 15" NET   00:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating limits
I see that this template can hold 12 ratings at most. Can anyone please increase this limit up to 20? (I don't know how to do that).--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 05:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This limitation is linked to the current guidelines over at WP:ALBUM: "Include no more than ten reviews in table form." Therefore, such a request should be brought up over there. If you check the talk page archives of the project you will see that it has been discussed more than once in the past. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Align left
What do folks think about adding the possibilty to align the box on the left? For shorter articles this would minimize white space that occurs when it ends up right under the infobox. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency on Citations versus Links and parentheses around scores
According to the Album ratings page, it says to use the citation instead of the [some_url.html link] format. I think that this is fair, but makes it necessary for the user to do 2 clicks to get to the cited website (one to get to the references and two to open the actual site). That's just a comment that I have.

Now to the questions.


 * 1) What if a page only has the reviews cited? Does it count as an "unreferenced" page or should it be counted as a "refimprove" page?
 * 2) What is the policy on the parentheses? On the Album ratings page, it has examples not using the Rating template, but rather are just "(B)". What are the consistency guidelines on "B" versus "(B)" and "favorable" versus "(favorable)". I think that the "Review" parameter of the Infobox album made it difficult to tell what the rating is, and thus warranted the use of the parentheses (i.e. "(B)"). However, I think that the Album ratings template has alleviated this concern and thus simply having "B" is fine and perhaps more appropriate.

Also, what about the use of the Rating template in regards to how many stars is appropriate? Obviously 5 stars is the most popular, but 10 gets a little hard to read. What are the guidelines? Rlholden (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings causing Template:Navbox musical artist to be minimized
I recently edited the Röyksopp single article Forsaken Cowboy by adding Template:Album ratings. A side effect was that the formally maximized Template:Navbox musical artist was then minimized. I then added "state = expanded" to Template:Röyksopp and it returned to being maximized. Is there some error in the template coding that causes it to effect other templates in the article? memphisto 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A workaround I found for this problem is to add "state=plain" to Template:Album ratings. Then even if Template:Navbox musical artist is set to "autocollapse", it won't collapse, unless there is another box with "autocollapse" on the page. —Bruce1eetalk 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Width
Please can the width of the Album ratings template be automatically made the same width as the Album infobox. Currently, all the examples I can find with both templates (eg 15 Again, Berth (album), 1+1 (Grin album)) have the ratings slightly narrower than the info-box, giving a messy appearance - it was much neater when the ratings were actually in the info-box. Neither template appears to have a width parameter, so I assume the widths are hard coded? Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to post the same thing. It would make a lot of sense for them to display at the same width, as on many articles they are concurrent and the minor difference in size is a little jarring. Seegoon (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, neither Infobox or Album ratings uses a fixed width. Instead, the width is determined by browser size and/or other factors, because both templates use ems. Infobox has a width setting of 22em and Album ratings uses 23em. Both templates appear to have the same width for me when I use the Vector skin. But I prefer Wikipedia using the Modern skin, and the Album rating template will seem narrower than the Infobox. I also tested this in my sandbox by changing the Album ratings width to 24em and this time the templates matched in reverse: in Modern, they matched, in Vector, they did not. How much this is affected by different browsers is beyond my willingness to spend time on it. So unless actual pixels are used to determine width, these templates will never be the same. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So - the articles would have a much more professional appearance if we revert back to putting the album ratings inside the info-box? What was the (supposed) benefit of making the ratings separate in the first place? It doesn't seem to have been thought through. Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Without doing any research, I assume the separation of the reviews was so that they could be included in a Critical reception section of an album article. In a lengthy or fuller article, the Critical reception section wouldn't really be near the infobox; the Album ratings template width wouldn't be compared to the infobox width because the two wouldn't be near each other. In shorter articles and stubs, the two templates may be bumping up to each other and this could be what's causing the complaints. I would rather keep album ratings separate from the infobox and kept in its own section. But if the article doesn't warrant the separation, then why shouldn't the reviews just stay in the infobox? I don't think I have a strong opinion either way. I do find this template to be a pain to use, since editors adding or removing reviews requires renumbering the entire list of reviews again. Not sure if there's a better way of managing this. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) The width of the Album Ratings template varies depending on the browser and the skin. But it seems that a width of 24.2em makes it look the same width as the infobox for most readers. I propose that this be made the default width. (2) I also propose that "state=plain" be made the default. For general usage the "hide" and "show" thing is an unnecessary complication, and it makes the template look a bit less tidy, although keeping the parameter as an option might be a good idea. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I second that "state=plain" be made the default. As a current side effect of this template is to cause Template:Navbox musical artist to be minimized. memphisto 12:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the default width to 24.2em as per the above discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This appears to have worked for me, at least. Seegoon (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

noprose variable
I added a noprose variable to the version ratings/sandbox currently at the sandbox which in essence replaces Album ratings prose without requiring creation of an empty Reception section. Any objections? --Muhandes (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fantastic, much more tidy than the alternative. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Of the 20 or so albums I've so far migrated to the Album reviews template, only one has had a section of prose... Adding this seems like a fine way to catalogue all of these articles without any extra effort.  Nik the  stoned  15:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I added Muhandes's code, updated the template document, and updated WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space to reflect the new parameter . – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed from the project drive page without further consensus (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums), though the actual optional parameter within the template is still a good idea as an alternative to creating empty Reception sections. But since the drive is to move reviews out of the infobox and since most articles will never be expanded at any rate, there's no immediate need to use the parameter. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment re: migration to Album ratings template
The centralized discussion on the manual migration of reviews out of the infobox can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Please direct all comments there to avoid fragmented discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is annoying as hell. When I am reading about a new artist I find it convenient to look at the album reviews along the side of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.61.65 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree:-


 * The entire idea is wrong, and seems to have been discussed by a select few, in an obscure corner, rather than the large number of editors of music articles.
 * The reviews template hasn't been thought through either, it isn't the same width as the infobox and has also generated objections (see Template talk:Album ratings)
 * This discussion is taking place in several places at once eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space diluting the intensity of feeling
 * The box with the warning triangle and "The reviews parameter has been deprecated. ...." is extemely ugly, annoying and unneccessary

Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now other editors are aware of this, the reaction on several talk pages is clearly entirely against. PLEASE STOP THIS NOW - and yes, I am shouting, but politely.

The best default would be "state=plain"
I propose that "state=plain" be made the default for this template. I believe that "state=collapsible" is the current default, so the "show" and "hide" option is displayed. For general usage, "show" and "hide" is an unnecessary complication, I think. With "state=plain", the template looks nice and tidy (like it does here). There was already some discussion of this idea in another thread on this talk page, here and here. For more information about the "state" parameter, see the template documentation. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove entirely — Remove the state options entirely. Although I support the state=plain, the collapse option is a relic from Video game reviews. I glanced at the Video game reviews documentation (granted, I did not read it all the way through) and it appears there is no limit to the number of reviews, and that template can get, as seen in the documentation example, extremely large. The collapse function would be a fine option for Video game reviews, but for Album ratings, it's not necessary in the slightest. The limit is a maximum of ten reviews (allowable by music guidelines, not actual template restrictions). Filled with ten reviews, Album ratings does not turn into an ersatz infobox; it is not massive in size, nor do I see any reason why anyone would want to collapse it. In addition, it effectively supplements any good Reception section (that contains prose, of course). I therefore !vote that the entire option be removed and that the effect of "state=plain" be not just the default, but the norm. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me. — Mudwater (Talk) 04:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove entirely - I always wondered why the collapse option existed in this template, thanks for the explanation. Per "state=plain", as I noted above - a current side effect of this template is to cause Template:Navbox musical artist to be minimized. memphisto 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I think this really makes a lot of sense, and the small number of editors who have commented are all in agreement, I've gone ahead and removed the "state" option entirely. I'll update the template documentation now to reflect this. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, looks nice and clean without that [hide] thing as well. I sorta did a quick test to see if it really did affect the collapsing of other templates and it didn't seem to work, so that's beyond my brain capacity at the moment. But thanks for taking care of this. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 13:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was being bugged by this issue because it was forcing navboxes to be collapsed by default. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This should not have been removed. When this template was created, there were editors arguing that the ratings should not only be moved from the infobox, but completely removed from the article, given that undue emphasis was given to the bright stars, attracting attention away from a well-written reception section.  Having the option to have it collapsed by default in a particular article gives editors an option to still include a template that can give an overall visual summary of the reception, should the reader desire, but without detracting from the meat of the information in the prose.  This functionality should not be removed from the template altogether, though I support a default state that removes the collapse links if the parameter is unused. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that line of reasoning. Most editors think that having the star / grade / number ratings in the articles is appropriate, so they should be included in the articles, with exceptions agreed upon on an article by article basis.  To me the idea of allowing someone to hide the ratings because they don't like them seems a bit silly.  And as a second point, some editors were saying earlier in this section that with the state parameter being in the template, it was causing navboxes to be collapsed by default, which they didn't like.  So, I'm in favor of leaving state out of the template.  With that being said, the most important thing is to have state=plain be the default.  If the majority of editors wanted to be able to override the state, I could live with that, as long as the default was still state=plain. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If state is set to plain, it doesn't mess with navboxes, so I don't mind keeping it. I think it is probably good to include the parameter (although I wouldn't anticipate ever using it myself, it provides an option for article-by-article use). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of ratings in template
When the reviews were in Template:Infobox album you were limited to listing 10 reviews. However, the sample template and supporting text here offer 12 reviews. While some of the most important albums may probably justify more, I think that most albums can get by with 10 reviews! And the template should reflect this. memphisto 14:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think it's our business to set a limit. It should be worked out on an article-by-article basis. Most less-notable albums are probably going to have fewer than 10 ratings anyway, while most highly notable ones are probably going to have more, with many of those coming from highly-notable sources. There's no number we can come up with here that is going to work for all articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting a limit on the number of reviews, just reducing the number of reviews in the sample template. memphisto 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * From your above comment, I thought you were suggesting limiting the template itself to support only 10. I agree that the example usage doesn't need to show a ton; it really only needs a few to provide an example. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say was that if you give people space for 12 reviews, then you may get 12 reviews (and few albums deserve that many/it's very hard to find that many GOOD reviews). I was suggesting a 10 review example in the template, but as you mention it could be even fewer. memphisto 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you talk about the example in the template, you're referring to the template code, with no values filled in, in the Usage section, right? That has room for 12 reviews because, the way the template is currently set up, it will display a maximum of 12.  This is also mentioned higher up in the doc, where it talks about rev# and rev#Score.  — Mudwater (Talk) 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise that this template was limited to 12 reviews. Strange that Template:Infobox album was limited to 10 reviews while its replacement template allows for more. memphisto 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are two different kinds of limits. The way the album ratings template is coded, a maximum of 12 ratings will be displayed.  It would be possible however to make this limit larger or smaller by changing the template itself.  With the ratings in the infobox, the limit of 10 is a guideline, but there's no limit to how many would actually be displayed there. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization with noprose
Would it be possible to make the  parameter take a month/year combo (e.g., "June 2011") and categorize it into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose based on the month? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To serve what purpose? --Muhandes (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To help editors know which articles need sections turned into prose. It's a maintenance category; most maintenance templates place the article into a corresponding category in order to facilitate organized improvement efforts, in the same way that Category:Infobox album with reviews is helping us with the current drive. It's a good idea. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The noprose parameter already categorizes into Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose. The request was to subcategorize based on month. My question was to what end? In exactly the same way where Category:Infobox album with reviews is not subcategorized by month. --Muhandes (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I actually agree it needs its own category, it now categorizes into Category:Articles with album ratings that need to be turned into prose. But why by month? --Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Chronological subcategorization serves to (A) break down large maintenance categories into more navigable sub-categories, and (B) facilitate organized improvement efforts, as many editors like to start with the articles that have been marked as needing work the longest. By-month subcategorization is the WP standard, AFAIK. Category:Infobox album with reviews is a different animal: it's populated solely by the presence of  within Infobox album rather than by a maintenance template, so it's not possible to break it down by date. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that it more than double the text required from "|noprose=yes" to "|noprose=yes|month=June|Year=2011". For something which is going to be done manually, unlike section tags which are dated by bots, it's much work. If a bot is going to be set to add the dates, I remove my objection. --Muhandes (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This parameter should not be intended for bots. See the consensus emerging at WT:ALBUM and WP:BOTREQ.  Adding 52000 pages to a maintenance category does not serve any good.  In my opinion, the message should be mostly just be used in the case of a specific article or group of articles undergoing an actual drive for expansion and improvement. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course a bot cannot make the decision to add the parameter - it requires a human observation that a reception section should be written. In some cases there isn't even a review behind the rating. What I said was "If a bot is going to be set to add the dates". --Muhandes (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) If it has its own separate category now, I'm fine with that. I'm actually not a fan of the monthly categories myself, but they do seem to be the standard. And anyway, I had been thinking not using "|noprose=yes|month=June|Year=2011" but "|noprose=June 2011". Doesn't really matter to me if/how this gets implemented, I just thought it would help make it consistent with other cleanup tags. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not so bad, but I would still prefer to avoid the hassle, unless someone thinks it's critical and can assign a bot for it. --Muhandes (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Section name instructions lacking
This template does not provide (that I can see) a recommendation for what section to place it. Does it not matter? I assume if there was a section on reviews it should certainly go there. What if that section does not yet exist? Maybe we can add if a reviews or reception type section does not already exist the editor should not add one simply to add this template. Rather they can use the new parameter noprose = yes instead and then place this template in the article approximately where it would go if that section did exist. Or we can recommend they add a section title in a comment   until prose for that section is actually created. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no reception section, past use indicates that it goes immediately after the infobox (and can then be moved once a reception section is present), with the noprose parameter set. If there is a "Reception" or "Critical reception" section, it goes right below the headline for that section. Feel free to add something to that effect to the documentation; I'm not personally sure if it is really needed, but it wouldn't hurt. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% agree - this seems to be the practice. --Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've further updated the documentation to indicate that setting the noprose parameter, when there is no Reception section, is optional. See the discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, where some editors, such as myself, expressed their opinions that the parameter should be used sparingly. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Increased number of ratings in template and discussion of summarizing reviews with one word
I have reverted User:Drilnoth's edit to this template which supported up to 14 reviews instead of 12 (because of issues with the "album bot" finding infoboxes with more than 12 reviews). When reviews were supported in Template:Infobox album, it was recommended that the number of reviews be restricted to 10 - and no doubt the 12 review limit here in Template:Album ratings was arrived at after some debate. memphisto 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having a limit of 10 as a guideline for humans seems reasonable to me, but with a cap of 12 there are a (small) number of cases where the bot is effectively removing information because of the large number of reviews; it sets  and , but since they aren't displayed the info is effectively lost until a human editor is editing the article happens to note the extra ratings. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that there should be no imposed limit on our end. How many ratings an article carries will of course depend on how many are available (for most albums I can't imagine it's more than a dozen), and how may is too many and which to trim down will depend on the caliber of the sources. It's really something that has to be hashed out on an article-by-article basis, and the likelihood of most article having more than a dozen or so in the first place is, I imagine, pretty small. The limit of 10 for the infobox was, I believe, to avoid making the infobox look bloated with reviews. With the ratings moved out of the infobox, that's no longer a problem. Having them alongside prose about the album's reception, I really don't see a need to impose a one-size-fits-all limitation anymore: The ratings box should contain enough ratings as necessary to supplement/complement the prose, and finding that balance is matter of vigorous writing and editing for conciseness. Imposing a hard limit from the template end really isn't in anyone's best interest. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the album that caused this issue The Messenger (Matt Joe Gow and the Dead Leaves album). As usual, it seems like a fan wanted to link to every possible review of the album rather than provide a useful cross-section of professional reviews. memphisto 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the 5 that say "favourable" should be removed, since this is a ratings template, not a reviews template, and those reviewers obviously didn't use ratings. This is yet another advantage to having the ratings next the contextualizing prose: We don't have to try to boil down critics' opinions to a single word anymore; we can simply write about what they said, provide a quote or 2, and let the source speak for itself. The remaining 7 wouldn't seem excessive if someone were to write a couple of prose paragraphs. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, non-numbered entries are not to be deleted because they're not a "rating". The template documentation does explicitely include statements like "favourable": "If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review... ." De728631 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO that's a stupid practice and always has been, and that instruction should be changed. If a review does not include a rating, why are we putting it in a list of ratings? It just forces editors to try to boil down what are usually complex and nuanced opinions to a single word :"favorable / unfavorable / mixed". It's just...stupid. This is a list of ratings: items that are not ratings do not belong. That is not to say that the review may not be used in the article: you simply discuss it in prose and summarize the reviewer's main points or provide quotes. But a review that does not include a rating has no place in a ratings box. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Agree with IllaZilla on both points, with the ratings out of the infobox there is no need for a hard limit. I agree even stronger with the second point, the template is for ratings, calling a review favorable is nothing more than original research. J04n(talk page) 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed that we shouldn't be using (favorable) and its kin, but I think that the bot as it is going through moving the reviews should leave it as-is, and a human editor can touch it up in the future. Certainly, we shouldn't be recommending that as an option. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's too nuanced of a problem for a bot, it's going to have to be done manually and there's no rush, especially on underdeveloped articles. But we should change the instructions to exclude reviews that don't use ratings, and instruct editors to remove the old "favorable / unfavorable" junk. I also think we should add support for more than 10 ratings, as discussed above. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then what's the point of even having this template? Is it for representing an album's critical reception or something else, b/c the more notable, professional reviewers like the NY times and Village Voice don't use ratings. If a review is explicit enough and not too "complex and nuanced" to describe as favorable or not, then it would be better for readers to see that than a template with significant reviews excluded. Metacritic boils it down to such terms, and its aggregate score can be included in the template. Wouldn't Christgau's ratings be nuanced as well to be just be boiled down to one of his letter grades, which are at a higher standard than other reviewers' letter grade ("B" indicates "dud" by Christgau; "grade inflation") Such reviews should be included if possible. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is the earliest version of the template when it was still called "album reviews" (see move history). And from the beginning it has included the review option in a non-numerical form. Analyzing whether a review is positive or negative is not at all original research (e.g. see WP:NOTOR: "Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research... Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources."). And the docu has also the appropriate hint for dubious cases: if you cannot summarize the review, don't include it in the template. So I see no problem with keeping the (favourable) scores. What exactly is the purpose of this box if it only collects stars/numbers instead of summing up all relevant reviews in the article? De728631 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) The point of this template is to allow readers to, at a glance, see how well an article was recieved by using ratings. Reviews without ratings go in the article prose. Especially, keep in mind that many reviews may praise an album but be critical of it in some areas; calling such a review "favorable" would probably be original research. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Same can be said about reviewers that give a particular grade. For example, Entertainment Weekly; this review of Beyonce's 4 album (B grade) is more critical of the album than the review of Turtleneck & Chain by Loneley Island (also "B"). It will be more misleading without those "(un)favorable" reviews than with, if its about the readers' "glance" at how well an album was received. Dan56 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Honestly, if this template is only meant for ratings then it shouldn't be used at all. Ratings are just one side of the story and you can easily have two sources with high rating scores but five professional text-based reviews that slam the album. In such cases showing only the ratings in a eye-catching summary box would be either NPOV or unencyclopedic. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The overarching issue behind getting the reviews out of the infobox and into the article body is that critical reception is not something that can be represented at a glance. Many reviewers or publications choose to use ratings to give a score to whatever the subject is, but others don't choose to boil their critical opinions down to a rating or a one-word blurb, and it's really not our place as encyclopedia writers to do so. Summarizing a review in 1 word is not paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is taking what someone else said and then rephrasing it in your own words while maintaining the substance of the original statement. A single word cannot do this. Metacritic chooses to assign scores and colors and other rubric to reviews so that it can come up with an aggregate score, but Wikipedia is not Metacritic; our goal here is to give an overview of critical reception, not to boil all critical opinions down to scores and stars. You can't use the fact that Metacritic summarizes reviews as favorable/unfavorable to justify the same on Wikpedia: our goals are not the same as Metacritic's, and if we copy the favorable/unfavorable summations from Metacritic we are not in fact saying "x reviewer gave y film an unfavorable review", what we are saying is "Metacritic judged reviewer x's opinion of y film as unfavorable".


 * We recognize that ratings have some value to readers as a complement/supplement to the opinions given by critics, which is why we are displaying those ratings alongside the prose that contains quotes and paraphrases of the critics' opinions. However, summations such as "favorable/unfavorable" are not ratings, and it is not our place to impose ratings on sources that don't use them. Remember that's what this template is for: ratings, not reviews. Reviews belong in prose, where they can be quoted, paraphrased, and placed in context. If a review does not include a rating, it has no business in a ratings template. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought the overarching issue was to get the ratings out of the infobox, because the infobox should only contain factual and important summary information -- and to do this without losing the links to the reviews, which are reliable third party references that help establish notability, and which can be used as the basis for adding or expanding a prose critical reception section. That's why the Album ratings template was created, based on the Video game reviews template.  So, the current drive is to move the ratings and/or links to reviews from the infobox to the album ratings template, and, while we're at it, to change links to footnotes, without removing any of the reviews.  In my opinion, it's fine for the template to include reviews without star, number, or grade ratings, and I don't really care what the name of the template is.  Saying "favorable" or "unfavorable" is definitely not original research, it's summarizing and paraphrasing.  And if you don't like those words, saying "(not rated)" is a good alternative.  Of course, it's better for any article to have a prose reception section, and I would encourage other editors to expand and improve album articles by adding such a section.  And if an album article does have a prose reception section, with the reviews used as footnotes, then it's up to the editors of that particular article whether or not to retain the album ratings template, and which reviews to include in it. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember WP:PERFECTION. Ideally, we would like to have a well-written prose section detailing overall reception, giving summaries and examples of particular strengths and weaknesses, supplemented by a chart that accurately communicates an condensed 'at-a-glance' overview of the album's reception, but does not contradict or draw undue attention away from the paragraph.  Pages like this will be few and far between.  Worst case scenario is no information whatsoever. What we are mostly dealing with here is somewhere in between:  the information conveyed by a lone album ratings chart is far from perfect, but it is better than nothing at all. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mudwater, the drive to move ratings out of the infobox is the action; I'm talking about the reasoning behind the action. As you say, the infobox should only contain factual summary information. Why reviews/ratings do not fit this bill is that critical reception is nuanced information that cannot be adequately summarized in an at-a-glance way. Of course we don't want to lose any sources, and I'm not suggesting we do so. I'm saying that it's not appropriate for editors to boil some reviews down to one-word summations simply so they can list them in a pretty colored box alongside a bunch of star ratings. We should be telling editors that if a review doesn't include a rating, they should take it out of the ratings template and write prose about the review, and put the citations in the prose. No sources are lost, prose is added, and we avoid editors making their own judgments of critics' opinions simply for the sake of inclusion in a table. Ideally the prose paragraphs will be rich with summaries and examples, expressed through quotes and paraphrases of various critics' opinions. Of these critics, some choose to assign some sort of overall rating or grade to with their review, and those will be listed in the ratings template as a supplement to the prose. There's no valid reason I can see for taking sources that don't use ratings and trying to reduce them to a single word just for the sake of shoehorning them into a colored box alongside sources that do use ratings. It simply doesn't need to be done. For the purposes of the current drive, moving the reviews/ratings from the infobox into the ratings template in whatever form they currently appear is fine; This is a "quick and dirty" way to get the job done, and it's working. But the template documentation should reflect our end goal: well-written prose sections on critical reception, complemented by a table that displays the ratings assigned to the album by the sources that chose to give ratings. With this as our ultimate goal, I don't see why we would continue (beyond the current drive) to encourage editors to shoehorn unrated reviews into a list of ratings. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if critical reception is nuanced information that cannot be adequately summarized in an at-a-glance way (your own words) then let's do away with this entire template because ratings are also an insufficient way of summing up critical response. 3 stars out of five or 85/100 points are just another way to boil down information, only it's done by the critics. But by your own standards such a procedure is inadequate and we mustn't use it. So either we include reviews and ratings for the sake of consistency and neutrality or we just have a text section without any supplemental ratings/review box. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ratings are, by their nature, at-a-glance summations. Some sources use them, some don't. Stating the rating that a source gave and citing it is completely neutral (since it is the sources themselves that gave the ratings) and merely a presentation of straight factual data, like listing chart positions. Taking a review that does not have a rating, and boiling it it down to a single word for the sake of putting it in a box, is not neutral (since we are imposing a ratings system on sources that do not themselves use ratings) nor is it a presentation of factual data (since "favorable/unfavorable/mixed" represent editors' interpretations of the source material rather than straight repetition of simple factual data like a numerical or star rating). Tables are good for presenting simple, factual data, but not good for interpretations and nuance. Hence why this is a template for ratings and not necessarily for reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would agree with IllaZilla that boiling a whole review to one word is pretty POV in my opinion. Having a summary detailing the highs and lows of a reviewed item is fine, but just that one word in the template box really stands out. I think we can do without it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not POV, but simplification, which is the point of this template ("at-a-glance summations"?). For example, when a reviewer (no rating) introduces his review of an album with "A graceful album transports the sweet soul sounds of the past into the '90s", saying that is a favorable review is fact. Not just one way of looking at it, but the only way. It's as much POV as when having "gave a positive review" in prose, like in this article Telephone (song). Suppose an album received positive reviews from most critics, but mostly from publications that do not use ratings. The template allowing only grades/stars may not show that. In many cases, this template may be less useful. WikiProject_Albums/Article_body says "When choosing which reviews to include (in the template), consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view". Yes, the template is called "Template:Album ratings". But a template exclusive to ratings seems like trivia. As De728631 said, critics that use ratings are also boiling their reviews down with their ratings, and we should either include reviews and ratings for the sake of consistency and neutrality or just have prose without the template. Dan56 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Too many ratings/reviews from the same source?
Is there any consensus on whether too many rating entries from the same source is to be avoided in the table? In particular, Rolling Stone can have up to three possible reviews that can be included: 1) the original review made when the album was first released; 2) a hall of fame review made for albums that have achieved the arguable status of "classic"; and 3) the Rolling Stone Album Guide.  (And even sometimes a review of a re-release.)  This might be redundant if all the ratings are the same, but becomes more interesting if they are not.  Of course, many of the original reviews (at least prior to 1982 or thereabouts) don't have ratings but thats another discussion here :-).

Examples: Damn The Torpedoes and Let It Be.

-- J. Wong (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it's not a problem. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like to add reviews from such sources, particularly in the review template when there is limited review sources. They're all published by Rolling Stone, the Guide along with some book publisher, and the writers/reviewers in the Guide are all RS critics. Also, the Guide and some later reviews by RS are good for retrospective criticism, which is mentioned in WP:Albums#Reception. Dan56 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the limit (again)
Can I bring up the suggestion of increasing or removing the limit of 12 ratings again? The previous discussion didn't seem to reach a conclusion. --Monkeynutbar (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, please increase it, for the reasons I already listed above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I see no strong rationale for a technical limitation. Limitation by discussion/consensus on an article-by-article basis, but not project-wide limitation at the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So... Is it safe to assume there's no reason not to go ahead? --Monkeynutbar (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say so. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done that then. I also added a note to the doc about the guideline still being 10 reviews per album despite the increase. --Monkeynutbar (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm...take a look at Firefly (TV series). Was that supposed to happen? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem there was not due to the template, but to a closing  missing from one of the ratings. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the brackets around text ratings necessary?
Using brackets around text ratings (e.g., A, 9/10, etc.) seems inappropriate, as it appears to just operate as a border and doesn't mean the same thing as it does when used in ordinary text (like this), and the star ratings (e.g., ) don't have brackets around them, so why should the text ratings? LF (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't. Since the ratings are now displayed in their own individual cells within a table, the "brackets" (actually parentheses) do not separate them from any body text and are therefore entirely useless. I have no idea why you just re-added them to Rating-Christgau claiming it was "per policy". What policy? If you notice any ratings still in parentheses, that's probably because a bot is carry out the bulk of the moves from the infobox into the ratings template and is simply moving them in the format it finds them. Feel free to remove them on-sight. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I never liked those parenthesis. But they were actually recommended in the old review part of infobox album: . De728631 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Brackets" is another word for them. It's quite well-known. LF (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [These] and are brackets. (These) are parentheses. Either way I think we're in agreement that they're no longer needed. Obviously whatever instructions there used to be for the Reviews parameter of the infobox are irrelevant; the parameter's been deprecated for over 2 years and the instructions were removed from the documentation at that time. The ratings template has a different function and different layout, so its instructions are different. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this template really necessary if review prose is given?
I personally think the ratings critics have given an album is not significant enough to warrant its own template for inclusion on an article. It's interesting for music fans to view, sure, but I don't think it reflects mainstream interest and reeks a bit of fanboyism. I personally think prose is adequate, including for mentioning the rating a critic has given an album. What are other people's views on this? LF (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a longstanding tradition on WP of displaying the ratings a work received (albums & video games primarily). Both editors and readers seem to believe they add some value to discussion of critical reception. It would be tedious and repetitive to give all the ratings in prose ("reviewer a gave the album score b, while reviewer x gave it score y" and so on etc. etc.). The template provides a convenient place to display ratings outside of prose, but doesn't get in the way of prose at all. Not sure what you mean by "fanboyism"...generally critics' scores are a significant part of critical reception regardless of whether you're a "fanboy" or not (it's why websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic exist, and why reviewers give scores in the first place). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This templates serves as a quick overview for the prose section, much like an infobox does for the whole article. Therefore I think it is in fact very valuable and complements the prose. The template should however not replace any prose section as it is still doing in a lot of stubs. And as to fanboyism, we're supposed to report professional criticism anyway when writing articles on albums, not your average fanboy forum. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This template is also useful in highlighting the higher echelon publications/reviews, which also makes it unnecessary to mention the rating in prose, and consequently more room to include more of the critics' prose/quotes/criticism. Just more pros than cons to this template. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rm italics?
Perhaps the italics should be removed from the citations shown in the Template documentation? I though it was against MOS for citations. Dan56 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it? I italicize album and publication titles in citations all the time, just as I would in a sentence. According to A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, you're supposed to. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With what WP:MOS/Text formatting says, titles of articles, like a music review, shouldnt have italics. Titles that are quoted instead of italicized, like when the cited title is placed in quotes when cited with a citation template. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're misreading that. The title of the article being cited should be in quotes, but if the album title is part of the article's title, it should be italicized just as it would be anywhere else. For example, "U2 to Release No Line on the Horizon in 2009", not "U2 to Release No Line on the Horizon in 2009". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldnt that be a little excessive, especially in a WP:Albums article where most of the sources cited are those with articles titles that include the album title? Also, I haven't seen any GA or FA articles follow this kind of italicizing, which is probably something that would make me assume it's not the correct MOS. Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with IllaZilla's reading of the Manual Of Style. An article name should be in quotes, and an album title should be in italics -- even when the album title is embedded in the article name -- for example, "U2 to Release No Line on the Horizon in 2009".  There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that don't follow this convention, but some do, such as Vitalogy and Winter in America. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic rating only
If Allmusic only provides a rating with no review of an album, may I remove the ratings template from articles that reference the rating (or at least the listing for Allmusic within the template)? If there's no real review of the album, the rating seems pointless. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove them. The rating is not pointless, it is an actual album rating, even though it doesn't have a written review to go with it.  Edited To Add: Not only does it serve as a rating, but on many album articles it also helps establish notability. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But there's no context to go with the rating. You can't just say Allmusic gave the album 2½ stars. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you can. It's a star rating without a review.  It would be nice if Allmusic wrote a review that could be quoted, but sometimes that's not the case, and the star rating is definitely better than nothing.  And besides being a legitimate album rating, it also, in many articles, serves as a reference that helps establish the notability of the album, like I said before.  I'd be quite interested in other editors' opinions on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mudwater. A rating without written text is still better than nothing. It proves that professionals have been dealing with an album. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prove anything because we have no idea how the rating was derived. Some schlub at allmusic could just say this album should get 2 stars, this one should 3 stars ... the rating should be taken from professional reviews and that cannot be verified simply by a rating. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is that some schlub at allmusic is a reliable, verifiable source. People are fine with removing these shell ratings, but only if there are other more meaty reviews left behind.  It isn't worth completely removing the template, I don't think.  Having it there makes it easier for someone to come along and expand the article with better reviews and ratings. —Akrabbimtalk 02:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And that meets the requirement of "written professional reviews"? A rating is not a review. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that it does, or is. Neither is "written professional review" a "requirement" for the template.  That is why the template is called Album ratings, not Album reviews.  Just because it is only a rating doesn't mean that the quality of the album stub will improve by simply removing the template, and the only information given that gives any context whatsoever of the album's reception.  Call me an eventualist, but see WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:DEMOLISH (which is only partially relevant, but it's the same idea I'm trying to communicate. —Akrabbimtalk 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Professional ratings
Hello! Somewhere is a list of professional ratings for reviews albums or singles? For example Allmusic. Eurohunter (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At WikiProject Albums/Article body it says, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT." So that's the guideline to be followed, plus a helpful list of some of the more commonly used review sites.  — Mudwater (Talk) 16:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

noprose
I propose removing the addendum to the bottom of the ratings table when yes is used. This is to alert editors, not readers, so I think adding the category suffices. — Bility (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * fully agree. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion started three weeks ago and so far it's 6 to 0 in favor of removing the text and leaving the category for noprose=yes. I just changed the sandbox to do this. You can try it out by using Template:Album ratings/sandbox. In my opinion the template itself, and the template documentation, can be changed at any time. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I too would be in favor of this change. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I wish I'd thought to make this proposal. This is not a reader warning at all, purely editor nonsense. Get this ugliness out of there! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Removing the message will improve layout and yes, there's still the category for editors to pay attention to. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm sure the addendum was created by someone who dislikes this template! memphisto 12:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Bility (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've gone ahead and updated the documenation. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, so much better. Well done! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Format width
This template is screwing up the way music articles look in my browser. I think it's because the width of this template is wider than that of the musical artist infobox. Can someone please fix this? Morganfitzp (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine on mine. What browser are you using? Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. It happens in Safari but not in Firefox. In Safari the album ratings template comes up wider than the album infobox. The problem is also with the tracklist template getting pushed down below a big patch of empty white space. In Firefox, both templates come up as the same width and everything nests quite nicely. Safari for iPhone is the worst—these templates get totally butchered. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Various Wikipedia features can behave wildly differently between different browsers and platforms. It would be nigh-impossible to tailor the templates to behave the same between all browsers and all devices. At a certain point, if we've tried to make them behave more or less the same between the major browsers on desk/laptops, then we've done enough on our end and it becomes up to the folks in control of the browsers/devices to make fixes on their end. Of course I say this as someone with practically no technical expertise. FWIW, I have no problems with any of these templates using Google Chrome on my home PC. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Same sentiment. I use Internet Explorer. Dan56 (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks! Morganfitzp (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012
The Independent rating is 4 stars or favorable. Updated version 15/07/2012 Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/albums-life-is-good-def-jam-7944239.html

Bobbsy2001 (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused. This is a template documentation page explaining how to use the ratings template. It isn't an article. The example used for this page is Dirt by Alice in Chains, not Life Is Good by Nas. You should take this query to Talk:Life Is Good (Nas album). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Favorable/Unfavorable
I'd like to re-raise a topic from the archive: Getting rid of the instruction "If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words 'favorable' or 'unfavorable' to describe the review". The discussion last year just sort of petered out. Without repeating everything I said then, my main arguments for getting rid of the "favorable/unfavorable" business are: In the prior discussion J04n, Drilnoth, and Legolas2186 expressed support for doing away with "favorable/unfavorable", while Dan56, De728631, and Mudwater expressed support for keeping it. Since the discussion seemingly died out after a couple days, I thought it worth bringing back up. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not all sources accompany their reviews with ratings. The purpose of this template is to display ratings that critics have given an album, not to list all the reviews an album has received. Therefore if a review does not include a rating, it really doesn't belong in this template. The review can still be discussed and cited in the article prose.
 * 2) There is no compelling reason that I can see for us to summarize a review in 1 word simply for the sake of listing it in a table. If the source doesn't choose to summarize its review using a rating or a blurb, there's no reason for us to do so simply so we can shoehorn the source into a colored box. Again, we are still able to discuss the review in prose.
 * 3) Summarizing a review as "favorable", "unfavorable", or "mixed" often involves interpretation on the part of editors. Tables like this one are best suited for presenting data, like numerical or star ratings which are very straightforward. Ratings can be easily and neutrally presented this way. Reviews require context, description, and interpretation that is best suited to prose and not suited to a table of one-word blurbs.


 * Your reasoning is sound, and I think I generally support not including reviews without specific measurable ratings. The only other thing to take into consideration is that sometimes the infobox is a good dumping spot for reviews before they are put into prose.  In other words, one editor might list reviews there for another editor to conveniently reference them later on.  I've benefited from such listings myself. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Torchiest. I have had problems with trying to interpret a review without adding my own original research into the mix. But boxes are also a good dumping ground.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both in that regard: In a lesser-quality article where the ratings box is present and filled with several sources, it has been a help to me in composing a proper "Reception" section with prose supplemented by the ratings box. In such cases, once I've incorporated the reviews into prose, I've trimmed the "favorable/unfavorable" sources out of the ratings box and left only those sources that actually accompanied their review with a rating. In the last 3 years, as the reviews have been moved out of Infobox album and into Album ratings, it has been best to leave the "favorable/unfavorable"s in place so sources aren't lost. But now that the process is nearly complete, I don't think we should be instructing editors to add "favorable/unfavorable" to the ratings template. IMO we should be instructing them, if they have found a review that doesn't include a rating, to add it to the reception section in the form of prose rather than to the ratings box. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If there arent many reviews with ratings available, then one without a score shouldnt be included? (How to Be a Lady: Volume 1, Rhythm Killers) Also, sources like Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? can verify whether a score-less review is favorable, mixed, or unfavorable. Anyway, it's usually clear cut. But I do understand in cases when it isnt. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with what IllaZilla is saying but a compromise could simply be 'not rated'. J04n(talk page) 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dan56, if there aren't many ratings available, you don't have to use the ratings template. For example if you have 5 available reviews and only 2 include ratings, you can just summarize those in the prose ("reviewer x rated the album y stars, saying..."). I've definitely done that before. Just because Metacritic does it doesn't mean we should; Wikipedia isn't Metacritic and has a different mission altogether: Metacritic's goal is to quantify critical reception in aggregate scores, so they need to encapsulate the review in a 1-word blurb in order to "score" it. We're not compiling an aggregate score, so we don't need to do that. And J04n, if it was "not rated", why would you be putting it in a table labeled "Professional ratings"? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the "not rated" idea appealing. Maybe we just need to change the title of the table to "professional reviews", in that case. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So the reviews included the template of those articles I mentioned should be removed? I think the prose summarizing the reviews in the reception section is similar to Metacritic's "blurb" (a bit more than 1-word) Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of the reception section seems to be similar to that of Metacritic's. Both their score and prose are recommended at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. It's the reception section and Metacritic I'm talking about, not Wikipedia and Metacritic. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I like MOS:ALBUM's description of the template as "a summary of professional reviews in table form", and I think it's reasonable to keep all notable reviews in the template (up to the recommended 10 max, of course), even those without ratings. But I find myself agreeing with much of what IllaZilla is saying as well. With that in mind, and if there is no consensus on the continued use of "favorable"/"unfavorable"/"mixed" inside the template, then I would support a compromise like the one J04n proposed: a "no score"/"no rating"/"not rated" designation.  Gongshow  Talk 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with changing the title, but "not rated" would seem confusing to readers and a waste of a review entry. I still dont see the problem with having one or two unrated entries in the template. Articles usually mention an album receiving "favorable" or whatever-kind of reviews, so a "favorable" entry by a major critic in the template would only illustrate that. Does there need to be a ruling on this, either one way or another? Why not just recommend that each article's reviews/case can be different, but recommend ratings over non-rated as a guideline. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always just kind of considered the template to be more of a checklist than a scorecard anyway, and it seems that a title change to "Professional reviews" would be a step in that direction. If that's indeed the intention of this template, then I don't think it would be confusing for it to list all reviews, some with ratings and some without. If it's essentially a scorecard, then I agree it would not be very useful to have "not rated" ratings on a scorecard, and the name change would probably not be a good idea then, either.  Gongshow  Talk 00:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against changing the title. If we're just going to have this table be a list of reviews, then we're just going to be Metacritic and we might as well have never moved the content out of the infobox in the first place. Part of the impetus for moving them out of the infobox and into the article body was to get away from this idea that we're just listing all an album's review in bullet-point or table form. It was pretty much universally agreed that what we really want are well-written prose sections that incorporate reviews as sources. But a lot of people still wanted the ratings to be displayed, so this template was created for that purpose. It's intended to list ratings (which, in reality, is what we were listing in the infobox anyway), since they're something readers and editors seem to value in addition to the contextualizing prose (even then, there are FAs that eschew the ratings template altogether, like In Utero). I favor being restrictive: The template is meant to display ratings, so it should display ratings and not things that aren't ratings. Seems pretty common sense to me.
 * I really don't understand this attachment to listing album reviews down the side of the article...I can't think of any other similar topic area (films, video games, etc.) that does this. The only comparable example is Video game reviews, which has been around for 5 years, and it only lists review scores. If a review doesn't have a score, they welcome its use in prose but don't want it in the table (see "Never ignore traditional non-gaming sources"). I just think we should be saying the same. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And what is the difference between listing ratings and summed-up reviews? Both convey the same idea, namely presenting the outcome of a professional review process. For a quick look, many readers don't bother reading the contextual part of our album articles but would like to be informed about statistics like chart positions (if any) and professional criticism. The only real difference is in fact that ratings are being presented by the reviewers while a text-only review will have to be summed up by our editors. And summary is not original research. To present the result of a review in the written of an article we have to sum it up anyway, so why not put the summary of a summary – favourable, unfavourable, neutral – in the template? De728631 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also pretty useful, the template that is, for high profile albums that receive numerous reviews, a lot more than 10 being included in prose, and an illustration of the 10 that best exemplify, represent them. It also takes away from having to mention what rating was given in prose, with the template to correspond to the review. It serves as a good illustration. Those other WikiProjects can consider using a similar template. Dan56 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not instructing editors to add "favourable/unfavourable" to the ratings template, for all the reasons given above. Any that are unrated should be summarized in the Reception section, not listed in the album ratings template (so I also disagree with putting "not rated" in the rating column). It hits too close to WP:OR for my liking. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm hearing mentions of "original research", but what exactly in WP:NOR relates to this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of allowing editors to summarize a review as "favorable" or "unfavorable" -- or "mixed" or "neutral" -- in the Album Ratings template. I'm also in favor of allowing them to say "not rated", despite the title of the template. Those are both highly imperfect, but allowing them is worth it if it gets some editors to add reliable references to an album article -- references that they or other editors can then use to expand the article. Of course, it's still preferable to quote the reviews in a Critical Reception section -- all the more so if the review does not have a star rating -- and we should still encourage editors to that. And if a review without a star or number rating is quoted in a Critical Reception section, then I would favor leaving it out, or even taking it out, of the Album Ratings template. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla's original points at the very beginning of this section. One element that should also be considered is that very earnest editors or those who don't have good reading comprehension who are trying to summarize a writer's opinion may not realize when said writer is being sarcastic (and believe me, I've seen my share of sarcastic album reviews) and would end up completely misinterpreting what the reviewer is trying to say. I'm a firm a believer that it's the content of an album review that matters most, not the little score that may or may not be assigned by someone who didn't even write the article (hello, Rolling Stone!), but if people insist on to pairing down reviews to bite-size bits, stick only to reviews with scores, as scores are metrics you can quantify. As IllaZilla also said, it's a ratings template, and so it's reasonable to insist that things that aren't ratings shouldn't be included. (For what it's worth, I think Wikipedia has ended up placing way too much emphasis on quoting as many individual reviews as it as can at the expense of giving a good overarching summary of critical consensus in far too many cases, but that's a topic for another day and another place). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who are bothered by the album ratings template containing reviews without star or number ratings -- and I don't count myself among you, as I said above -- here is a strong suggestion. If you actually go so far as to remove such a review from the template, please be sure to move it to another part of the article -- like this --  so that a reliable reference is not lost. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My issues with including non-rated reviews in the ratings template are rooted in the very nature of the template, so though incorporating reviews into the prose is certainly good form (and indeed, should be emphasized over the template), it's not a solution in of itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian page
There's a Hungarian version of this page. The page is called Sablon:Kritika Please place a link to it (on the left side). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxix (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message, I've now added a link to the Hungarian Wikipedia. Next time you can even do that yourself since the interwiki links are not directly inside the template code, which is locked, but on the documentation page. You can edit them by clicking the "edit" link in the upper right corner of the blue documentation sheet. De728631 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

XXL rating system
There is an edit dispute I'm involved in on the The Greatest Story Never Told Chapter 2: Bread and Circuses album article. The dispute is over how to render a rating by the magazine XXL. The magazine rates albums using a unique five-point system based off a clothing size. Ratings are "S", "M", "L", "XL", and "XXL" (the last being a "classic" rating used extremely rarely). Anyway, simply listing the XXL rating of "XL" on the article in question is rather ambiguous. Another editor added next to this to clarify, but I argued that this is an innaccurate use of the template, as the magazine does not use a star-based system. I changed the "XL" to "XL/XXL" to make it easier for readers unfamilar with the magazine's system to understand the rating. This change has been countered by two other editors, who either put "4/5" or an equivalent star-rating system next to the rating. I feel that this is incorrect, as the magazine does not use a numeric or a star system. As is stated on the template usage guidelines: "The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review." Can someone help resolve this dispute?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the stupidest rating scale I've ever heard of. Congrats to XXL on beating out Christgau for that distinction. Since their scale is non-numeric (a star scale is still somewhat numeric, since it can be expressed as a fraction ie. 3 stars out of a possible 5), I say just simplify it as a fraction (4/5 or what have you). Otherwise it's a burden on reader comprehension, since no one unfamiliar with the magazine will know what the heck "XL" means. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment made me laugh. Thank you! (If it helps make XXL's system more understandable, it is a hip-hop magazine). As for the topic of discussion, I'll accept "4/5" as a fair compromise. I had in fact already expressed in an edit summary that I was willing to accept this as a potential solution.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ADM parameter
Can a parameter similar to "MC" for Metacritic be added to the template for AnyDecentMusic?? It uses review sources from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Germany; uses the more notable sources that Metacritic uses along with international ones. Dan56 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm hesitant to encourage use of a site that's only 3 years old and isn't on the list at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this suggestion. It is a new and lightly visited site. In fact, its WP entry looks a potential candidate for AfD, for lack of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers?
The reviewers need to be included in this template because the website alone does not own the rating in the least. It is the website that publishes the content, but the rating is that of the reviewer, so they both should be mentioned in the template. Without the reviewers name we are signifying that the rating is the sole property and ownership of the publisher, when clearly it is not.HotHat (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Readers can tell, and it's no different from Metacritic. Anyway, this template is only a supplement to the prose, which should say the name. No rating that's in the template isnt discussed in the prose. Dan56 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with that point, but some of our editors on here flat out refuse to include the name of the reviewer in the prose, which if we take direct quotations from the reviewer leads to plagiarism. Sometimes, even the albums ratings box is used alone and the reviewers are omitted, where no prose is found. So, I just want us on this encyclopedia to be cautious in avoiding plagiarism completely.HotHat (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, aren't we better than Metacritic?HotHat (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I admittedly don't know much about copyright law, but I don't think this is a plagiarism issue. If the issue were about plagiarism, I'm pretty sure it would already have been addressed, since Wikipedia is very strict about copyright infringement. I think what we have here is an issue of style.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The reviewer's name should be in the citation. If it's not there, fix it. If the reviewer's name is not mentioned in the prose when referring to their review, that's (A) an easy fix and (B) not something that will be fixed by adding the name to this template. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the issue being discussed here is not about citations or prose, but the template itself. HotHot is arguing that in addition to being mentioned in the prose, the author's name should be included in the template. Am I correct HotHat?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The template is just a supplement, not a necessity. It's up to the editor writing the article whether they feel a template would be a good illustration of how the critics received the album. And those critics are paid staff and representing whoever they work for (they do have editors and a process), so what's the big deal? Dan56 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, adding the reviewer's name to the template won't help the general reader who is more interested in getting a quick glance at the various ratings. And it's not even necessary to mention the names in the text part because by publishing their review in a reliable source with an editorial board, the reviewer do no longer write for themselves but their publication represents the website or magazine. The only place that requires mentioning the author, if they are named in the source, is the citation template, but certainly not this one. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for letter grade-based reviews
I was thinking about albums that are assigned a letter grade on an A–F scale and how some readers might now understand what those ratings mean if they are seen in the template. For example, a reader whose home country doesn't use such a grading system might not understand what it means if an album was given a "C+" rating. I would suggest a tooltip with an explanation of the rating system using abbr, or possibly a link to a page with an explanation as in Nihongo. – Dream out loud (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013
Please remove the sentence beginning "If no rating is given..." and the "rev2" entry for the example showing "favorable". I think this discussion was enough for consensus.

Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove subjective labels
Since the template is just a supplement that only seems useful as a place to show scores given by the reviews that are summarized in prose (rather than wasting prose space by describing the score), "favorable" and "unfavorable" seem redundant with the sentiment that is already established in the prose, making it repetitive rather than an illustration (of scores). If a scoreless review is notable enough, it should be included in the prose. Perhaps a more formal vote rather than the above discussion's structure?


 * Support Dan56 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and Comment -- I'd be in favor of leaving the subjective ratings in the template. But, the key point is to make sure that reliable references are not entirely removed from the article.  If a rating is removed from the template, but the same review is already used as a reference elsewhere in the article -- for example, in a prose Critical Reception section -- then that's not an issue.  Otherwise, when the rating is removed from the template, the same review really needs to be added as a reference elsewhere in the article, so that it's not lost.  A prose summary of the review can be added to the article, or at a minimum the review can just be added as a footnote -- like this! (By the way, there's a similar discussion higher on this page, in the  section.) — Mudwater (Talk) 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not "ratings", and the links to reviews without ratings can just be dumped in an "external links" section at the bottom instead. Dan56 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia Manual Of Style guidelines, they should be footnotes, not external links. See for example WP:ELRC.  But that's not a problem, adding a footnote is just as easy as adding an external link.  Just slap some "ref" tags around it, and put it at the end of the lead paragraph instead of the bottom of the article. Most album articles already have a References section, but if not just add the section header and the  template and you're good to go. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that guideline is referring to sources that are used as references in the article. If the scoreless review source isnt used to cite anything but it being in the template, it should/could be moved the external links. Dan56 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnotes are definitely preferable. Another guideline for this can be seen at MOS:ALBUM, where it says, "Links to individual reviews shouldn't be included [in the External links section]".  But the bottom line of the bottom line, so to speak, is that if you remove a review from the Album Ratings template, make sure it still exists somewhere in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support and am sympathetic to Mudwater's point, the reviews that aren't used as elsewhere in the article should me moved to 'external links'. J04n(talk page) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To add a comment for my rationale: I believe than an editor judging a review to be "favorable" or "unfavorable" is original research. J04n(talk page) 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this essay. Summarising is not original research. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A summary is a brief statement encapsulating a work's main points. It is not a subjective, one-word label. Dan56 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe that there was already a discussion about this, and it concluded that subjective ratings should not be listed in the ratings box but converted to prose.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Per the comments above. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I disagree with requester that the ratings box serves only to help make the prose less wordy. It provides a useful snapshot of critical sentiment and a convenient way, via the citations, to trace back to the actual reviews. While it is preferable to use the source's own rating summary, if one is not provided, as a reader I prefer that a one-word summary be provided. And providing such a summary in no way inhibits inclusion of the review in the prose. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think you all are wrong on the matter, and barking up the wrong tree! The only thing that should go in the albums ratings box is scores out of four/five/ten, which this means no grades and definitely no editorial opinion on the matter, such as favorable/positive/support, mixed, and unfavorable/negative/against. I think we need to keep the template though because it should not be deleted in the least. Due to the fact, it gives a good visual on where the scores are at on a particular piece of musical work.HotHat (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By grades do you mean prose (i.e. favorable/unfavorable) only, or letter grades (i.e. A, B-, etc.) as well?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 23:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ratings are ratings, not grades, put the grades in prose.HotHat (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we have a ten ratings limit, we need to in fact use ratings not an editorial opinion or grades.HotHat (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would consider letter grades a type of rating, but that's my own opinion, you are entitled to yours.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you don't use a review in the prose of the article, then it should be deleted outright, and not kept in the article!HotHat (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By definition, a rating is a "classification or ranking of someone or something based on a comparative assessment of their quality, standard, or performance", which is what letter grades do as well. In response to Hobbes, readers are expected to read, not glance at a "snapshot". The prose is what's necessary, and if a scoreless review is already discussed in the section, a "favorable" or "unfavorable" label in the template is just regurgitating that sentiment. Per MOS:ALBUM, the ratings template is meant as an optional supplement, meaning that it adds some element and enhances the section's prose. Using it to simplify and repeat what's established in the prose is not encyclopedic. Dan56 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How exactly is simplifying and repeating "not encyclopedic"? Would you similarly argue for the removal of lead sections from WP articles? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know that as well. Let me also ask the other way 'round: if labels like "favourable" or "unfavourable" are redundant to the obligatory prose part, how are ratings any different in terms of redundancy? Dan56, by your logic, if we write that source X awarded five out of ten stars, we wouldn't either need a template to highlight it, and if we don't mention the ratings at all but still exploit the review of a reliable source then we can as well sum it up in a single word like "favourable". De728631 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we wouldnt need a template. Ratings arent any different. I explained that in the first paragraph I wrote in this section: "rather than wasting prose space by describing the score". Again, this template is an optional supplement, but it's not supplementary to the prose if it's reducing a review's sentiment already made clear to the readers, if they read. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, ratings are quite different and the template and the visual element is needed to display them, for those who are for a lack of better words are illiterate. See we have to take into consideration how all people will use the encyclopedia, and some can't understand how to read or a many multitudes of other reasons. Ratings are a visual element, which a grade is not and cannot be used in Ratings template, so we need to put visual ratings in the ratings box and put all others in prose. This is if we have ten ratings, but if not then you are more than inclined to put them in the box.HotHat (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You dont write out the scores given by the reviewers and add a template repeating them in the articles you edit, do you? Dan56 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you aren't suppose to put the rating in prose format if you use it visually in the albums ratings box? This is the first-time I have ever heard of that before.HotHat (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What would be the point of writing it out if it's already illustrated in a template right next to it? Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess none. But are we going to be deleting this template or not?HotHat (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not going to delete the template from this discussion. WP:TFD is thataway. This discussion is about removing summaries like "favourable" or "unfavourable" or "mixed" from the existing template.
 * And we are actually supposed to write out prose. The template serves as a visual element to sum up ratings and reviews (as of current practice) that have been described in prose in the article. It's much like an infobox only that it refers to the critics' opinion. It is not a mere supplement or wrapper for ratings but a quick-look tool that ideally sums up and supports what has been written in a prose section about critical response. The fact that there are thousands of articles with a ratings template but without a prose section comes from the transition process one or two years ago where the ratings part of infobox album was moved out of that infobox. This was done because there was increasing demand for a prose section to along with such templates instead of only showing stars and letters. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * MOS:ALBUM: "the text may be supplemented with the template". So it's an optional supplement. I dont know what you're basing your idea of a "quick-look tool" or it being like an infobox, which is meant to give a summary of the article's subject. Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, infoboxes are supposed to summarise facts from the article, and the ratings used to be part of infobox album where the parameter was aptly called "professional reviews". Then it was decided to move the ratings out of the infobox and put them in a separate template, i.e. this one. So the template still has the characteristics of an infobox in that it serves as a summary of a prose section on reviews and critical reception. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, "supplement" does not mean "summary". Dan56 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This has been discussed ad absurdum in the past and each side is still delivering the old arguments we've all heard before. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above. It makes sense as described. Teammm  $talk email$ 09:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per comments above.  Snap Snap  21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, but this is not going far enough though, I would have it go further by my said comments above. I would be a Strong Support if we were going further.HotHat (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you comment at the issue at hand, please? And I dont understand your point about the literacy of the readers. They wouldnt understand prose such as "reviewer A gave this album four out of five stars"? And I think the letter grading system is used in most, if not all, English-speaking countries, so how would this be an issue at the English Wikipedia? And what do you mean by "visual element"? Seen by human eyes, or illustrated? Dan56 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) The letter grades are not included in the ratings template, so they should not be used in the album ratings box. Unless, the album in question does not have ten ratings, which if it does then put the grade in prose.HotHat (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) The "visual element" is what I am talking about because some people cannot read and won't understand prose, but come to the encyclopedia to just browse its contents, so the "visual element" would be critical and beneficial to those people. Further, it serves the purpose of being an illustration to those who cannot understand the English-languague, so people can tell the album got  instead of them reading four-stars-out-of-five, which the non-English-langauage reader may not be able to fully understand and comprehend. Sometimes people need the visual to put things in its proper context.HotHat (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dude, stick with what's being discussed. And the non-English readers wouldnt visit English Wikipedia. You're catering to a reader that doesnt exist. Visual elements extend beyond attractive, colored star ratings. This notwithstanding, the discussion is about removing subjective, one-word labels. For removing or against? Dan56 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am FOR Removing! Good Day, back to editing articles now for me!HotHat (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral&mdash;reviews can be hard to summarize with one word. I've read reviews so convoluted, wordy, and unfocused that I can't tell whether they are mixed, positive, or negative. They should probably not be listed in the template. And some reviews should be summarized with care; they can be misinterpreted very easily if not read thoroughly. But with that said, they are also helpful for summarizing the critical consensus and prevent the table from being over-simplified (some non-rating reviews may be quite different from the reviews with ratings, resulting in giving an inaccurate impression of the general response). To me, personally, the word labels look ugly on the table since it's for ratings, but I am not really sure how weighty of a reason that would be for their removal. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: "Favourable", "mixed" or "unfavourable" are not ratings (whereas or A- are). As User:Wikipedian Penguin said, some reviews are hard to summarize. I've seen reviews marked as "favourable" that I would have marked "mixed", so it seems to come down to our personal interpretation of the review, and I don't think we should ever be interpreting for the reader. In cases where the removal of the review removes a valid source for an article, some quote from the review should be put in the prose and given a ref prior to removal from the template (or in the same edit), so the source is not deleted from the article (this should address a concern noted by editors above). Now that we've cleaned up articles' infoboxes by removing the reviews, it's time to put the reviews into prose, like they should be (I suppose the album ratings template can be kept if consensus agrees per article, but personally I'd like to see the template gone in as many cases as possible). Removing "favourable" from the template and starting a Reception section will only improve articles. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have those of you who are aguing against the use supplements as summaries, and summing up non-rated reviews in one word actually read our current manual of style? It has already been mentioned in one of the previous threads on this talk page but I'd like to point out again what the current style guide at WP:MOSALBUM says about this template: "The bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form." Apparently this has been a long-standing consensus so whatever comes out of this discussion will also affect MOSALBUM. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * neutral, reviews which don't have a rating could be mentioned in prose. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  23:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
I have a feeling that many people here are simply bothered by the fact that statements like "unfavourable" and such, or even grades like A, B, C, etc. are actually not ratings (by the way: what about the Christgau symbols?), and since the template is called "album ratings", it must not show anything else. Therefore I propose the following: move the template name back to album reviews to accept ratings (i.e. stars, symbols, numeric fractions like 5/10) as well as summarised reviews like "favourable". The arguments for including the latter have been made above by several editors, and a move to this more generic name would solve the ratings-only issue. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It does seem to bother some people, and I don't think inclusion or exclusion of material in this box should be based on semantics. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Semantics isnt the problem. Some people just dont know the definition of "rating". Stars, letter grades, and numbers, any kind of ranking on a scale falls under the definition. The problem is the lack of purpose for the interpretative labels. If the review is incorporated into the prose, then the nature of the criticism is established and reiterating it with one word in the template is unnecessary. Dan56 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the only person here that seemed to be bothered was HotHat. Everyone else either commented against the interpretative labels or for. Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am not bothered by your stance Dan56, which I am in support of your statements, but I would go further that's all. You can tell by my previous statements. To this proposal, I am Opposed because it would be a major set back.HotHat (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As I said above, some reviews are hard to summarize as "favourable" or "unfavourable", and can come down to how any one particular editor interprets the review (in my example above, I mentioned I had seen reviews marked "favourable" that seemed more "mixed" to me – am I right? The other editor? Has one or both of us let our personal biases about the album influence our interpretations?). This is a ratings template and should only be used as such; any non-rated review should be cited in prose, not summarized by one word in a table. In addition, I agree with what User:Dan56 said directly above me here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm sorry but the name of the template means nothing to me. I'm against the subjective 'favorable/mixed/unfavorable' tags. J04n(talk page) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I concur with Dan56, MrMoustache, and J04.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)