Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Stars

Phase One: 06/01/15 - 06/02/18
Phase One took place at WikiProject Albums...

Stars to text
It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes: Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
 * Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
 * Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
 * Generally, it's easier without them.
 * I agree, the usage of stars does have several problems, the biggest problem is for me is that the alt-text is usually left out leaving visually impaired a problem. I suggest that WP:Albums discourages the usage of stars. Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should run a replacement script. I'm currently replacing all the stars with text on the articles I'm editting, but without a bot, it would be pretty hard. We need some concensus before running it though. -- WB 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, mainly because not all reviews use the convenient 5 star scale. There isn't a reason why All Music ratings deserve to be represented visually but not, say, Pitchfork ratings (which use a 10 point decimal scale), other than the fact that images for them happen to be more feasible. The resurrected stars template is capable of using different scales, but there are problems with it: (1) it relies on CSS hacks (2) even if we are able to create a 10 star scale, for example, it would be way too large (3) the syntax is complicated. Overall, the stars images create an unneeded complication and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We could get away with all of these problems if we used text instead of images. -- WB 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we used (X/Y) or something simmilar all of the problems can be avoided, and with the bonus of using less bandwith. Nooby god 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So how do we get started on this replacement plan? Is there a bot running free? -- WB 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest, we first ask everyone else if they agree with this plan because wikipedia is ruled by a Consensus, and if everyone agrees we can put a Request for a bot. What do you think? Nooby_god | Talk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Where should we ask? This place is so quiet. -- WB 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea on where to ask, but we could always run the bot and put in the edit summary 'see WP:ALBUMS/Reason_for_no_stars' or something like that. Nooby_god | Talk 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to start without a concensus? There are some very very star loving users here in Wikipedia. -- WB 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the stars are nice (only 5 star scale, I don't know of any source that uses stars for a scale of 10). But since most people prefer text, I don't mind. There should be a Template for deletion vote before making changes, I think that's the proper process. Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already a bot replacing the shortly active template with the text. My concern here is the ones with the raw image link. -- WB 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've messaged User:NetBot and has accepted the request to convert the stars to text. Gflores Talk 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've set User:Tawkerbot to convert, I will start as soon as I recieve approval (3 days) Tawker 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Tawkerbot is presently chugging away at the replacements, it's running a 30s interval so it'll be a few hours. Tawker 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of talking away in private and then setting up a bot, do you not think it wiser (not to mention more courteous) to make some attempt to let other know what's going on? All I saw was a bot replacing stars with no explanation, the image in question being untagged. I've reverted quite a few already, but then stumbled across this. Don't be surprised if other editors are reverting the change too. I see that some editors have made thses points above; unfortunately they were ignored. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would've been nice if this was brought to the attention of a wider audience before starting. Especially seeing as you've been debating this for a month and have only had input from five users, it's not exactly what I would call a majority consensus. I'm adding a modified Template for Deletion tag thingy to the stars to get the issue more attention. - MightyMoose22 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scrap that idea, I don't know how to do it. I would suggest that someone who can do it... erm... does it, and adds a link pointing to here for discussion. - MightyMoose22 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted regarding this on the Village Pump here - I think we need a consensus before a bot does anything on the topic. Tawker 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Phase Two: 06/02/18 - 06/03/02
Phase Two took place at The Village Pump...

Star Ratings on Album pages
I had started a bot request for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums however after starting the job I was notified that some editors had some unaddressed objections and I have stoppped the bot in the interm.

The request is for a bot to replace the "star images" in ratings into text for album pages (for example would be replaced by (4/5)). The reason for the changes were listed as Some editors had concerns that consensus was not reached on the previous page, As this is a large amount of pages (2500+) I think it's necessary to have a proper consensus either before the bot could possibly get restarted. Some star ratings have already have been converted to text (not my myself) - so a consensus might want to change those back to stars. Tawker 14:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
 * 2) Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
 * 3) Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
 * 4) Generally, it's easier without them.


 * In regard to point 1, the stars image has poor contrast and is a bit small. If it was just simply black stars, a bit further apart, and maybe with the half-marks as grey stars rather than half-black ones, it should be as legible as the surrounding text. I'll make up image(s) if someone wants. For those who are significantly visually impared what's there is okay (the alt text isn't bad) but we can improve it with regular wikimarkup: [[Image:4of5.png|4/5]].  -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's my simple test case for 4.5 stars, with appropriate alt text: [[Image:Wfm 4point5 from 5.svg|78px|4.5/5]]. Hmmm, the half-tone thing doesn't work nicely - hang on while I make a chopped one... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one with the half denoted by a star chopped in half: [[Image:Wfm 4point5 from 5 chopped.svg|78px|4.5/5]]. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a "star outline" with a white center? Tawker 15:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the half star should be an outline? Here's one like that - [[Image:Wfm 4point5 from 5 hollow.svg|78px|4.5/5]] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to give a contrasted color outline, even if it's only useful to silly people that've customized their CSS. So a black star should have a thing white outline, a white star should have a black one, for example. ¦ Reisio 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One issue with the stars is that it doesn't work for out-of-ten reviews, so I've knocked up a couple of ideas to get around this, based on Finlay's design above. [[Image:Stars-9.5of10.gif|85px|9.5/10]] and [[Image:Stars-9.5of10-2.gif|85px|9.5/10]]. They look a bit crappy because they're only gifs, but I think they'd work if done properly. - MightyMoose22 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see this alternative as a viable solution. A large clump of black stars doesn't effectively present information; non-geniuses like me need to count each star to figure out what the rating is (compared to the nanosecond it takes to read "9.5"). This solution also does not seem to take into account less friendly decimals like 9.4 or 2.1 or 7.7, and I don't see how it could without resorting to either approximation, or the ridiculous, microscopic division of stars. Text is both effectient and accurate. --jiy (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting that we convert all ratings to stars regardless of how they're presented, rather that we do (or don't) convert stars to text. My personal feeling is that we display the ratings as they are displayed at the original source - if it's reviewed in stars we use stars, if it's 9.5 as text we use 9.5 as text, if it's a thumbs up/down we use a little thumbs up/down icon. - MightyMoose22 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In regard to point 2, see my alt text above. In regard to point three, this really isn't an issue. Bandwidth is never our chokepoint, these image files are tiny, and will be efficiently cached in the webservers, the squids, and in the visitor's browsers.  In regard to ease, I think we can have a simple substable template (e.g. 3.5 ) to make human-handling of the stars straightforward.  I do think the stars are a good idea, and I think we can intelligently handle fallback for visually impared visitors without resorting to text-only. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the albums are not templates, they're images. I'm starting to think both an image and text eg [[Image:4of5.png]] (4/5) would work best. Tawker 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, it's clear that the ALT text on the current images needs improving, so at the very least that's a nasty task your bot could help with. Once we have a consensus as to what the markup should be for such stars, I figure it'd be nice to have a subst-template which would make life easy for humans to follow the standard. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally would support having a template instead of image, so that it would be possible to redesign stars whenever we feel like it. So I propose substing Image:4 of 5.png by any template . For now the template can be processed with showing current image, later it can be switched to text or new picture with text. --Jan Smolik 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason why we need images in the first place? It's somewhat visually pleasing, but not much more. Template idea was already suggested and implemented, then taken away sometime ago. I'll see if I can find the relevant disussion. -- WB 23:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it, and the consensus was deleted then. -- WB 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As what Water Bottle just said, the image template was deleted because it was a meta-template and using these stars would reverse this decision. Also if images are to be used what is there to guarentee that ALT text will be added? Nooby_god | Talk 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be acceptable. WP:AUM doesn't seem to be as popular now as it was then. Ehheh 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Choice - please vote on which option you prefer?

Option 1: Replace image to something similar to above (alternative image)
(possibly the "black stars"
 * I think that makes sense. I don't see why it has to be text-only, as long as proper ALT text is used. *Dan T.* 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd. If we have to abandon the current system (which seems to me to be unobjectionable). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd as well The current image system is just hard to see and etc. If we are not going text, at least we need to get rid of the current images. Which, ironically, were created by me in the first place... -- WB 22:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 1st - MightyMoose22 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This choice isn't exactly very clear - "Replace image to something similar to above" - well, all alternatives are discussed above. I'm guessing you mean this choice to be "Use Alternative Image", in which case, I Support. With numbers only e.g. (4/5), it is not necessarily clear that it is a rating. I agree that they could be visually better, higher contrast, and yes if we're using images for ratings out of 5, ideally we also need images for ratings out of 10. Gram 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd While I like the black stars (very slick), they take up more space than the current ones, resulting in two lines for one review link more often. --FlorianB 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: Text only (remove images)

 * Support There's not much of a reason to use images. -- WB 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It is arbitrary that rating systems that are conveniently represented through visuals merit star images (the 5 star scale), while those that do not translate well visually must default to plain text (like the 10 point decimal scale Pitchfork uses, or the A-F grading system Robert Christgau uses, or the Favorable or Unfavorable derived from reviews that do not use any point scale). I see no purpose in mixing images and plain text arbitrarily, especially when using plain text all the time is the simplest and most painless route. - jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if we have to explain the stars, then we somehow have to explain that A-F is a grading scale, etc. -- WB 05:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Option 4: Leave the current system in place (but with better "ALT" usage)

 * Support 1st. This is the best of the options, to my mind; the image is very similar to that used by AMG (which is the most common source of reviews, I think), and makes its point well. The text alone isn't particularly informative (4/5 what?). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To me that doesn't make sense. We need to assume somewhat of a knowledge for readers. For example, if we have to explain 4/5, then we should also explain that A+ and C are grades used in some countries to indicate how good something is on each page or with a link? -- WB 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd - MightyMoose22 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 1st. Using a template seems preferable, easier to make sure alt text is used. --FlorianB 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 5: Other (please specify)
In the interest of fairness, I have added the votes of 3 users who had already made their fellings clear regarding this matter on the previous page of discussion. - MightyMoose22 03:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears we're in a bit of a stalemare here with votes being 3 a peice, how do we propose to solve this stalemate. Tawker 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we've got 5 votes for option 1 and 3 each for options 3 & 4, but it's not enough for a majority consensus in my opinion. Is there any way we can bring this to the attention of a wider audience, other than just the people who read these boards? Any way to modify a TfD template (or something similar) to go along with the star pics currently being used? - MightyMoose22 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as it stands, its eight to three in favour of using graphics; perhaps we could now ask people, given that we're using stars, which of the two they prefer?
 * It would be better to have more people involved, though. Perhaps we could just start informing editors whom we know to be involved in relevant articles? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure how we could easily notify but its something we should do Tawker 08:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The option I like the most is the one MightyMoose mentioned above: My personal feeling is that we display the ratings as they are displayed at the original source. That's the most logical approach, star ratings at the source are represented as stars on WP, if the source uses a (X/5) scale without stars, we use the same (without stars) etc. I don't know of any music review site that uses stars for a 10-point system, so this is a non-issue. --FlorianB 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Phase Three: 06/05/11 - 06/05/13
Phase Three took place back at WikiProject Albums...

Stars
Why should the rating of an album be (4/5) rather than ? Am I the only one that thinks the stars look better? RENTA FOR LET?   röck  00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The stars are problematic. This issue was raised several times (see the most recent discussion). Jogers (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which was continued at the Village Pump, but ultimately unresolved. In a quickie vote of the half dozen or so people who cared, it was tentatively decided to keep the stars but maybe redesign them to be more easily read (possibly black instead of yellow). It's a shame none of us thought to save the section before it was deleted. MightyMoose22 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would vote to get rid of the stars if it was now. Jogers (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd keep them. I think they give a more elegant look than simple numbers, but maybe that's just me.  In any case, I think stars simply work better.--み使い Mitsukai 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't using stars depend on ratings out of 5, or at least some kind of numerical rating? For the sake of uniformity, I'd prefer for ratings to be given without stars, if at all. Tim Ivorson 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I only use the graphics for ratings out of 5; the letter grades, "honorable mention," etc.(Christgau) or decimal (!) out of 10 (Pitchfork) are silly. I don't even like +1/2 star systems (which most people use); it turns a 5 point system into a ten-point one, effectively. No stars sounds like not rated rather than unlistenable (e.g., Metal Machine Music) and 4 1/2 stars is good for those not-quite-perfect albums (e.g. Quadrophenia). I digress, however. I prefer stars (however they are presented) because ratings, for me, are like time - right now it's not 4:08 PM EDT, but "a little after 4." --Fantailfan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What I said last time round was that I think we should display the review results as they are displayed at the source, if it's shown (as with AMG) as [[Image:3hvof5.png]] we should use stars, if it's 4/5 (or 8.3, or B+) as text we should use text, et cetera. I disagree with regardlessly converting all reviews to text as much as I would with converting them all to stars. MightyMoose22 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My position hasn't changed. Selectively representing some graphically and some textually is pointless. Having them all as text is the easiest and most uniform.—jiy (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've used the PNGs constantly, up to the point where I started to consider visual accessibility. Were there ever specific concerns about that? (Or just having all the information in the article presentable in text form, I suppose.) –Unint 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was and is one of the main concerns, AFAIK. As far as inserting PNGs manually, blind users probably won't know the rating unless alt text is included with each star image, which complicates an already complicated syntax. The current template Template:Stars (automated method) seems to improve accessibility somewhat.—jiy (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with the argument that the review ratings should be displayed as they are displayed at the source. Does it mean that the "mics" should be used instead of stars or plain text to display the The Source (magazine) ratings? Jogers (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think so. Last time I mentioned the use of hypothetical thumbs up/down icons and I still think we should respect the wishes of the magazine staff and use their system, even if they want to rate an album out of seventeen cucumbers. Sure it might be a bit awkward right now, but as soon as we have a system in place (with templates, a directory/gallery for ease finding the pictures & a detailed section on this page) I believe it can work effectively. MightyMoose22 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Imagine 10 links to reviews, each with its own rating system. It would horribly clutter the reviews section IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but they also provide a quickly recognised focal point - i.e. if you want to know the Source rating, you know to just look for the mics and you've found it, otherwise you'd be searching for a text needle in the middle of a text haystack. Just glance back up at this converstion, you can't deny that the stars (and the strawberry) stand out, at least more than where people have written text ratings. Plus, about half of the ratings would be/are text based anyway, so the stars (or whatever) would/do break it up a bit. MightyMoose22 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at My Private Nation by Train and you get a good idea at how POV RS reviews are in the first place. At least AMG is consistent within the band/musician's career. --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:KISS should be a guideline here. I like stars, but that's a personal preference. If it doesn't use stars, I use a numerical rating. The non-rated RS reviews, which you can read and judge (favorable/unfavorable) involve original research IMEHO. There is the template:stars which is marginally more readable, but as Jogers might say, isn't for the low-visioned, but I like it anyway. --Fantailfan 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good ponit about RS, and they're also potentially POV. If a review mentions that half an album is good and the other half is bad, it's up to us to decide whether to class it as a favourable review or not. MightyMoose22 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the review says it's half bad, half good, it should be labeled "mixed". That's what the WP page says and I don't think there's too much risk of OR or POV in summarizing reviews that way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it's 50/50, but what about 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20. It's up to the reader to decide when it stops being "mixed" and starts leaning one way or the other. MightyMoose22 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Warning: Heavy POV ahead Assuming the reviewer isn't (say) Christgau with his bias against unoriginality (however well-executed). Look, that's always the problem and while Christgau can get away with it (he is one person's POV) the reviews in AMG, Pitchfork and Stylus (which are the ones I use in my contris) are, to some degree, anonymous. Argh. I wish music reviews weren't, like so much of pop culture in the past twenty years, so self-referential (until I actually listened to Velvet Underground in 1987 I was unaware of their influence, relegating the talented (Bowie) and talentless (any number of off-key "artists") to the same level). end of rant --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (This isn't in reply to any specific comment, just don't want it squashed right against the margin). Since some people seem to find some of the stars hard to decifer between a halves and full/empty I just though I'd throw it out there, that I've created a new set (mainly to get feedback on it) which does ?/5 including ?.5s) which renders like this to give you (using 4.5 as the example) this:, which I find easier to decipher halves with (I designed the colours to be fairly strong to make it contrast the grey more, but it might still be too hard for some people) but I just want to get some feedback on it. To see it in "action" you can take a look at Paris (Paris Hilton album) and let me know what you think (reply at the main project page if you have a comment relating directly to these stars, as that's what I'm monitoring the most closely). -  Рэд  хот  13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll also throw my voice in here (late as it is), to add to RedHotHeat's post. Building off his  template, additional templates (by myself and Rich Farmbrough) have been created to allow for additional types of rating systems:, , , and  .  In addition to RHH's template's display of Alt text, these new templates allow for any decimal (such as 3.2 or 7.7) to be used.  It seems that this family of rating templates is gaining popularity due to their simplicity and uniformity of display. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 09:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)