Template talk:Music ratings/Archive 2

4100:

in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." This statement is again self explanatory and easy to understand as it allows for and encourages the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums. As such an editor can go on to make alterations via consensus to reflect a review being according to prose either a positive, negative or indifferent one. Due to the fact that they are Knowledge's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be again very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly.

412: 2374:"It's not a straight average, ie the total ratings divided by the number of reviews. We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews. So an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews, which seems right to us. And an album would need more than 30 8/10 reviews to get a straight ADM rating of 8.0 (although it could achieve that rating with a range of 10/10, 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 etc reviews)." 3303:'s discography books, yet none of those really offer a genuine review; they're more like artist histories told through album and single releases, with star or numerical ratings. Of course, I use these same sources myself. I've often turned the music up and gone on autopilot, following an artist's chronology and adding "reviewer" ratings to their album articles. It was on one of these excursions – albums by Siouxsie and the Banshees – that I came a cropper because an editor refused to have any of the 3206:

rated or re-evaluated either negatively or positively by a user(s) on Knowledge. Consensus in this instance is normally achieved by user(s) discerning the context of a review. As such this scenario shouldn't be a perplexing and troublesome issue to fully comprehend and understand for noted and experienced users on Knowledge. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Knowledge.

38: 4480:. Per AGF and because the request is pretty coherent, I have added a parameter check to the template using the above list without checking whether it is 100% valid. If entries pop up in the category that are incorrect, please post a note here, and I will adjust the parameter check. I have added this page to my watchlist and have a ton of experience with these unknown parameter categories and checks. – 4378: 340: 91: 2739: 315:, and looking back on it now, I think I would agree with them. I still think it's useful as a point of reference, but isn't really that much different from Metacritic; I think most of their scores run parallel with Metacritic's. Honestly, tho, I'm not much in support of Metacritic's parameter, since it is typically stated in the prose already, but that's just me. 4473: 1290:. (You can also add any other review aggregator in this manner.) If it's clear that there's only a consensus to ever add Metacritic, then both of these methods should probably be removed. If there's any chance that aggregators other than Metacritic could be used in articles, though, then I think that at least the 4422:

3464:: Sorry about the attitude. Just my frustration coming out, as it does every time this comes up, because a decision was made too quickly and it was too blinkered, for the reasons stated above. We can and do end up favouring reviews simply because they attach letters, stars or numbers. Sometimes, say with 2096:, it would be more persuasive and supporting of a perspective if there were two aggregates showing similar scores to readers; otherwise it's just one point of view/system of aggregating reviews being emphasized. These kind of sections, on critical reception, benefit from neutrality in form and balance ( 3653:

I hear ya, I know my ways not perfect, it largely just works because I use it sparingly on articles where there aren’t many people to argue about it. Sometimes “mixed” works in those scenarios, but yeah, not entirely sure where that reviewer is going on that one. I think it’s worth discussion, though

2254:

None of these aggregates are God almighty and all-knowing; like any other source, their respective flaws and shortcomings create a greater need for having a diversity of such sources, not simply (over)emphasizing the time-honored preference--Metacritic--in a ratings box. In the past, I argued against

904:. One thing I was wondering - what order should the aggregation services appear in? At the moment it's Metacritic first, followed by AnyDecentMusic, followed by whatever is specified manually. Should this be changed to alphabetical order? Or is there some other order that would be more appropriate? — 4210:

have an internal consensus to make it a guideline and I offered to nominate it but that is a laborious process that I've been putting off for a little while now. 2.) There is a consensus to not use prose interpretations of reviews in the album ratings template and to only reproduce scales in it. 3.)

3913:

My opinion is that non-rating language in the album reviews box "looks" bad. I've never added one. We have to put a little bit of onus on the reader to actually read the text of the article and to follow the reference links, if desired. I think that Richard3120 makes a good point about discerning

3282:

still doesn't (does it?). So, per template guidance, the reviews featured in the box have to be represented in prose, which obviously impinges on the extent to which other, often far more worthy publications can be represented because 10 rated reviews need to be covered in prose and given a sentence

4099:

under the heading of Album ratings templates comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section

3679:

favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table on Knowledge articles. As that's the case it's up to the various users of Knowledge to gain consensus and discern how a particular review should be rated as either favorable or otherwise. As well if I'm not mistaken that'll

3592:

I’ve generally allowed it in the articles I write/maintain, but generally in more of a limited capacity. Ive always seem review tables as something that is supposed to be more of a visual representation, and a box with ten listings of the word “positive” isn’t really much of a visual representation

3533:

that's okay, you make some good points. You'll notice that neither in this thread nor in the discussion on Wioaw's talk page have I expressed my personal opinion on the matter – I'm genuinely open-minded and want to see what other people think. I was just aware that a decision *had* been reached in

3511:

reviews at all; they're just a sentence or two (perhaps hardly that) with a star rating. Yet we're giving this sort of coverage precedence – in the ratings box, thereby guaranteeing it a place in the text – while some of the dedicated reviews without ratings only get in if they're lucky, unless the

3185:

We have to revisit this topic, because the editor Wioaw is re-adding these to various albums, and believes that no consensus is necessary to add them. I believed we had an understanding that such wording consisted original research on the part of Knowledge editors, which is why they were removed in

2586:

If you're talking about user Jimoincolor reverted other editors who add that website in the template. I've have add ADM in articles in my watchlist too, and didn't get reverted yet. I think some editors don't mind this website being in the template because it a reliable source, and it's doesn't say

2554:

I noted also. I saw in my watchlist and they put that is a irrelevant review aggregator or something like that. My two cents: if the RfC will close successfully and if one of us will add in those articles, is neccesary to prevent an edit war commenting before about this RfC in the talk pages of the

615:

for any table using the infobox class, or a child of a table using the infobox class. before this change the alignment was browser-specific. now it's the same for all browsers. to override it, you have to set the alignment in each table cell. so, in short, if you want everything to be centered,

3428:

By that I mean you seem to want a quick fix to an issue you're involved in, rather than genuinely revisiting the topic. The problem is that a decision was reached further to a discussion and relevant projects weren't informed that a decision was being made. The discussion was heading a certain way

3310:

Yes, the topic probably needs revisiting, but it's a way bigger issue than a simple do-we or don't-we with regard to using favourable/unfavourable, as far as I'm concerned. And to repeat, I don't believe the RfC was carried out at all correctly, so I can see why editors continue to use those terms

3239:

The problem is, there was an RfC on this in about 2013 and consensus was to only use formal ratings and scores, but there was no notification that the RfC was taking place, say, at Albums or Music. From memory, the advance discussion was posted at Albums, but not the RfC. The first many of us knew

3205:

i've never added or re-added an "unfavourable" rating to a album's rating table. Also I never stated nor do I belive that consensus isn't required to add or re-add a rating to an album's rating table. Please get your facts correct. As is the norm a specific review of an album by means of prose may

4150:

Something to keep in mind - not trying to pull rank or anything, but a lot of the editors you’re arguing with here - Justin, myself, Richard - are significant contributors of ALBUMS/SOURCES. So, if we’re telling you about how it doesn’t quite mesh with what you’re saying it says, there’s a bit of

3772:

under the heading of Album ratings templates where comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a

3243:

It's a problem because, with only reviews that carry formal ratings appearing in the box, it can skewer the picture (and the text follows suit) by omitting some far better-known publications and by omitting non-rated reviews that could be highly favourable when the impression given by the ratings

1520:

I did propose adding ADM to the aggregate ratings parameter years prior. In answer to some of the objections above: 1. Yes, as Walter points out, it does seem more exclusive than Metacritic, though that only matters in regards to publications being excluded - if entire artists aren't scored, then

4421:

ADM | MC | aggregate1 | aggregate1score | aggregate2 | aggregate2score | align | noprose | state | subtitle | title | width | rev1 | rev2 | rev3 | rev4 | rev5 | rev6 | rev7 | rev8 | rev9 | rev10 | rev11 | rev12 | rev13 | rev14 | rev15 | rev1score | rev2score | rev3score | rev4score | rev5score |

3613:

One problem I've had (and perhaps this is because I tend to work on albums from the British post-punk/new wave era, when music journalists seemed to be trying to outdo each other with their prose) is that sometimes it's not at all obvious if the review is favourable or not... the critic was more

3555:

I think you make some good points as well. It's a little annoying--and I'm being slightly sarcastic and subjective here--that a middling indie rock record could be released tomorrow, and within weeks have enough ratings to fill the album reviews box, while a "proven" culturally and artistically

3220:

Sigh... you added "favourable" ratings to articles, but I can't have this discussion without mentioning "unfavourable" in the same sentence because they part of the same discussion... what am I supposed to do, have one discussion about adding "favourable" ratings, and a separate discussion about

3314:

Another thing is that, especially in the case of older and well-established artists, reviews are described in terms such as highly favourable/rave/mostly favourable/mixed/poor/scathing, etc. by others. So the description's not always OR by any means, as it can be supported by a reliable source.

2147:

in which he reserves "B"'s for negative reviews (or Dud of the Month, as headlined in the review). For this entry, MC also summarizes the consensus as "generally favorable reviews", yet shows far more "mixed" and negative reviews than positive, accompanied by the borderline "62" averaged score.

3871:

that still include "(favorable)" or "Mixed" in them makes for a confusing situation for you as an editor, where it seems like that is acceptable and you're just doing what you've seen elsewhere. Totally fair perspective. I just think that you were not informed of a consensus against using this

3688:

in entirely removing favorable/unfavourable reviews of those albums from Knowledge. Several reviews of albums/singles may rated either negative or positive by means of prose and this scenario shouldn't be a perplexing and troublesome issue to fully comprehend and understand for noted users on

1332:

Yes, I got that, and those are good questions. My interest here is in the technical details of the template, though, and I don't have a strong opinion about which aggregators we should include. I was just trying to point out to people how the template actually works so that they can make more

2691:

Yeah, may as well. I shouldn't, since I participated, but somebody may as well. Honestly, with the consensus being so strong (almost unanimous) people can probably start enforcing it whether its closed or not. I can't imagine an Admin coming in and closing it against ADM's use, or how they'd

2073:

I think that has notability outside United States and above, the source shows other reliable sources and the Knowledge's visitor can verify more options. IndianBio has noted a important part about the example of Lady Gaga and Madonna. There is not differences. So, in this case maybe could be

1166:

The music they aggregate excludes almost all sources for genres that I edit in. They seem biased to a few large sources rather than hiring individuals to review as many recordings as possible (AllMusic) or aggregating as many sources on a single item (Metacritic). It would be useless to me.

4178:

is much more through and comprehensive in the scenario of editing the critical reception section of album articles. With that being said I do agree that this would be a lengthy and extensive debate that'll lead to an identical outcome as has prior discussions upon the topic. Additionally

3494:

So there's no original research in examples like that. Perhaps (and the thought's just occurred to me now), when there's no source to support a description, we should allow it as long as a link is provided for the review so that other editors can be satisfied that the wording isn't too

1473:

from their review table - it was usually the same score give or take a point. Though they do still allow for GR's use when it was "notably different". Maybe something like that could be implemented here too, though it could also split the discussion farther than it already is so far...

1434:

for now. If someone can show some notable instances where ADM showed a different aggregate than Metacritic, I'd more more inclined to support. If a majority of the time, it's just going to read like "X album received a 77% from MC and 76% from ADM", then I'd be more included to oppose.

1622:, for example, a Metacritic average of 95% and an ADM average of 89% would probably indicate to the reader that the overall critical reaction was overwhelmingly positive in both cases, and I think that's what they would take away from the infobox summary, not the six-point difference. 2633:

I think that is a sock puppet account, and "protest" is not the best word how I've explained that some editors such as IndianBio and Walter Görlitz are against ADM being added in the template, but so far if you look at the votes, they are the only ones are making a big deal about it.

2055:) when the written review rings more favorable or negative than the given score; which is a reminder of how these sites work, different interpretations of non-score reviews by (human) editors of different aggregate sites, creating a greater need for more than one perspective/source. 3221:"unfavourable" ratings? As for your other point, you appear to be saying that an editor can make an "individual consensus", which is a non-existent concept. What would stop another editor, for example, deciding that one of your "favourable" ratings was actually "mixed"? 227:

I added some scope statements, and unnested the reviews to reduce the template depth. Is the 'plainrowheaders' part necessary? I think that is what was causing problems with the margins, but I'm not entirely sure. Please feel free to correct what I have done. Thanks!

514:

It might just be me, but I've noticed that this template is now producing output that is aligned to the left, where it used to be aligned centrally (on my browser, at least). Is this a new feature? Personally, I find the central alignment more aesthetically pleasing.

4211:

I am agreeing that there seems to be some lack of communication, making it so that editors such as yourself think it's perfectly appropriate to use "Unfavorable" in the template's fields but I hope you can see upon further inspection that this is not best practice. ―

3471:

I'm just saying that often an artist's biography (ie, a book) or a history of a particular scene, or a feature article about an artist/album will refer to and quote from reviews, and in those cases, the source usually supports "highly favourable", "mixed", etc.

2612:, study the edit history of Jimoincolor, and you'll see it resembles a sock puppet of someone; I won't mention who at the risk of deviating further from the topic at hand. Just my two cents, and also that these "protesting" editors are few and far in between. 2746:

for a discussion on increasing the template's font size for accessibility reasons. The albums template uses the same format and would likely require the same change. Not sure if there are any other similar templates, if you could help spread the word

1880:

I see no blatant reason why this other site shouldn't also be added; after all if two or more reliable aggregators coincide this isn't a bad thing. The argument saying it usually averages similarly to Metacritic is actually an argument for inclusion.

788:

May I propose adding a field for this in the template? It's stupid to have an aggregate option only for Metacritic and have the table render it under the subheading "Aggregate scores" when there's really no need for the plural, or for overemphasizing

1626:

hasn't been out a week yet, and it'll be interesting to see where its scores eventually settle down on MC and ADM. But at present it appears the large discrepancy between the two sites is largely down to ADM's inclusion of a poor review from

4350:

Centering makes it harder to read and scan, because the eye has to hunt for the beginning of the next line, instead of returning to the same position every time. Readability should have priority over aesthetics in this case, imo. Example:

3626:

deals with everything, in its hectic, drifting way ... There is an uninterruptible mix-up of cheap mystery, vague menace, solemn farce, serious struggle, arrogant ingenuity, deep anxiety, brash irregularity, smooth endeavour ... Sometimes

2817:

The font size is the same, yes. I just removed all the custom font size definitions and adjusted the width of the table, so there shouldn't be any difference in font size between the sandbox version and a regular infobox. —

1957:

ADM is never using the exact same sources as Metacritic most of the time for the albums they have entries for. It always includes sources from the UK/Ireland and Australia that MC doesn't, some of which are very notable IMO

492:

I am wondering why there isn't (and requesting that there be) a ratings template like this for other forms of media, in particular movies. I don't see why movies would be less eligible for a template like this than albums.

3336:

I do think we need a definitive answer though, because at least one editor has spent months removing them from the table, and we could just now go back and forth with different editors adding and removing them at will.

4187:

would again be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact once again that they're Knowledge's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of album articles.

4553:

Album of the Year shouldn't be used at all. It's not a professional organisation – far from it, it's a user-generated site. It was comprehensively deemed unreliable in that 2020 discussion Jonesy95 mentioned.

815:

Sure, this could be added. We could also add parameters for generic aggregate scores, if that's desired. Maybe parameters like "aggregate1name", "aggregate1score", "aggregate2name", "aggregate2score", etc.? —

124:

Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within them. Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features

3844:

should be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact that they're Knowledge's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles.

1313:

Mr. S, I believe we are debating the usage of ADM in face of a much wider used Metacritic. Another point this opens up is if ADN, then why not any other review aggregators? And where do we draw the line?

1940: 3593:

anymore, it’s just all text. I’ve also generally standardized them into three clear cut designations (positive, mixed, or negative) or used the exact designation the source used, to cut down on

2216:

mentioned how ADM doesn't include a lot of Christian musicians like Styper and Amy Grant. But Metacritic, for some odd reason, doesn't include Stryper and Amy Grant either. They also don't have

1777:

it would help to know what their methodology for aggregating scores is (if any different from MetaCritic's methods). If someone can prove it's as good or better, than I would probably support.

4281: 4119:, I read it the exact opposite. Since the template is NOT to be used a substitute for prose, using it to boil down reviews that don't have ratings to imply there is one is highly discouraged. 3795:, Okay but that does not say "Leave the worlds 'favorable/unfavorable' in the album ratings template". I'm asking if you see any documentation that recommends using words like "favorable" in 4027:

Due to the fact that they're Knowledge's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly.

4430:

Regarding the number of reviews – the current guidelines recommends using up to 10 reviews, but it is allowed to use more in rare cases, so I think 15 would be enough for the listing.

4417:). I recently listed all the parameters used (from the module's code) in TemplateData section, and here's a list of every known parameter that should be listed in the module section: 4184: 4175: 4096: 4049: 4021: 3933: 3841: 3769: 3685: 1008:

I've put the aggregation services in alphabetical order, and I've changed the parameter names slightly to make them more like the rev parameters. Now you can specify the name with

2047:). Metacritic is also not infallible, occasionally assigning the wrong score or rounding up or down reviews from magazines which give only whole star scores rather than halfs ( 4298:

Yes, I wonder if a bot can fix this. Please note it wasn't just a discussion about deleting an article about AOTY, there was also opposition to its use on Knowledge entirely (

3861:

I 100% agree and I've put many hours into that style advice to make it a proper style guide that is comprehensive. I also agree that the fact that there are many instances of

3377:, apart from a two-year period in the early 80s. I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other – what I'm trying to do is get a consensus to avoid future edit warring. 1760:- Although they seem a bit biased, they're obviously reliable. Also, there has been good reasons mentioned by fellow users involved in this discussion to support this entry. 3918:

as well (and not that the point of all music criticism is to declare yea or nay, anyway). If I had to commit, I would choose to exclude favorable and unfavorable. Thanks.

3704:

Well, ALBUMS/SOURCES is massive - is there a particular part that you’re saying helps one way or another in this dispute? Pointing to the whole thing doesn’t really help...

4568:

Got it. Then maybe it also makes sense to ask him to delete aggregate = AOTY/Album of the Year + aggregatescore with site URL as well? As it's still widely used like that.

2385:. Both perspectives--ADM's and MC's--seem equally valid, but also a significant factor in the averaged scores being different for a particular album handled by each site. 3447:

Well, no, that's why I started this discussion, because I do want to genuinely revisit the topic, and get wider input. What would you like me to do, open up another RfC?

2797:, I think it looks great! Is that the same size as the infoboxes/image captions? (Didn't calculate it myself.) Waiting for feedback from the others on the other template 2533:

I think some editors are not used to AnyDecentMusic? being in the template because editors don't add this website in articles before, and probably don't know the layout.

4206:, I've tried to be very diplomatic and friendly here but it seems you're being less so. To clarify: 1.) The style advice is not a proper guideline. The contributors at 2143:; this I find to be a more accurate entry than MC's by ADM, as MC erroneously weighs the Christgau/MSN score of a B as equating to a 75, when in reality Christgau has 4452:

aggregate#score is also not used more than twice per page (I've corrected a few single cases with number 3 which have been filled incorrectly), s 1-2 should be fine.

2381:- The site explains their average as a product of giving more weight to reviews published by critics/publications which MC editors deem more important than others ( 3024:

because I can't find anything similar for movies. Is there an existing generic template we should use instead, or is this the accepted template to use everywhere?

3689:

Knowledge. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Knowledge.

3429:

and then an editor (who obviously liked the way it was heading) called for something more formal on the template talk page. I'm sorry, it wasn't an RfC, it was

1699:— Actually, there is other articles in other topics like the movies that uses more than one review aggregator. I don't see why we can't in music articles?. But 198:^ this bit I've struggled with. I managed to convert the upper few rows but I've struggled with the lower half of the table. I've done an example in my sandbox 1667: 4510: 3723:, "according to Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table" What? Where does it say to 1914: 1741:- everybody here has made good points for supporting it. MC is the only aggregator on album pages and ADM seems like a good aggregator so why leave it out?-- 1376:

parameter extensively on album articles and I've found it to be really useful. Personally, I think ADM is fine to include in the same way. But do we really

2408:

did above and, were it not for a busy schedule at work, would actually like to compare the sources used to generate those ratings to see how they line-up.

4183:

I'll also like to point out that i've never used unfavourable in the template fields of the critical reception of an album's article. As that's the case

3491:

et al had to say way back when – a biographer or historian is going to mention that REM's second album got rave reviews from the UK press and name names.

3534:

the past (however badly it was done) and that any changes being made were contrary to that decision, and that other editors should be made aware of it.

2475:

have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews

1662:

should pass, of course, not that it's Knowledge article would suggest this; it's devoid of sources beyond a single citation to the magazine's website.

1618:: these differences have now changed slightly as more reviews have come in. I probably say that although there is currently a six-point difference for 2033:

Another overlooked point is that for many non-American English-language acts, ADM may have more comprehensive entries for their releases than MC (ex.

2074:

optional. But in other situations should be neccesary. For example, Lemonade by Beyonce in AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic I think that is different.

2259:

MC field if the prose already detailed its score--but if it is to be, then it makes sense not to show only this particular aggregate score alone.

1521:

there isn't a problem with fairness, as they aren't being judged at all. 2. Generally, the scores are close to those of Metacritic (for instance,

702:

Whatever the rating system, they are rated and it needs to be formatted. So maybe there needs to be a separate and possibly embeddable one, like

4498: 3499:

don't use the terms anymore, but I can see a reason that others might. And as I mentioned, having been reverted when trying to add ratings from

1676:

on the magazine's 10th anniversary, would suggest it's a significant publication. But we're really digressing here, point-differences included.

3983:. What does everyone think of this change? Does this accurately represent our consensus and understanding of the proper use of this template? ― 3631:

is simply enormous: and then again it is fantastically unlikely." I mean, can you tell from that whether it's "favourable" or "unfavourable"?

2314:

in some articles as well, mostly they in my watchlist. As for now, there are some editors who support this, at least 7 over 2 right now, with

1451:

That's what it currently looks like Sergecross73, there is no noticeable difference in the 10/12 albums I perused for Madonna and Lady Gaga. —

3430: 312: 66: 4169: 3681: 3676: 2426:

Interesting..... while it is more inclusive than MC, not sure how I feel about weighting score based on number of reviews with same score.

1188:

would you elaborate on the bias with few examples? I can see that they use quite a few sources that Metacritic does not normally include. —

3773:

section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system."

3480: 135:

markup. Yet this template seems to omit that... Can we please update the physical template so that it renders using the table formatting

4410: 2924: 1887: 1355:- I've looked into it and it seems pretty reliable and trustworthy. I don't see why we shouldn't add this on the album review template. 1814:. Is not pretty clear for me, but I like that they use a WORLDVIEW because they take reviews from countries like Germany for example. 793:

particular aggregate when it's usually written out in the first few sentences of the sections these templates are usually placed in.

4299: 3285: 2676:

Should we close this, because it seems that mostly everyone agreed AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the template with Metacritic.

1943:. Unsurprisingly, these mostly come from sources outside the U.S. which goes back to my previous comment regarding its usefulness. 894:, and I've also added support for generic aggregate names with the parameter names I suggested above. You can test it out by using 673:

Hi guys. What do we do about ratings for singles? Shouldn't there be a template for that, or a subfeature of this one? Thanks. —

3597:. It’s generally worked for me, but most I also mostly gravitate towards articles that no one else is writing or maintaining too. 921:

Alphabetical order would make most sense; it would be consistent with how the actual review scores the template holds are ordered

2773: 2743: 1073: 452: 425: 400: 180: 4024:

is self explanatory and easy to understand in allowing for and encouraging the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums.

1765: 571:

On second thought you are right: the cell entries used to be centered. Perhaps the "wikitable infobox" class has been changed?

3981:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AAlbum_ratings%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=955437440&oldid=953512252

2494: 2439: 2291: 2238: 1790: 1595: 967: 898: 299: 176: 2019:). More importantly, the point of including a second aggregate was for balance, rather than highlighting one point of view. 4095:

you should by now be cognizant of the fact that this discussion is being thoroughly rehashed. As such i'll again note with

2400:

I would also like to know which sources both share and which should be considered exclusive to either site. I saw the work

1536: 4414: 3291: 2869:, but it seems odd that we need to explicitly add the borders for all the cells, so I am going to continue this thread at 2555:

articles. Maybe for some articles as I see will be optional, but with some conjetures with big differences like the album

3936:

which would display the stipulated guidelines and procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Knowledge.

2769: 1550: 553:

Well I can't remember this ever being aligned to the center. That said, the template does not use a module and the last

4265:

What happened to the Album of the Year aggregator? Considering most articles have this, it seems to have disappeared.--

1564: 1396:

parameter, it could be argued that MC & ADM should just make use of this functionality and depreciate the existing

4229: 4074: 4001: 3964: 3890: 3823: 3745: 3070: 2998: 2720: 2681: 2639: 2596: 2538: 2323: 1924: 1154: 54: 17: 3171: 2413: 1235: 1172: 4302:). Having the article deleted would not necessarily have resulted in the removal of its ratings on other articles. 4053: 4052:

but that page cannot reproduce the entirety of the template documentation, so it's appropriate to refer editors to

3125: 2968: 1761: 1069: 45: 4329: 2907: 761: 733: 693: 594: 473:– regarding symbols appearing in this ratings box. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, 4321: 2220:, even though he's charted at No. 1 in the US. So it isn't just ADM that is uneven in its coverage of artists.-- 1909:

ADM's notability/reliability has been questioned by some editors, so I'll reiterate comments I made elsewhere:

742:

So am I basically doing it right? Is this the closest to a canonical set up as currently exists on Knowledge? —

688:

I just don't think that singles are rated on a star, numeric, or grading system enough to make it worthwhile. --

557:

to the code was made in November 2014. So any new appearances are probably not related to this single template.

3164:

Talk:Boy (album)#RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box?

1854: 199: 2040: 183:

to show that everything is working as expected? I'll be happy to update the main template after that. Best —

4384: 4233: 4078: 4005: 3894: 3827: 3749: 3483:

is full of the sort of album reviews that are covered in biographies and rock/pop histories. Same with what

3074: 3029: 3002: 2943: 2565: 2191: 2079: 2003: 1893: 1819: 1708: 1663: 725: 544: 500: 346: 97: 2459:, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "weighting score based on number of reviews with same score"? 4388: 4284:, however it has now caused an issue with the ratings template having the defunct "AOTY" template in it.-- 4249: 4157: 3960: 3799: 3710: 3660: 3603: 3397: 3167: 2716: 2698: 2677: 2635: 2607: 2592: 2549: 2534: 2409: 2319: 2213: 1557: 1480: 1441: 1419: 1231: 1183: 1168: 1150: 1123: 1119: 1115: 957: 350: 232: 1930: 1571: 1543: 1227: 4307: 3865: 3636: 3539: 3452: 3382: 3342: 3226: 3191: 3118: 3046: 2961: 2821: 2793: 2779: 2015: 1640: 1381: 1336: 1301: 1129: 1079: 1043: 1027: 976: 924: 907: 860: 819: 258: 218: 186: 165: 2939: 1223: 1215: 4359: 4355: 4325: 4289: 4270: 2479:

an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews

2140: 2134: 1871: 1211: 757: 729: 689: 448: 396: 23: 3020:

This template seems well suited to other media. For example I am adding it to the page for the film

1913:

The site's been mentioned in a number of third-party news sources as a gauge on critical consensus (

1522: 4526: 4485: 3479:

s most scathing reviews are well-known, for instance. Rate Your Music isn't a reliable source, but

3254: 2905:'s reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book 2097: 1850: 1207: 530: 438: 419: 4615: 4601: 4587: 4573: 4544: 4457: 4145: 3923: 3565: 3278: 3039: 3025: 2878: 2862: 2848: 2581: 2560: 2488: 2433: 2282: 2229: 2187: 2120: 2091: 2075: 1977: 1883: 1815: 1784: 1704: 1586: 747: 715: 678: 639: 621: 602: 584: 562: 540: 495: 388: 291: 280: 4517:

might be willing to run their bot against the category, removing all instances of the ill-fated

2916: 2628: 2613: 2528: 2513: 2460: 2386: 2333: 2305: 2260: 2149: 2101: 2056: 2020: 1944: 1829: 1725: 1677: 1498: 1219: 1092: 1063: 1048: 1003: 948: 933: 881: 866: 836: 810: 794: 724:

Ah, I guess you're talking about chart positions. Yeah, creating tables is a bear. Potentially,

579:, being one of our expert template editors, do you have any idea what could have happened here? 387:

parameter should not be enclosed in a box (a spanning table row), but instead have a true table

316: 4619: 4605: 4591: 4577: 4563: 4548: 4530: 4489: 4461: 4363: 4345: 4333: 4311: 4293: 4274: 4254: 4238: 4197: 4162: 4136: 4109: 4083: 4036: 4010: 3968: 3945: 3927: 3899: 3853: 3832: 3782: 3754: 3715: 3698: 3665: 3640: 3608: 3569: 3543: 3521: 3456: 3442: 3402: 3386: 3360: 3346: 3324: 3244:

might be mostly unfavourable – and vice versa. So it's not a fair representation in some cases.

3230: 3215: 3195: 3175: 3150: 3137:

Ah I see. I assumed they were changing the size of the font, not the size of the entire table.

3132: 3103: 3079: 3033: 3007: 2975: 2947: 2882: 2856: 2828: 2805: 2786: 2755: 2724: 2703: 2685: 2643: 2621: 2600: 2574: 2542: 2521: 2500: 2468: 2445: 2417: 2394: 2341: 2327: 2298: 2268: 2245: 2195: 2157: 2109: 2083: 2064: 2044: 2028: 1952: 1936: 1898: 1875: 1858: 1837: 1823: 1796: 1769: 1752: 1733: 1712: 1685: 1644: 1602: 1506: 1485: 1464: 1446: 1426: 1343: 1327: 1308: 1264: 1239: 1201: 1176: 1158: 1136: 1100: 1086: 1056: 1034: 983: 941: 914: 874: 844: 826: 802: 765: 751: 737: 719: 697: 682: 652: 643: 625: 606: 588: 566: 548: 534: 519: 504: 482: 442: 324: 305: 262: 237: 222: 193: 169: 4244: 4172: 4152: 3705: 3655: 3598: 3392: 2710: 2693: 2671: 2315: 2186:

there is references in websites and in books that demonstrates that received "mixed" reviews.

2124: 1475: 1436: 229: 4322:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#Album_of_the_Year

4151:

weight behind it, you know. We know what it’s supposed to mean because we wrote a lot of it.

4303: 3952: 3632: 3535: 3461: 3448: 3378: 3338: 3307:

ratings included since they're not proper reviews. I raised it at Albums a year ago perhaps.

3300: 3266: 3240:

about this new consensus was when some of those editors began imposing it at album articles.

3222: 3202: 3187: 3163: 3144: 3097: 2902: 2852: 2311: 2130: 1985: 1972: 1651: 1636: 891: 781: 243: 242:

The plainrowheaders part isn't necessary, it just prevents the first column from bolding. —

203: 150: 2144: 1535:, which is a 3-point difference), but there are cases where the reviews are further apart: 953:

OK, I'll put it in alphabetical order then. The ADM parameter didn't work because you used

4285: 4266: 4225: 4207: 4193: 4105: 4070: 4048:

I agree. Any language here at the template about best practices should be consistent with

4032: 3997: 3941: 3886: 3849: 3819: 3778: 3741: 3694: 3556:

important record from the 1960s to the 1990s may only have a few ratings taken from large

3260: 3211: 3066: 3021: 2994: 2920: 2617: 2517: 2464: 2390: 2337: 2264: 2182:

I agree that are several albums that have different conjetures. For example for the album

2153: 2105: 2060: 2024: 1966: 1960: 1948: 1867: 1833: 1729: 1681: 1502: 1360: 1096: 1052: 937: 870: 840: 798: 470: 320: 202:. When modifying the sandbox version of the template, we end up losing the padding etc. — 4320:

It was also discussed recently at RSN, with a very one-sided result, archived here--: -->

3283:

or two each perhaps. Publications that do frequently appear in the box are the likes of

539:

I also thought that it was only me. It indeed should return to the original alignment. —

4559: 4522: 4481: 3517: 3507:

too, I think) at those Banshees articles, it did make me think: well yeah, they're not

3438: 3356: 3320: 2960:

Seems not all agree with this edit. Is there a reason you made this change? Thanks, ---

2894: 2799: 2749: 1920: 1658: 1492: 1452: 1423: 1315: 1252: 1189: 649: 526: 516: 478: 431: 119: 3654:

I could also see it being a big debate, so prep yourself for that if you’re pursuing.

2911:, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the 1529: 1251:

per reasons provided by WG above and also a redundant source in place of Metacritic. —

4611: 4597: 4583: 4569: 4540: 4514: 4494: 4453: 3956: 3919: 3561: 2874: 2870: 2508: 2482: 2454: 2427: 2403: 2361: 2274: 2221: 2009: 1805: 1778: 1613: 1578: 744: 712: 675: 635: 617: 598: 580: 574: 558: 284: 3675:

Well as fellow users on Knowledge we should be aware of the fact that according to

3594: 3248: 1997: 1742: 1672: 1470: 1415: 4501:

is fully populated, currently with 711 pages. The vast majority of them are using

3872:

language and that we as a community need to do more to implement that consensus. ―

430:

template. Has this been discussed somewhere? If so, please link the discussion. --

175:

Sounds like a reasonable change to me, but could you add the relevant code to the

3615: 3139: 3112: 3092: 1991: 1126:; I have moved it to a new subsection to make the flow of discussion clearer. — 53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4352: 4212: 4203: 4189: 4180: 4116: 4101: 4092: 4057: 4043: 4028: 4017: 3984: 3959:

on this, adding "favorable/unfavourable" is unnecessary and should be remove.

3937: 3873: 3858: 3845: 3838: 3806: 3792: 3774: 3765: 3728: 3720: 3690: 3296: 3272: 3207: 3053: 2981: 2955: 2382: 1356: 1146: 1230:. It seems to be run by two people with specific artists and genres in mind. 1024:, etc. Let me know if this looks OK, and I'll update the main module. Best — 4555: 3951:

The album ratings template should be only ratings, not words. I agreed with

3550: 3528: 3513: 3434: 3352: 3331: 3316: 2898: 2812: 2763: 2035: 1939:); you'll have better luck finding hits that supports ADM's existence using 474: 2367: 1811: 4185: