Template talk:Music ratings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Template is not accessible.

According to the Manuel of Style for tables, all tables should "Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within them. Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features available." This means using the ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" markup. Yet this template seems to omit that... Can we please update the physical template so that it renders using the table formatting

• {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" as opposed to just {| class="wikitable"
• !scope="col" as opposed to ! on the columns?
• !scope="row" as opposed to | on the rows?

— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable change to me, but could you add the relevant code to the template sandbox, and perhaps create a few test cases to show that everything is working as expected? I'll be happy to update the main template after that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

^ 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 User:Lil-unique1/sandbox. When modifying the sandbox version of the template, we end up losing the padding etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The plainrowheaders part isn't necessary, it just prevents the first column from bolding. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support for Any Decent Music? aggregate site

Does the current template contain support for Any Decent Music?. So far as I can see, the only aggregate site supported is Metacritic.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up once before here, 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. Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 May 2014

Table’s caption

Contents

This template’s title parameter should not be enclosed in a box (a spanning table row), but instead have a true table caption markup (|+). It’s more semantically correct and it looks better IMHHHO ;-) —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 2 May, 2014; 03:56

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Has this been discussed somewhere? If so, please link the discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bah. SIGH. I thought it was an obvious change. Whatever. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 7 June, 2014; 12:49

Stars and possible alternate symbols in reviewer ratings

There's a discussion underway at Talk:WikiProject Albums – here – regarding symbols appearing in this ratings box. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ratings template for other media

I am wondering why there isn't (and requesting that there be) a ratings template like this for other forms of media, in particular movies. I don't see why movies would be less eligible for a template like this than albums. Lachlan Foley (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Alignment

It might just be me, but I've noticed that this template is now producing output that is aligned to the left, where it used to be aligned centrally (on my browser, at least). Is this a new feature? Personally, I find the central alignment more aesthetically pleasing. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 08:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sparklism's note. Please return the old alignment.--Retrohead (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I also thought that it was only me. It indeed should return to the original alignment. —Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't remember this ever being aligned to the center. That said, the template does not use a module and the last change to the code was made in November 2014. So any new appearances are probably not related to this single template. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought you are right: the cell entries used to be centered. Perhaps the "wikitable infobox" class has been changed? @Frietjes:, being one of our expert template editors, do you have any idea what could have happened here? De728631 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a more general issue being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Alignment of infobox labels. I'm trying to get a fix for this template though. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

the left alignment was adjusted 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, we can do it by adding a style statement to each table cell. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I think this is now working. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) — sparklism ^hey! 14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Singles ratings

Hi guys. What do we do about ratings for singles? Shouldn't there be a template for that, or a subfeature of this one? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I just don't think that singles are rated on a star, numeric, or grading system enough to make it worthwhile. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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 {{singles}}. So far, I'm tediously creating a manual table like here and it's a drag.— Smuckola(talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're talking about chart positions. Yeah, creating tables is a bear. Potentially, Visual Editor could be used to make it easier, but I've never tried it out. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So am I basically doing it right? Is this the closest to a canonical set up as currently exists on Wikipedia? — Smuckola(talk) 21:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks great--clear and concise, no fluff. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Add AnyDecentMusic? to aggregate reviewers option?

May I propose adding a field for this in the template? It's stupid to have an aggregate option only for Metacritic and have the table render it under the subheading "Aggregate scores" when there's really no need for the plural, or for overemphasizing one particular aggregate when it's usually written out in the first few sentences of the sections these templates are usually placed in. Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: 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.? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds great! Dan56 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just let me know when it gets added @Mr. Stradivarius:. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: I've added an |ADM= parameter for AnyDecentMusic?, and I've also added support for generic aggregate names with the parameter names I suggested above. You can test it out by using {{album ratings/sandbox}}. One thing I was wondering - what order should the aggregation services appear in? At the moment it's Metacritic first, followed by AnyDecentMusic, followed by whatever is specified manually. Should this be changed to alphabetical order? Or is there some other order that would be more appropriate? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical order would make most sense; it would be consistent with how the actual review scores the template holds are ordered @Mr. Stradivarius:. I tried using the ADM parameter in an article, but it didn't work ([1]) Dan56 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: OK, I'll put it in alphabetical order then. The ADM parameter didn't work because you used {{album ratings}} - so far it is only activated on {{album ratings/sandbox}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: I've put the aggregation services in alphabetical order, and I've changed the parameter names slightly to make them more like the rev parameters. Now you can specify the name with |aggregate1= and the score with |aggregate1score=, and that continues with |aggregate2=, |aggregate2score=, etc. Let me know if this looks OK, and I'll update the main module. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Looks great @Mr. Stradivarius: Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: OK, it's now up live, the new parameters are documented, and I put some new test cases up for good measure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant :) Dan56 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

AnyDecentMusic RfC

TheAmazingPeanuts turned Dan56's original proposal into an RfC in this edit; I have moved it to a new subsection to make the flow of discussion clearer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This website is another review aggregator like Metacritic, why should not add it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz: 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. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. No Christian music, even "popular" acts: Stryper, Amy Grant, Switchfoot. Compare with other, similar performers: Korn, Carly Simon, Goo Goo Dolls. It seems to be run by two people with specific artists and genres in mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons provided by WG above and also a redundant source in place of Metacritic. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While it's easy to add AnyDecentMusic by using the |ADM=score parameter, it's also possible to add it by using |aggregate1=[[AnyDecentMusic?]] and |aggregate1score=score. (You can also add any other review aggregator in this manner.) If it's clear that there's only a consensus to ever add Metacritic, then both of these methods should probably be removed. If there's any chance that aggregators other than Metacritic could be used in articles, though, then I think that at least the |aggregaten= parameters should be retained. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 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? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • 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 informed decisions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - 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. JayPe (talk) 5:58 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, kinda. I've used the |MC=score parameter extensively on album articles and I've found it to be really useful. Personally, I think ADM is fine to include in the same way. But do we really need aggregator-specific parameters? Since, as Mr. Stradivarius points out, it's now possible to add any aggregator score to that section of the template using the |aggregaten= parameter, it could be argued that MC & ADM should just make use of this functionality and depreciate the existing |ADM=score & |MC=score parameters. The discussion then should be about which aggregators to include in the template (i.e. which are reliable enough), and we would possibly need to update WP:ALBUM/SOURCE to reflect this. — sparklism ^hey! 12:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral 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. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and that was the very reason why WikiProject Video Games removed GameRankings 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... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @IndianBio:, perhaps you should broaden your scope beyond those two artists? Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Leaning toward support 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 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, Blonde on ADM vs. Blonde on Meta, which is a 3-point difference), but there are cases where the reviews are further apart: Skeleton Tree on ADM is 5 points different than Skeleton Tree on Meta, Dissociation on ADM is 8 points different than Dissociation on Meta, and Telling It Like It Is on ADM is 15 points different from Telling It Like It Is on Meta.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@3family6:: 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 Skeleton Tree, 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. Telling It Like It Is 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 Loud and Quiet, a purely London-based music paper – would Loud and Quiet pass out notability criteria for music RS? Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120:, Loud and Quiet should pass, of course, not that it's Wikipedia article would suggest this; it's devoid of sources beyond a single citation to the magazine's website. GoogleNews hits, plus this feature by The Guardian on the magazine's 10th anniversary, would suggest it's a significant publication. But we're really digressing here, point-differences included. Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support — 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 I think that can be as optional by the user. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments below in #RfC discussion. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - 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?--Jennica✿ ^Talk 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - 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. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Maybe here. Is not pretty clear for me, but I like that they use a WORLDVIEW because they take reviews from countries like Germany for example. Chrishonduras (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below ("ADM Methodology") Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I say add it. Looks like a good website. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Agreeing with all supporters. Xboxmanwar (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• 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. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC discussion

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

• The site's been mentioned in a number of third-party news sources as a gauge on critical consensus (The Independent, BBC, The Guardian, IB Times, entertainment.ie); you'll have better luck finding hits that supports ADM's existence using GoogleNews. Unsurprisingly, these mostly come from sources outside the U.S. which goes back to my previous comment regarding its usefulness. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• 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 (The Irish Times, Financial Times, State, Time Out (London), entertainment.ie, Digital Spy, The Scotsman, London Evening Standard, The Arts Desk, Sydney Morning Herald). More importantly, the point of including a second aggregate was for balance, rather than highlighting one point of view. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Another overlooked point is that for many non-American English-language acts, ADM may have more comprehensive entries for their releases than MC (ex. Two Vines: ADM vs. MC). 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 (Q, Mojo) 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. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that has notability outside United States and above, the source shows other reliable sources and the Wikipedia'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 optional. But in other situations should be neccesary. For example, Lemonade by Beyonce in AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic I think that is different. Chrishonduras (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding similar scores, @Chrishonduras:, 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 (Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutrality_and_verifiability) Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Some significant differences between scores:

• Miguel albums: Kaleidoscope_Dream#Release_and_reception, Wildheart_(album)#Release_and_reception
• ASAP Rocky albums: Live._Love._ASAP#Critical_reception, At._Long._Last._ASAP#Critical_reception
• Beyoncé: I_Am..._Sasha_Fierce#Critical_reception; 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 an "inflation-adjusted" scale 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. Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that are several albums that have different conjetures. For example for the album I am Sasha Fierce there is references in websites and in books that demonstrates that received "mixed" reviews. Chrishonduras (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Something else to point out: Walter Görlitz 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 Lecrae, 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.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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 overemphasizing MC's scores in articles--forgoing the optional 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. Dan56 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: I have add AnyDecentMusic? 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 Sergecross73 is more mixed about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good job 👍 Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ADM's methodology - @SNUGGUMS:, their methodology is explained by the site's editors here:

"It's not a straight average, ie the total ratings divided by the number of reviews. We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews. So an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews, which seems right to us. And an album would need more than 30 8/10 reviews to get a straight ADM rating of 8.0 (although it could achieve that rating with a range of 10/10, 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 etc reviews)."

Metacritic's methodology - The site explains their average as a product of giving more weight to reviews published by critics/publications which MC editors deem more important than others ("How We Create the Metascore Magic", Metacritic. Both perspectives--ADM's and MC's--seem equally valid, but also a significant factor in the averaged scores being different for a particular album handled by each site. Dan56 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to know which sources both share and which should be considered exclusive to either site. I saw the work @3family6: 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting..... while it is more inclusive than MC, not sure how I feel about weighting score based on number of reviews with same score. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "weighting score based on number of reviews with same score"? Dan56 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to how ADM says that they 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 and then an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that makes sense. Why shouldn't that be taken into account? @SNUGGUMS: Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: 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. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: 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 articles. Maybe for some articles as I see will be optional, but with some conjetures with big differences like the album I Am... Sasha Fierce, maybe? will be neccesary. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: 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 in the guidelines do not add ADM in the template, despite some editors protests. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, 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. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: 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. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Should we close this, because it seems that mostly everyone agreed AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the template with Metacritic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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 rationalize that... Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility and font size

See Template talk:Video game reviews#CSS small font size for a discussion on increasing the template's font size for accessibility reasons. The albums template uses the same format and would likely require the same change. Not sure if there are any other similar templates, if you could help spread the word czar 21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: I've had a go at increasing the font size in the sandbox. Have a look at the test cases to see it compared with the current version. Does that look ok? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius, 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 czar 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Display in mobile site

Can someone fix this, thanks. Hddty. (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hddty., I put a fix in the sandbox, 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 WP:VPT. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Citing Christgau's book vs. original Village Voice column

Please weigh in on this RfC at the Raw Power article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite Robert Christgau's reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the Village Voice in 1997. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Font size

What's with this edit? It doesn't look better this way. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Seems not all agree with this edit. Is there a reason you made this change? Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, see above about font size. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Other media?

This template seems well suited to other media. For example I am adding it to the page for the film Un uomo ritorna because I can't find anything similar for movies. Is there an existing generic template we should use instead, or is this the accepted template to use everywhere? Beth Holmes 1 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Beth Holmes 1, I made {{film ratings}} but no one liked it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Has it gotten bigger?

Has the template suddenly gotten really big for anyone else? Lazz_R 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this as well. @Lazz R: See above section, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see. I assumed they were changing the size of the font, not the size of the entire table. Lazz_R 19:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC about album review counts

Talk:Boy (album)#RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? An RfC has been added that may be of interest to this group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding "favorable"/"unfavorable" to the albums rating table

We have to revisit this topic, because the editor Wioaw is re-adding these to various albums, and believes that no consensus is necessary to add them. I believed we had an understanding that such wording consisted original research on the part of Wikipedia editors, which is why they were removed in the first place, but please give your opinions on the subject. Richard3120 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well once again User:Richard3120 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 rated or re-evaluated either negatively or positively by a user(s) on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia.Wioaw (talk) 24:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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 "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"? Richard3120 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The Guardian often didn't provide ratings in the early 00s; The Word never did; Mojo, Record Collector, PopMatters and others didn't until about 2004; and The New York Times 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 or two each perhaps. Publications that do frequently appear in the box are the likes of The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Rolling Stone Album Guide, MusicHound's album guides and Martin C. Strong'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 Encyclopedia of Popular Music ratings included since they're not proper reviews. I raised it at Albums a year ago perhaps.

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 that were quite acceptable for years beforehand.

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. JG66 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@JG66: 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. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you think that. JG66 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't agree? I mean, your points are quite valid – NME and Melody Maker didn't carry ratings until the mid-1980s, and neither did Rolling Stone, 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. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I’m also puzzled by JG’s comment. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

<edit conflict>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 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 Template talk:Album ratings/Archive 1#Request to remove subjective labels. JG66 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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? Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120: 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 Blender or Christgau's Consumer Guides, there's not a lot else besides the rating.

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. Rolling Stone's most scathing reviews are well-known, for instance. Rate Your Music isn't a reliable source, but this list is full of the sort of album reviews that are covered in biographies and rock/pop histories. Same with what NME, MM 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.

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 optimistic/pessimistic. I mean, I 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 Encyclopedia of Popular Music (and The Rolling Stone Album Guide too, I think) at those Banshees articles, it did make me think: well yeah, they're not really 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 section's allowed to go on endlessly. JG66 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@JG66: 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 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. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@JG66: 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 important record from the 1960s to the 1990s may only have a few ratings taken from large Rolling Stone-type printed collections... Caro7200 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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 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 WP:OR. It’s generally worked for me, but most I also mostly gravitate towards articles that no one else is writing or maintaining too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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 interested in his/her turn of phrase. Here's Paul Morley talking about the Associates' 1982 album Sulk: "Sulk 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 Sulk is simply enormous: and then again it is fantastically unlikely." I mean, can you tell from that whether it's "favourable" or "unfavourable"? Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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 I could also see it being a big debate, so prep yourself for that if you’re pursuing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well as fellow users on Wikipedia we should be aware of the fact that according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table on Wikipedia articles. As that's the case it's up to the various users of Wikipedia to gain consensus and discern how a particular review should be rated as either favorable or otherwise. As well if I'm not mistaken that'll be strange and very contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception in entirely removing favorable/unfavourable reviews of those albums from Wikipedia. Several reviews of albums/singles may rated either negative or positive by means of prose and this scenario shouldn't be a perplexing and troublesome issue to fully comprehend and understand for noted users on Wikipedia. As I said before within this scenario one should fully adhere with the current procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia.Wioaw (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, 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... Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wioaw, "according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources favorable/unfavourable reviews should not be removed from the ratings table" What? Where does it say to not remove this language? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well User:Koavf that'll be within Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates where comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." Wioaw (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wioaw, 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 {{album ratings}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well User:Koavf Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception should be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact that they're Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles.Wioaw (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wioaw 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 {{Album rating}} 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 language and that we as a community need to do more to implement that consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that non-rating language in the album reviews box "looks" bad. I've never added one. We have to put a little bit of onus on the reader to actually read the text of the article and to follow the reference links, if desired. I think that Richard3120 makes a good point about discerning whether a reviewer is actually declaring yea or nay--see Trouser Press as well (and not that the point of all music criticism is to declare yea or nay, anyway). If I had to commit, I would choose to exclude favorable and unfavorable. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well you should rather focus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception which would display the stipulated guidelines and procedures that's stipulated for editing musical articles by Wikipedia.Wioaw (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The album ratings template should be only ratings, not words. I agreed with Richard3120 and Caro7200 on this, adding "favorable/unfavourable" is unnecessary and should be remove. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Amended language to explicitly discourage entries without a scale

See https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAlbum_ratings%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=955437440&oldid=953512252. What does everyone think of this change? Does this accurately represent our consensus and understanding of the proper use of this template? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well User:Koavf I don't agree with that proposed template. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception is self explanatory and easy to understand in allowing for and encouraging the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums.

Due to the fact that they're Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly.Wioaw (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wioaw: I agree. Any language here at the template about best practices should be consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception but that page cannot reproduce the entirety of the template documentation, so it's appropriate to refer editors to Template:Album ratings/doc for more info. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well User:Koavf you should by now be cognizant of the fact that this discussion is being thoroughly rehashed. As such i'll again note with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception under the heading of Album ratings templates comes the statement that "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." This statement is again self explanatory and easy to understand as it allows for and encourages the use of favourable/unfavourable reviews of albums. As such an editor can go on to make alterations via consensus to reflect a review being according to prose either a positive, negative or indifferent one. Due to the fact that they are Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of albums/single articles they should be again very easy to adhere to and follow wholeheartedly.Wioaw (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well User:Wioaw, 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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 weight behind it, you know. We know what it’s supposed to mean because we wrote a lot of it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well please bear in mind that instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources User:Sergecross73 Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception is much more through and comprehensive in the scenario of editing the critical reception section of album articles. With that being said I do agree that this would be a lengthy and extensive debate that'll lead to an identical outcome as has prior discussions upon the topic. Additionally User:Koavf I'll also like to point out that i've never used unfavourable in the template fields of the critical reception of an album's article. As that's the case Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Critical reception would again be not only self explanatory but very easy to adhere and follow towards. Due to the fact once again that they're Wikipedia's stipulated guidelines for editing the critical reception of album articles. Wioaw (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wioaw, 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 WP:ALBUM 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.) 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, none of that changes what I was saying. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Album of the Year

What happened to the Album of the Year aggregator? Considering most articles have this, it seems to have disappeared.--Majash2020 (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Just realised there was a deletion discussion here, however it has now caused an issue with the ratings template having the defunct "AOTY" template in it.--Majash2020 (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia entirely (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#AOTY, again). Having the article deleted would not necessarily have resulted in the removal of its ratings on other articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It was also discussed recently at RSN, with a very one-sided result, archived here--> https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#Album_of_the_Year --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Centered sources: Why?

Related from 2015: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template_talk:Album_ratings/Archive_2#Alignment

Centering makes it harder to read and scan, because the eye has to hunt for the beginning of the next line, instead of returning to the same position every time. Readability should have priority over aesthetics in this case, imo. Example: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/All_Day_(Girl_Talk_album)#Critical_reception Jontajonta (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Module for checking for unknown parameters

It would be useful to have Module:Check for unknown parameters here, since there are quite a lot of errors filled in (per this tool). I recently listed all the parameters used (from the module's code) in TemplateData section, and here's a list of every known parameter that should be listed in the module section:

ADM | MC | aggregate1 | aggregate1score | aggregate2 | aggregate2score | align | noprose | state | subtitle | title | width | rev1 | rev2 | rev3 | rev4 | rev5 | rev6 | rev7 | rev8 | rev9 | rev10 | rev11 | rev12 | rev13 | rev14 | rev15 | rev1score | rev2score | rev3score | rev4score | rev5score | rev6score | rev7score | rev8score | rev9score | rev10score | rev11score | rev12score | rev13score | rev14score | rev15score | rev1Score | rev2Score | rev3Score | rev4Score | rev5Score | rev6Score | rev7Score | rev8Score | rev9Score | rev10Score | rev11Score | rev12Score | rev13Score | rev14Score | rev15Score

Nuances:

• 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.
• The rev1score option (lower s) is used 38k times now, and rev1Score (upper S) – 52k times. So I listed both variants of all 1-15 writings.
• 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. Solidest (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Solidest, it looks like Category:Pages using album ratings with unknown parameters is fully populated, currently with 711 pages. The vast majority of them are using |AOTY= (album of the year), which was apparently added in February 2020 and removed in November 2020 following this discussion. Primefac might be willing to run their bot against the category, removing all instances of the ill-fated |AOTY= parameter. That would leave roughly 150 articles in the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that AOTY should be replaced to | aggregate1 = Album of the Year | aggregate1score = {value} as it still aggregates professional critical reviews. Solidest (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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. JG66 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Then maybe it also makes sense to ask him to delete aggregate[%d] = AOTY/Album of the Year + aggregate[%d]score with site URL as well? As it's still widely used like that. Solidest (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The category is down to 89 pages. Have fun! Primefac (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Solidest (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)