Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Stars

message: Phase One took place at WikiProject Albums...
=== Stars to text ===
It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:
*For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
*Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
*Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
*Generally, it's easier without them.
Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the usage of stars does have several problems, the biggest problem is for me is that the alt-text is usually left out leaving visually impaired a problem. I suggest that WP:Albums discourages the usage of stars. Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should run a replacement script. I'm currently replacing all the stars with text on the articles I'm editting, but without a bot, it would be pretty hard. We need some concensus before running it though. -- WB 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, mainly because not all reviews use the convenient 5 star scale. There isn't a reason why All Music ratings deserve to be represented visually but not, say, Pitchfork ratings (which use a 10 point decimal scale), other than the fact that images for them happen to be more feasible. The resurrected  template is capable of using different scales, but there are problems with it: (1) it relies on CSS hacks (2) even if we are able to create a 10 star scale, for example, it would be way too large (3) the syntax is complicated. Overall, the stars images create an unneeded complication and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could get away with all of these problems if we used text instead of images. -- WB 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, if we used (X/Y) or something simmilar all of the problems can be avoided, and with the bonus of using less bandwith. Nooby god 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we get started on this replacement plan? Is there a bot running free? -- WB 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest, we first ask everyone else if they agree with this plan because wikipedia is ruled by a Consensus, and if everyone agrees we can put a  Request for a bot. What do you think? Nooby_god | Talk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Where should we ask? This place is so quiet. -- WB 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea on where to ask, but we could always run the bot and put in the edit summary 'see WP:ALBUMS/Reason_for_no_stars' or something like that. Nooby_god | Talk 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a good idea to start without a concensus? There are some very very star loving users here in Wikipedia. -- WB 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the stars are nice (only 5 star scale, I don't know of any source that uses stars for a scale of 10). But since most people prefer text, I don't mind. There should be a Template for deletion vote before making changes, I think that's the proper process. Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a bot replacing the shortly active template with the text. My concern here is the ones with the raw image link. -- WB 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've messaged User:NetBot and has accepted the request to convert the stars to text. Gflores Talk 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've set User:Tawkerbot to convert, I will start as soon as I recieve approval (3 days) Tawker 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tawkerbot is presently chugging away at the replacements, it's running a 30s interval so it'll be a few hours. Tawker 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would've been nice if this was brought to the attention of a wider audience before starting. Especially seeing as you've been debating this for a month and have only had input from five users, it's not exactly what I would call a majority consensus. I'm adding a modified Template for Deletion tag thingy to the stars to get the issue more attention. - MightyMoose22 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap that idea, I don't know how to do it. I would suggest that someone who can do it... erm... does it, and adds a link pointing to here for discussion. - MightyMoose22 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase One: 06/01/15 - 06/02/18 

message: It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:
*For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
*Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
*Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
*Generally, it's easier without them.
Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the usage of stars does have several problems, the biggest problem is for me is that the alt-text is usually left out leaving visually impaired a problem. I suggest that WP:Albums discourages the usage of stars. Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should run a replacement script. I'm currently replacing all the stars with text on the articles I'm editting, but without a bot, it would be pretty hard. We need some concensus before running it though. -- WB 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, mainly because not all reviews use the convenient 5 star scale. There isn't a reason why All Music ratings deserve to be represented visually but not, say, Pitchfork ratings (which use a 10 point decimal scale), other than the fact that images for them happen to be more feasible. The resurrected  template is capable of using different scales, but there are problems with it: (1) it relies on CSS hacks (2) even if we are able to create a 10 star scale, for example, it would be way too large (3) the syntax is complicated. Overall, the stars images create an unneeded complication and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could get away with all of these problems if we used text instead of images. -- WB 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, if we used (X/Y) or something simmilar all of the problems can be avoided, and with the bonus of using less bandwith. Nooby god 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we get started on this replacement plan? Is there a bot running free? -- WB 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest, we first ask everyone else if they agree with this plan because wikipedia is ruled by a Consensus, and if everyone agrees we can put a  Request for a bot. What do you think? Nooby_god | Talk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Where should we ask? This place is so quiet. -- WB 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea on where to ask, but we could always run the bot and put in the edit summary 'see WP:ALBUMS/Reason_for_no_stars' or something like that. Nooby_god | Talk 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a good idea to start without a concensus? There are some very very star loving users here in Wikipedia. -- WB 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the stars are nice (only 5 star scale, I don't know of any source that uses stars for a scale of 10). But since most people prefer text, I don't mind. There should be a Template for deletion vote before making changes, I think that's the proper process. Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a bot replacing the shortly active template with the text. My concern here is the ones with the raw image link. -- WB 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've messaged User:NetBot and has accepted the request to convert the stars to text. Gflores Talk 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've set User:Tawkerbot to convert, I will start as soon as I recieve approval (3 days) Tawker 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tawkerbot is presently chugging away at the replacements, it's running a 30s interval so it'll be a few hours. Tawker 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would've been nice if this was brought to the attention of a wider audience before starting. Especially seeing as you've been debating this for a month and have only had input from five users, it's not exactly what I would call a majority consensus. I'm adding a modified Template for Deletion tag thingy to the stars to get the issue more attention. - MightyMoose22 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap that idea, I don't know how to do it. I would suggest that someone who can do it... erm... does it, and adds a link pointing to here for discussion. - MightyMoose22 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars to text 

message: *Support There's not much of a reason to use images. -- WB 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3: Text only (remove images)

message: * Support 1st. This is the best of the options, to my mind; the image is very similar to that used by AMG (which is the most common source of reviews, I think), and makes its point well.  The text alone isn't particularly informative (4/5 what?). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 4: Leave the current system in place (but with better "ALT" usage)

message: Phase Three took place back at WikiProject Albums...
=== Stars ===
Why should the rating of an album be (4/5) rather than ? Am I the only one that thinks the stars look better? RENTAFOR LET? röck 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stars are problematic. This issue was raised several times (see the most recent discussion). Jogers (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which was continued at the Village Pump, but ultimately unresolved. In a quickie vote of the half dozen or so people who cared, it was tentatively decided to keep the stars but maybe redesign them to be more easily read (possibly black instead of yellow). It's a shame none of us thought to save the section before it was deleted. MightyMoose22 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote to get rid of the stars if it was now. Jogers (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd keep them.  I think they give a more elegant look than simple numbers, but maybe that's just me.  In any case, I think stars simply work better.--み使い Mitsukai 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't using stars depend on ratings out of 5, or at least some kind of numerical rating? For the sake of uniformity, I'd prefer for ratings to be given without stars, if at all. Tim Ivorson 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only use the graphics for ratings out of 5; the letter grades, "honorable mention," etc.(Christgau) or decimal (!) out of 10 (Pitchfork) are silly. I don't even like +1/2 star systems (which most people use); it turns a 5 point system into a ten-point one, effectively. No stars sounds like not rated rather than unlistenable (e.g., Metal Machine Music) and 4 1/2 stars is good for those not-quite-perfect albums (e.g. Quadrophenia). I digress, however. I prefer stars (however they are presented) because ratings, for me, are like time - right now it's not 4:08 PM EDT, but "a little after 4." --Fantailfan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said last time round was that I think we should display the review results as they are displayed at the source, if it's shown (as with AMG) as  we should use stars, if it's 4/5 (or 8.3, or B+) as text we should use text, et cetera. I disagree with regardlessly converting all reviews to text as much as I would with converting them all to stars. MightyMoose22 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position hasn't changed. Selectively representing some graphically and some textually is pointless. Having them all as text is the easiest and most uniform.—jiy (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used the PNGs constantly, up to the point where I started to consider visual accessibility. Were there ever specific concerns about that? (Or just having all the information in the article presentable in text form, I suppose.) –Unint 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was and is one of the main concerns, AFAIK. As far as inserting PNGs manually, blind users probably won't know the rating unless alt text is included with each star image, which complicates an already complicated syntax. The current template :Template:Stars (automated method) seems to improve accessibility somewhat.—jiy (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't quite agree with the argument that the review ratings should be displayed as they are displayed at the source. Does it mean that the "mics" should be used instead of stars or plain text to display the The Source (magazine) ratings? Jogers (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think so. Last time I mentioned the use of hypothetical thumbs up/down icons and I still think we should respect the wishes of the magazine staff and use their system, even if they want to rate an album out of seventeen cucumbers. Sure it might be a bit awkward right now, but as soon as we have a system in place (with templates, a directory/gallery for ease finding the pictures & a detailed section on this page) I believe it can work effectively. MightyMoose22 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine 10 links to reviews, each with its own rating system. It would horribly clutter the reviews section IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but they also provide a quickly recognised focal point - i.e. if you want to know the Source rating, you know to just look for the mics and you've found it, otherwise you'd be searching for a text needle in the middle of a text haystack. Just glance back up at this converstion, you can't deny that the stars (and the strawberry) stand out, at least more than where people have written text ratings. Plus, about half of the ratings would be/are text based anyway, so the stars (or whatever) would/do break it up a bit. MightyMoose22 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at My Private Nation by Train and you get a good idea at how POV RS reviews are in the first place. At least AMG is consistent within the band/musician's career. --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:KISS should be a guideline here. I like stars, but that's a personal preference. If it doesn't use stars, I use a numerical rating. The non-rated RS reviews, which you can read and judge (favorable/unfavorable) involve original research IMEHO. There is the template:stars which is marginally more readable, but as Jogers might say, isn't for the low-visioned, but I like it anyway. --Fantailfan 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good ponit about RS, and they're also potentially POV. If a review mentions that half an album is good and the other half is bad, it's up to us to decide whether to class it as a favourable review or not. MightyMoose22 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the review says it's half bad, half good, it should be labeled "mixed". That's what the WP page says and I don't think there's too much risk of OR or POV in summarizing reviews that way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if it's 50/50, but what about 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20. It's up to the reader to decide when it stops being "mixed" and starts leaning one way or the other. MightyMoose22 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Warning: Heavy POV ahead Assuming the reviewer isn't (say) Christgau with his bias against unoriginality (however well-executed). Look, that's always the problem and while Christgau can get away with it (he is one person's POV) the reviews in AMG, Pitchfork and Stylus (which are the ones I use in my contris) are, to some degree, anonymous. Argh. I wish music reviews weren't, like so much of pop culture in the past twenty years, so self-referential (until I actually listened to Velvet Underground in 1987 I was unaware of their influence, relegating the talented (Bowie) and talentless (any number of off-key "artists") to the same level). end of rant --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (This isn't in reply to any specific comment, just don't want it squashed right against the margin). Since some people seem to find some of the stars hard to decifer between a halves and full/empty I just though I'd throw it out there, that I've created a new set (mainly to get feedback on it) which does ?/5 including ?.5s) which renders like this  to give you (using 4.5 as the example) this: , which I find easier to decipher halves with (I designed the colours to be fairly strong to make it contrast the grey more, but it might still be too hard for some people) but I just want to get some feedback on it. To see it in "action" you can take a look at Paris (Paris Hilton album) and let me know what you think (reply at the main project page if you have a comment relating directly to these stars, as that's what I'm monitoring the most closely). - Рэдхот 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also throw my voice in here (late as it is), to add to RedHotHeat's post.  Building off his  template, additional templates (by myself and Rich Farmbrough) have been created to allow for additional types of rating systems: , , , and .  In addition to RHH's template's display of Alt text, these new templates allow for any decimal (such as 3.2 or 7.7) to be used.  It seems that this family of rating templates is gaining popularity due to their simplicity and uniformity of display. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase Three: 06/05/11 - 06/05/13 

message: Why should the rating of an album be (4/5) rather than ? Am I the only one that thinks the stars look better? RENTAFOR LET? röck 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stars are problematic. This issue was raised several times (see the most recent discussion). Jogers (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which was continued at the Village Pump, but ultimately unresolved. In a quickie vote of the half dozen or so people who cared, it was tentatively decided to keep the stars but maybe redesign them to be more easily read (possibly black instead of yellow). It's a shame none of us thought to save the section before it was deleted. MightyMoose22 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote to get rid of the stars if it was now. Jogers (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd keep them.  I think they give a more elegant look than simple numbers, but maybe that's just me.  In any case, I think stars simply work better.--み使い Mitsukai 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't using stars depend on ratings out of 5, or at least some kind of numerical rating? For the sake of uniformity, I'd prefer for ratings to be given without stars, if at all. Tim Ivorson 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only use the graphics for ratings out of 5; the letter grades, "honorable mention," etc.(Christgau) or decimal (!) out of 10 (Pitchfork) are silly. I don't even like +1/2 star systems (which most people use); it turns a 5 point system into a ten-point one, effectively. No stars sounds like not rated rather than unlistenable (e.g., Metal Machine Music) and 4 1/2 stars is good for those not-quite-perfect albums (e.g. Quadrophenia). I digress, however. I prefer stars (however they are presented) because ratings, for me, are like time - right now it's not 4:08 PM EDT, but "a little after 4." --Fantailfan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said last time round was that I think we should display the review results as they are displayed at the source, if it's shown (as with AMG) as  we should use stars, if it's 4/5 (or 8.3, or B+) as text we should use text, et cetera. I disagree with regardlessly converting all reviews to text as much as I would with converting them all to stars. MightyMoose22 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position hasn't changed. Selectively representing some graphically and some textually is pointless. Having them all as text is the easiest and most uniform.—jiy (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used the PNGs constantly, up to the point where I started to consider visual accessibility. Were there ever specific concerns about that? (Or just having all the information in the article presentable in text form, I suppose.) –Unint 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was and is one of the main concerns, AFAIK. As far as inserting PNGs manually, blind users probably won't know the rating unless alt text is included with each star image, which complicates an already complicated syntax. The current template :Template:Stars (automated method) seems to improve accessibility somewhat.—jiy (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't quite agree with the argument that the review ratings should be displayed as they are displayed at the source. Does it mean that the "mics" should be used instead of stars or plain text to display the The Source (magazine) ratings? Jogers (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think so. Last time I mentioned the use of hypothetical thumbs up/down icons and I still think we should respect the wishes of the magazine staff and use their system, even if they want to rate an album out of seventeen cucumbers. Sure it might be a bit awkward right now, but as soon as we have a system in place (with templates, a directory/gallery for ease finding the pictures & a detailed section on this page) I believe it can work effectively. MightyMoose22 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine 10 links to reviews, each with its own rating system. It would horribly clutter the reviews section IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but they also provide a quickly recognised focal point - i.e. if you want to know the Source rating, you know to just look for the mics and you've found it, otherwise you'd be searching for a text needle in the middle of a text haystack. Just glance back up at this converstion, you can't deny that the stars (and the strawberry) stand out, at least more than where people have written text ratings. Plus, about half of the ratings would be/are text based anyway, so the stars (or whatever) would/do break it up a bit. MightyMoose22 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at My Private Nation by Train and you get a good idea at how POV RS reviews are in the first place. At least AMG is consistent within the band/musician's career. --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:KISS should be a guideline here. I like stars, but that's a personal preference. If it doesn't use stars, I use a numerical rating. The non-rated RS reviews, which you can read and judge (favorable/unfavorable) involve original research IMEHO. There is the template:stars which is marginally more readable, but as Jogers might say, isn't for the low-visioned, but I like it anyway. --Fantailfan 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good ponit about RS, and they're also potentially POV. If a review mentions that half an album is good and the other half is bad, it's up to us to decide whether to class it as a favourable review or not. MightyMoose22 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the review says it's half bad, half good, it should be labeled "mixed". That's what the WP page says and I don't think there's too much risk of OR or POV in summarizing reviews that way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if it's 50/50, but what about 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20. It's up to the reader to decide when it stops being "mixed" and starts leaning one way or the other. MightyMoose22 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Warning: Heavy POV ahead Assuming the reviewer isn't (say) Christgau with his bias against unoriginality (however well-executed). Look, that's always the problem and while Christgau can get away with it (he is one person's POV) the reviews in AMG, Pitchfork and Stylus (which are the ones I use in my contris) are, to some degree, anonymous. Argh. I wish music reviews weren't, like so much of pop culture in the past twenty years, so self-referential (until I actually listened to Velvet Underground in 1987 I was unaware of their influence, relegating the talented (Bowie) and talentless (any number of off-key "artists") to the same level). end of rant --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (This isn't in reply to any specific comment, just don't want it squashed right against the margin). Since some people seem to find some of the stars hard to decifer between a halves and full/empty I just though I'd throw it out there, that I've created a new set (mainly to get feedback on it) which does ?/5 including ?.5s) which renders like this  to give you (using 4.5 as the example) this: , which I find easier to decipher halves with (I designed the colours to be fairly strong to make it contrast the grey more, but it might still be too hard for some people) but I just want to get some feedback on it. To see it in "action" you can take a look at Paris (Paris Hilton album) and let me know what you think (reply at the main project page if you have a comment relating directly to these stars, as that's what I'm monitoring the most closely). - Рэдхот 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also throw my voice in here (late as it is), to add to RedHotHeat's post.  Building off his  template, additional templates (by myself and Rich Farmbrough) have been created to allow for additional types of rating systems: , , , and .  In addition to RHH's template's display of Alt text, these new templates allow for any decimal (such as 3.2 or 7.7) to be used.  It seems that this family of rating templates is gaining popularity due to their simplicity and uniformity of display. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars