Template talk:Music ratings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music ratings template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Songs

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

This edit request to Template:Album ratings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:Album ratings has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|type=sidebar|1=Song ratings}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. QuietHere (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical

Is it possible to have the template automatically sort the ratings alphabetically? It gets very tedious having to shift a bunch of parameters just because Allmusic, for example, published their review after the article was created. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might be difficult, as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Skinny, etc. should not be sorted under T, and I don't know how a bot would be able to differentiate that. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there can be an optional parameter? For example:

|rev1 = Pitchfork |rev2 = The Guardian |sort2 = "Guardian" |rev3 = AllMusic

So ideally, it would sort it "AllMusic, Guardian, Pitchfork" no matter what order the parameters are input. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silly to have the reviews sorted alphabetically. They should be by date (contemporary reviews should always have prominence) or even by high rating to low rating. Alphabetically by name of publication means nothing.Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I've done the work to merge Template:Song ratings, Template:Album ratings, and Template:Single ratings into one music ratings template now as a result of the TFD (it was effectively nothing).

I've done the minimal work to update Template:Music ratings/doc to make the language in it applicable to songs as well as best I can. Page watchers may be interested in further adjustment with instructions from Template:Single ratings/doc and Template:Song ratings/doc. Izno (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New template placement

I feel like having the reviews on TOP of the paragraphs is sort of choppy. Shouldn't we place the template to the right of the review paragraphs so that they compliment each other? Kind of like biography templates are laid out. skelter (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to an article that does not display as you expect. Is that article following the instructions in the template documentation? This template is generally the first element after the heading for the section on Reception, Critical reception, Reviews, or something similar. If one of those sections is not present, the template should be placed immediately after the infobox, and can then be moved once a Reception section is present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

Since AnyDecentMusic? no longer has an article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnyDecentMusic?), should this template be updated so that it no longer redlinks to it? मल्ल (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the community decide that it's not a notable website, then we should remove it completely from the template. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesatellite: Just because the article is deleted doesn't mean it's not a reliable source; we had a discussion about it back in 2016. Just remove the red link off the template, and that's all. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the website is not listed on WP:RSP, how can we be convinced with that? On other hand, Metacritic is listed there and its realibilty clearly approved by community. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesatellite: What are you talking about? Most editors have agreed it's a reliable source, just because it's not on WP:RSP doesn't mean it's not reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not on RSP but it is on RSMUSIC. No reason I'm aware of that it wouldn't be considered reliable, and there is established consensus. Removing the redlink makes sense, but it should still be kept in the template. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like this AfD definitely should've been mentioned on WT:ALBUMS. I didn't even know this article was an issue before it was deleted. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 16:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]