Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space

Untitled

This is being discussed in too many places. Please unify discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#In-infobox reviews deprecation rather than fragmenting conversation or copy/pasting things to all the different pages. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

When was this decided? A bad idea, if you ask me. 146.151.100.80 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, with some steps moving forward up until summer of 2010. You can see the discussion start up again at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Album_reviews. Feel free to search the archives for previous consensus reached on deprecating the reviews parameter. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Awful idea. One of the great utilities of the album pages on Wikipedia is their up-front aggregation of critical reception. I see no reason why such useful, pithily presented information should be moved down the page. Such summary information deserves to be in the page's 'heads-up display' rather than buried deep in the heart of darkness. --patton1138 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree:-

The entire idea is wrong, and seems to have been discussed by a select few, in an obscure corner, rather than the large number of editors of music articles.
The reviews template hasn't been thought through either, it isn't the same width as the infobox and has also generated objections (see Template talk:Album ratings)
This discussion is taking place in several places at once eg Template talk:Infobox album diluting the intensity of feeling
The box with the warning triangle and "The reviews parameter has been deprecated. ...." is extemely ugly, annoying and unneccessary

Now other editors are aware of this, the reaction on several talk pages is clearly entirely against. PLEASE STOP THIS NOW - and yes, I am shouting, but politely.
Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is gross and horrible. The given example page is atrocious -- the "professional reviews" box is sized just differently enough from the info box to look clumsy and ugly. I liked the review where they were; they made sense there, visually and logically. 216.64.147.98 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed!!!!!! The idea to change this is going AGAINST what is logical and what the true consensus is regarding the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fully deprecate" ?

LOL - sounds like a euphemism for genocide.

Deprecation is non-removal, plus "reckon it's better if you don't".

What you mean is, "In an effort to finally fucking extirpate the Reviews= parameter, like it or not..." 188.222.43.151 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When used with software, the current usage of the term deprecate is correct and a little less violent sounding than extirpation. The beginning of this document will be clarified soon, I'm just being lazy at the moment. The parameter is simply being deprecated because it's been superseded, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Reception'

Ok I have one problem; on pages D12 World and Devils Night (album) I replaced the parameter with a section, but is there any template I can add to say that the section is incomplete?--Technobliterator (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put |noprose=yes as a parameter in {{Album ratings}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Load of Garbage

This is wrong. It's B.S. and it needs to be reversed. These Warning notices will stay up forever in thousands of instances. The way it was before was fine and no one can argue to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been consensus established that the old format is problematic. Specifically, it promoted link rot and was inconsistent with other types of articles which include reviews (such as video games, which have always used a separate reviews box). If the bot gets up and running, most ratings will be moved automatically, and there will only be a few which need to be cleaned up by hand. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Load of Garbage despite the previous response

This is absolutely wrongheaded -- a monumental waste of energy expended on making the articles LESS useful. Even if the proposed change was an improvement (and it's not) it would still be dumb to work on that rather than on adding content. Please reverse this idiot decision. MirkMeister (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How to move reviews" doc

I've updated the documentation about how to move the reviews -- here's the before and after. The explanation is now a little longer, but I've tried to make it easier for less experienced editors to help with the work of moving the ratings. I've also added more details about how to change the links to footnotes, and without using bare URLs, partly modeled after what the album bot is doing. It's easy to create footnotes with text instead of bare URLs, if you keep things simple, and the instructions break it down step by step. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion:

This is a horrible idea. It's convenient as hell to look to the side of the page and quickly see how a piece of media was scored. The Reviews section should be left as the part detailing the things' performance and what Roger Ebert thinks of it.

Earofdoom (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read the big red notice at the top of editing this page which says "STOP!".

Second, and on-topic, the reviews section will remain that. It just also has this box. And I would argue that having the reception box in a logical place like the reviews section is more convenient than looking in an unusual place like an infobox. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't wanna.

Second,

>implying that scrolling down the page and finding the reviews section is more convenient than glancing at the infobox without scrolling

>implying that the infobox is not a box for information

>implying that reviews are not information

Well, if that's the case, we might as well not have any reviews at all. Or, rather, any form of personal opinion. Everyone must treat everything with the same appreciation. Communist.

Earofdoom (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More people will see your comments if you put them in the main discussion about this, which is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Album reviews. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing instruction?

Part of the procedure is to introduce (if necessary) references for the reviews. If an album article contains {{Unreferenced}}, this step invalidates that template and {{Refimprove}} appears more appropriate. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the instructions? -- Skysmurf (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]