Template talk:Rating Display

Comment
Numbers are more accurate and lucid than words. --Franken Kesey 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No they aren't. Rating is a categorical measure on this wiki, not a precise numerical one. There is no metric, so numbers would just correlate to categories anyways. Words are much more clear. --Aarnott 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ... huh? The will be filled in with numbers when the template is called. The only reason they're even being shown here is because it's hard to see what it looks like otherwise, and there's a few forms that need to be generated and looked over.


 * And per the recently closed vote, we're doing straight number of rating displays now Aarnott. Possibly with a displayed average after a certain threshold. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Forms of Things
If anyone is unhappy with the format of these ratings displays, let me know soonish please. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)An orange or yellow color may be better for ‘articles with talk pages but no ratings’. It would stand out a little more than the current blue, yet not be too distracting. The word ‘own’ in the box is unnecessary, and inconsistent with the ‘articles with no talk page.’ Also there is an oddball ‘commentary’ link in the ‘articles with talk pages but no ratings’ box, while none of the other three variants have one; to be frank, the three other links (homebrew, rating and talk) should be sufficient without it.


 * 2)I still find the current display of “like, love, neutral, dislike and hate” to be different from what was voted on. The ‘articles with no talk page’ flag is rather impressive.


 * 3)Will the rating box, or boxes that state there is a lack of one, going to be merged with the author box? Or will it be a separate thing? --Franken Kesey 23:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll kick around the alternate colors, see if I can find a good one. Will also tighten up wording. And yay impressive flags.
 * It probably should have been better worded, but I thought we were voting on a 5 point scale not specifically a 1-5 scale. The reason for the words is 1) it's an easier migration from an existing words scheme, and 2) the numbers need to have external meanings for a CommFave threshold to make the most sense. I can swap the numbers and the words around, but the ratings template is still looking for words (which is easy enough to change). If you're not down with words as the continued ratings basis, you should probably say so on Project talk:Rating Articles so the specific form of the actual ratings can go back up for a vote.
 * It's going in the author box, at the bottom, where the current ratings listing is. The annoying ones should also stretch the author block a bit, making it more obvious.
 * - Tarkisflux Talk 00:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you do us the favor of showing us what you have in mind for the complete box? --Franken Kesey 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's a reasonable thing to want to see. And it helps me peg down spacing issues. So here you go - User:Tarkisflux/sandbox/Ratings Notifier. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Community Favorite/Opposed
What will be the new requirements for each? --Franken Kesey 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Current requirements are set at 4+ votes, with a >=3.75 or <=0.25 average respectively. That corresponds to 3 love votes and 1 like vote for a favorite, or the bad versions of those for an opposed. I'm starting to think that those ranges might be too narrow, but we'll see soon enough. - Tarkisflux Talk 20:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For Surgo about Rating Extension
Problem with the response messages being centered right now is obvious because I suggested using line-height instead of making vertical align work. I can suggest a different way to make it properly aligned like a table cell would be when I get home if this is the desired --TK-Squared 12:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't even realize there was a problem...I should be able to fix this using the position/top/left elements, like I do for the footer. Surgo 13:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)