Category talk:Discography

From Zappa Wiki Jawaka
Jump to: navigation, search

"Of course, this list is completely useless."

Sorry emdebe but that's just your opinion, so I edited it out. For some, this list will be very useful (myself included).

-- KUR

Let's not get too personal in articles

Edited out text that was too subjective/personal IMO, see guidelines with regard to editing articles at the Main Page.

-- KUR

Resp

Have I offended someone? That was ment to be FUNNY... The next time I will use an OVERSIZED EMOTICON! - emdebe

Subcategories

Should we make subcategories under "Zappa Per Album"? There's already a Category:Compilations which was created by emdebe if I'm correct. So then it seems logical to create other indexes, such as Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, Nineties, 2000s... or not? Your thoughts? -- User:KillUglyRadio

Tracks listed as Albums?

Little House, Nine Types and WPLJ (possibly others) are listed with the albums although categorised as Tracks. Should they be (some obscure Belgian compilation perhaps) or is this some techno problem?

Duncan 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (PDT)

With some tracks an obsolete Disco-category tag was removed. - emdebe

Sources

A titan work which could be useful => http://www.bsnpubs.com/discog.html
Maroual 17:23, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links

I'm heading into deep water here, but there are a couple of things I have a problem with on this Category:Discography page...

I have a 20" screen and use a Firefox browser. With the toolbar/status & sidebar bumph in view (important they're there for hoardes of reasons) together with my need to see my Application Dock, bin etc on desktop, I end up with a web viewing area approx 23cms wide by 17cms deep. (Pretty much the same in Netscape & Explorer on my other kits)

The site looks great in it and, overall, no probs. However, having moved around in the site a lot more since I first arrived I realise now why I hit a problem on day one...

I arrived at main page, had a quick read, thought "great, I'll check my albums against the list" and clicked Discography. Consequently, I had (and still have) in my window the page section down to just below the foot of the FZ pic, and what looks to be a clear introduction on viewing the albums with 3 links & an alpha-search box. (i.e. It actually looks like a complete page).

What wasn't instantly clear was that the Sub-cats referred to were lower down (and not to be found once I'd clicked one of the 3 choices), so off I went to B for Beefheart- happily ignorant I'd left a damn good searchbase behind. (Yes, I know my slider bar was active on the right, but that's usually true of most web pages that have legal/contact links etc at foot I'm not interested in)

Here's where I really upset you. If the 2nd para of the intro had said something like "From the 6 choices below select to view albums; by cover; historically; chronologically; by alpha-search; by sub-category, or individually by name" I would have known to look further on down this page for those last 2 given links.

Next prob I have is that if I focus on the last choice 'Discography' its obvious the albums are listed alphabetically. There's a device that tells me I'm looking at 1st 200 or 2nd 200, so if I'm looking for an album I think is called "Big Splosh" in B & it ain't there I can click across to the chunk with the S in and find it's actually called "Splosh Bang", no problem. I was there 'cos I knew 'vaguely' what I wanted to find. What I hadn't realised was that the Sub-cat was moving too... because I'd left it to go down to Discography after reading there were only 9 subcategories in it, none of which fitting "Side Projects" which I was looking for and it looks like it ends on 'O'.

You've probably lost me by now. In short, I'm suggesting the first line in both boxes says something like "There is a total of 19 sub-categories in this section" and "There is a total of 308 entries in this section" respectively†- with the previous/next 200 device bottom right on both lists, inside the sections, so I know I'm at the end of either.
†or "These are 9 of a total of 19 sub-categories" etc.

This dumb fido is now going to crawl into a dark corner as you roll up your newspapers. --Tonefish 23:28, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

Yes you have lost me. I don't think I am seeing what you are seeing. On a Mac the scroll/slider bar is scaled according to the size of the page so it is obvious that I am only looking at a quarter of the page is that not the case for you? The category listings are generated automatically from the categories at the bottom of each article. I guess a solution would be a separate Discography article which could be better sub-divided to aid navigation rather than the unwieldily Category:Discography page. Duncan 04:04, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

That's it... 'Unweildy'... You've encapsulated what I was trying to say. People don't look properly (I include myself). They plug in and play, unaware of preferences/option+shift/scaling sliders etc- they need spoon-feeding. Discography (by Cover), Album History and Album Chronology go to separate pages. I think if 'Albums by Sub-category' and 'Albums by Name' (or whatever) did the same and were added to the existing 3 links up in the intro and took me to the the pages then all would be clear. Five links, listed right there at the top, each taking you to the album selection method of your choice. (The first 3 have pages with intros & explanations, why not the last 2?)--Tonefish 16:51, 25 May 2008 (PDT)