Category talk:Discography - Revision history

Tonefish: /* The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links */ final poop

2008-05-25T23:51:47Z

The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links: final poop

Duncan: /* The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links */

2008-05-25T11:04:35Z

The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links

Tonefish: New section: The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links

2008-05-25T06:28:18Z

New section: The Crux of This Biscuit is The Links

Maroual at 00:23, 25 May 2006

2006-05-25T00:23:20Z

Emdebe at 12:00, 9 April 2005

2005-04-09T12:00:13Z

Duncan: Tracks listed as Albums?

2005-04-09T08:19:23Z

Tracks listed as Albums?

KillUglyRadio: /* Subcategories */

2005-03-31T14:30:27Z

Subcategories

KillUglyRadio: Subcategories

2005-03-31T14:30:01Z

Subcategories

Emdebe at 17:29, 25 March 2005

2005-03-25T17:29:44Z

KillUglyRadio: /* Let's not get too personal in articles */

2005-03-25T10:22:37Z

Let's not get too personal in articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:51, 25 May 2008
Line 53:		Line 53:

	: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. [[User:Duncan\|Duncan]] 04:04, 25 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. [[User:Duncan\|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?)--[[User:Tonefish\|Tonefish]] 16:51, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:04, 25 May 2008
Line 51:		Line 51:

	This dumb fido is now going to crawl into a dark corner as you roll up your newspapers. --[[User:Tonefish\|Tonefish]] 23:28, 24 May 2008 (PDT)		This dumb fido is now going to crawl into a dark corner as you roll up your newspapers. --[[User:Tonefish\|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. [[User:Duncan\|Duncan]] 04:04, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 25 May 2008
Line 30:		Line 30:
	A titan work which could be useful => http://www.bsnpubs.com/discog.html<br>		A titan work which could be useful => http://www.bsnpubs.com/discog.html<br>
	[[User:Maroual\|Maroual]] 17:23, 24 May 2006 (PDT)		[[User:Maroual\|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.<br>
		+	†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. --[[User:Tonefish\|Tonefish]] 23:28, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 25 May 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:

	With some tracks an obsolete Disco-category tag was removed. - emdebe		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<br>
		+	[[User:Maroual\|Maroual]] 17:23, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 -- KUR
-== Resp ==
+=== Resp ===
 Have I offended someone? That was ment to be FUNNY... The next time I will use an OVERSIZED EMOTICON! - emdebe
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 [[User:Duncan|Duncan]] 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:19, 9 April 2005
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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]]		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?
		+
		+	[[User:Duncan\|Duncan]] 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 31 March 2005
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Subcategories ==		== 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]]	+	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]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 31 March 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 25 March 2005
Line 10:		Line 10:

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

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 == 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]].
+Edited out text that was too subjective/personal IMO, see guidelines with regard to editing articles at the [[Main Page]].
 -- KUR