Category talk:Discographies

Doubles?

Hey guys, I was wondering if it isnt kinda double work putting the Sesamstrasse Live Discography there? They are listed in the normal Sesamstrasse Discography already right? (Pino 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Paul! Yeah, I'm kind of in the middle of reworking the German CD's. Once I'm done with creating some new pages, I'm going to take the Live ones off, so we'll have 2 separate discographies just like the US ones. -- Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I didn't realize we had two separate discographies. Why don't we put them together? -- Danny (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wendy and I were talking it about it here a while ago. There was already a separate category for them when I got here, and I had some other reasons which are explained in the conversation. -- Ken (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I understand your point about the discography telling a particular story. I do think it's worthwhile having the stuff on one page, though -- what do you think about this sandbox page? I put the Sesame Street Live stuff underneath the main list, in a separate heading. You could write some text explaining that this is a separate "thread" in the Sesame albums story. -- Danny (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The SSL albums are already included in the main discography. The SSL discography exists just for those who want to see the SSL albums. I don't think there's any harm in a SSL list, and it doesn't make sense to me to include them at the bottom of the regular list. Sesame Street doesn't put out new albums anymore, so the SSL releases are really the only thing going anymore. It's all part of the same story of Sesame Street album releases that doesn't make sense told out of order. —Scott (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're not included in the main discography; that's what I was asking about. Right now, Sesame Street Discography and Sesame Street Live Discography are completely separate lists. I'm totally okay with having a separate SSL discography page -- but I also think those albums should be on the main discography page, either integrated with the list or as a separate section below.

Ken was saying in this conversation with Wendy why he would prefer to keep them separate... -- Danny (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. They used to be. It looks like Ken took them out back in May. So yeah, I'd like to add them back. —Scott (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. So the question is -- put them in the main discography list, or have them as a separate section? Personally, I'd like to integrate them, but I want to be respectful of Ken's opinion here. He's been working really hard on the discography page and all the album pages, so I want to make sure we hear his thoughts. -- Danny (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I was ok with splitting them out is that the discography is extremely long already to look through. I thought that in many ways, having a link at the bottom (or top) to a separate page made them more accessible than tucked away at the bottom of a huge long list. But mostly I thought Ken's argument had some validity.

However, if they're going to be on one page, let's make a separate section of the same table like we do on the singles -- I don't like two different width tables. -- Wendy (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Sorry I'm late. Well, one of the reasons why I wanted to split them out was because they had their own category, so I figured they should have their own page. I wasn't sure if putting them in more than one place would be confusing or redundant. And like I was telling Wendy, I've always felt that these were separate from the "regular" albums sold in stores. (As a matter of fact, I didn't even know there were live albums until I got here.) Another reason why I wanted their own page is that as we find more, it's less of a pain to add to a short list. But I understand Scott's point that they're part of the SS library, so I would be okay with putting them in both, if that's okay with everybody.

Just as a side question, since this seems to be the longest chart we have, could we maybe break it in half? Like SS Discography (1970-1990) and SS Discography (1991-2008), or somewhere where it's roughly in half? Maybe this would be a good time to revisit the other Sandbox idea to fit more covers per line, and save space. -- Ken (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like having them all in one place. We're not running out of paper or anything, so we can make pages as long as we want. Personally, I'm really annoyed at news sites that split up an article into three or more sections. They're doing it to sell more ad impressions, but I'd so much rather see the whole thing intact. —Scott (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think long tables are a problem at all. But I would like to take another look at Sesame Street Discography, which I made back in December and then kind of forgot about. I don't think it matters whether we make the page shorter, per se, but that sandbox design gives you more information per mouse-scroll, and it takes away some of the blank space.

Wendy - I agree about the two different width tables... I'm not sure why it came out like that. I'm sure we can fix that, if we decide to use two tables. -- Danny (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So are people okay with having the Live albums on their own chart page, and also put back in the large chart? Because I'd like to do the same for the German albums. -- Ken (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I think both pages are fine. -- Danny (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Layout change

I would like to propose changing the Sesame Street Discography layout to the gallery format found on the Sesame Street Videography. I think it will make the page a lot shorter, since we'll have 4 covers per line, instead of 1, and there won't be so much white space around the text in the boxes. I've looked at both pages, and I think that all the existing text can be transferred to the text areas in the gallery format. How does everyone else feel about this? -- Ken (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would work. It's kind of nice to scroll down chronologically leisurely, as opposed to the gallery format which is more cramped (and I think the album covers also tend to be more interesting and provide more of a visual history than the video covers), but on the whole, I'm in favor of it. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the same could be done then with the Sesamstraat and Sesamstrasse Discography's?. -- Paul (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (CET)

I like the table layout here visually, but I think it is at least worth setting it up in sandbox to see what it would look like; I might like the gallery too and it certainly might be a better way to present the information. My concern is that it would make the page feel less like a timeline. Although I admit it's a pain to scroll through the table when I'm in a hurry :o) -- Wendy (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true, there's a lot of wasted white space here. I tried out another idea here... -- Danny (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Danny, you're a genius! I was going to ask if we could do them in pairs, but I wasn't sure what that would do to the text. This looks perfect, and we can even expand text in the box if we need to! I like how this looks! -- Ken (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)