Comments Very nice work. I only have a few minor comments:
- Avoid putting citations in the middle of a sentence.
- Some formats say MP3, though I would recommend something like DD, since not all downloads come in MP3, and so by just saying MP3 you're ignoring other downloads in other formats.
- I have not seen the songs distributed as anything other than as MP3s. However, it has been changed, as it appears that most recent Discography FLs do use the term DD. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't bold the years.
- This is a function of the sortability. See my comment below on this. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the formatting so that the bold does not appear anymore. I didn't see the point in using column header code. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lang is Chinese, so dates should be in international format (2 January 2008) rather than American format (January 2, 2008.
- But these are predominantly the release dates in the US, not China. I can change this as necessary, but I'm incredibly confused by the dating format policy. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really pretty simple: give the earliest release date, and give it in the format that represents the artist's place of origin, in this case Chinese (which would be the international format). If the Chinese versions of the albums came out first, then you should change the dates to those. Drewcifer (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Retaining the existing format says If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting either format, but am only stating the facts. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, didn't know about that. That said, I think the point of that guideline is to protect articles that have evolved a certain way over a long period of time. This list is less than a month old, so I don't think that would really apply. Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mistaken. Lang Lang may be Chinese, but his releases certainly are not. I'm not even sure if his music is released in China and/or if the release dates are different. In any case, since he's predominantly an American performer, I still think the release dates should follow the American date format. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, as long as there's a rationale behind it. And as long as the formatting is in some way related to the artist himself, rather than the author's preference. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having sortable columns is unnecessary and largely unhelpful since it's already chronological, and the only option is alphabetical by album titles. Lang hasn't really released that much stuff, so an alphabetical sort option seems silly to me.
- The other list had them alphabetical. I don't see how it's silly; frankly, I don't understand why it isn't used. The added functionality isn't negatively affecting the list in any way. Additionally, I think other discography pages, particularly those who list the places that releases received on charts, should be sortable as well. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An External links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only items I could potentially add to an External Link section (that I can think of) would consist of links I've used as sources and links to Amazon to purchase the songs. What exactly do you suggest? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most discogs have a link to Discogs.com and the artist's homepage. That is usually enough, though if you can think of something else go for it! Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Year columns are usually centered. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This cannot be done with a sortable table; additionally, all other discog lists that I've seen have the column so thin that they appear centered. I can do this if requested. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, the only good predecessor to this list is Kronos Quartet discography. All other discographies that are FLs are of a different format, since they list chart placements. It is for this reason that I'm more inclined to follow the format of Kronos Quartet discography instead of the more recent discography FLs. It was promoted on May 5, 2009, which is not that long ago. I would be surprised if the formatting has changed that severely in such a short period of time and would question why these changes occurred. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|