Talk:List of disco artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We should be using this rather than sniping at each other through edit summaries. To get the ball rolling: I think Cher is disco. Hyacinth 05:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blondie's "Call Me" is definitely a rock song and not a disco song, despite being produced by Giorgio Moroder (although one could make a much better case for "Heart of Glass" and "Atomic" being disco). Abba's "Waterloo" not only predates disco, having been made in 1974, but could not be considered a disco song either ; I'd consider it pop/rock or bubblegum (not in a derogatory sense) perhaps, but not disco.

[edit] A, B, C...

errr, isn't it customary to alphabetize individuals by their last name? -- eo 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you've to the time to sort this list from scratch, then be my guest. 84.139.63.79 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The general rule is, it's sorted by the first word of the name if it's a group, or by the last name if it's an individual, unless the first name of the group is an article (a, an, or the) in which case the first word is ignored. Thus, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are sorted under B and R, respectively, not under T. This can be a somewhat humorous problem if you don't realize it's a group, for example, Pablo Cruise is filed under P because it's a group, not a person. Of course, if you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't be alphabetizing rock groups! :) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 10:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I'm definitely in favor of merging this article with the A-K & L-Z articles; because it makes more sense to have one big, uniform list rather than these 3 separate lists (besides, the A-K & L-Z lists are not as expansive as this big one).Sgt. Bond 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is the A-K article alone is over 35K. Now, what could be done is to have those two articles transcluded into this one and all the content on this page merged to them. Or this page could be made one huge page with the resultant issue of it being very large. If it's not over 100K then it probably wouldn't be too bad. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 10:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just opened the article for editing. This article is 82K already; if we add the sub-articles it will probably exceed 150K. This is a prime indicator that it should be split, and perhaps the subsidiary articles need to be split as well, perhaps split to four sub-articles instead of two. Thus having it divided into sub articles is the correct method Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)