Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
tarquin wrote:
> Of the 5 nobel prize pages, 3 start from the present day, 2 go forward
> from 1901.
>
> I found a page on filmographies etc which suggest that lists start
> from the most recent item:
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_an…
>
>
> A comment on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Filmographies and
> Discographies raises the fact that this order may have been influenced
> by the IMDB's filmographies.
>
> IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as
> such should go forwards.
> what are your opinions?
It's the same as listings of an author or artist's works (eg.paintings,
books). A few weeks ago somebody went to the trouble of making a listing
of books by Dianna Wynne Jones - in alphabetical order, which meant that
somebody else had to go through and painstakingly re-order it to be
chronological.
I think it might have been appropriate to copy the list
and reorder the copy in accordance with the new preference.
If the lists are then appropriately titled the reader can
select the best for their purposes.
I would like to be bold here and to suggest that ALL lists involving
dates in any way should be chronological.
There may be places where multiple indexing schemes
are appropriate.
For example: If a researcher is looking for background
on a specific satellite or space mission, and they have
a mission or spacecraft name, they may not
wish to scan a chronological list of all human space
missions from the early 50s on to find it.
In this case, an alphabetical index works best for the
reader.
If they are looking for space based earth surveys then a
subject index may work best.
If they are looking for research done in the late
60s or early 70s then a chronological index may be
most useful.
If a Wikipedian exists who is willing to create a
specific type of index, then I see no benefit to the
reader from other Wikipedians displacing this contribution
rather than adding another method to it.
regards,
Mike Irwin