[Wikipedia-l] order of lists of works & prizes

[tarquin]

This has been hanging around for some time, with most people in favour, 
and only 1 1/2 objections.

In answer to Toby, I think we should choose a standard because 
consistency of presentation is important in a body of work such as an 
enclyclopedia. (The information itself is more important, of course.)
If I found in a paper encyclopedia that the list of Nobel Laureates went 
one way, but Pulitzer Prizes went the other, I would be pretty unimpressed.

In asnwer to LDC, chronological lists are a form of potted history. The 
Nobel lists give a quick overview of developments in a field such as 
Physics; sports records such as the 100m show how human sporting 
achievement has progressed over the last century.
Likewise, lists of novels or films show the development of the artist in 
question.
I think the difference with film biog sites that give lists starting 
from today is that these sites seek to give a "current snapshot" -- the 
star as they are *today*.
An encyclopedia, though, seeks to show the complete history of that 
person, how they develop to become who they are at the time of writing.

Anyway, we have bigger fish to fry on this list, so since this had only 
minor objections, I think we can say it's Manual of Style policy 
(allowing for exceptions, of course), and move on.

I'll work on the Nobel lists at some point -- one of them (physics I 
think) is *really* nicely laid-out, with details of *what* the prize was 
awarded for, as well as the recipient. I'd like to make the others look 
the same.


Toby Bartels wrote:

>tarquin wrote at last:
>
>  
>
>>IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such
>>should go forwards.
>>what are your opinions?
>>    
>>
>
>Why must we choose a standard?
>Since we're mixed up now, and either method is clearly usable,
>let this be like British vs American spelling.
>We could even add to the Manual of Style that either is OK,
>to help head off edit wars and arguments in Talk pages.
>(One can still argue in a Talk page why that particular article is special,
>and needs to go one way or another.)
>
>That said, I prefer going forward, if we do pick something.
>  
>