Discussion: Alphabetical Vs. Chronological Order for Examples

I just ran across Seinfeld Is Unfunny. Not only did someone alphabetize this page, therefore making it impossible to look at just the end to see if anything new has been added, someone else also reworded every single entry to make the name of the work fall at the start, generally making things read poorly. Sometimes when it's not even a work (and sometimes when they didn't recognize it's not a work).

It'll take a massive amount of work to fix this. I don't know if I'm up to it (can anyone help?)

I'd also like to make a suggestion that along with all the other warnings we might get when editing a page, one of them should be "Please do not alphabetize titles (except for indexes) or reword to keep the name of the work at the start".

I think it's supposed to have the name of the work somewhere near the front, but I don't know if this is one of the "alphabetized" pages or if it's "new at the bottom, old at the top."

I mean, it looks alright to me, I guess. I just kind of glanced at it, but...

It's supposed to be newest entry last. The reasoning for it so people that revisit the page can easily find new examples.

So, that change should be reverted.

Ah. I figured. Well, I guess the OP has his answer: the order should be put back. Do we know who did it?

Although, I think we should keep it so that the work names are at the front. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Wasn't me. >.>

Names of works should be close to, if not always at the start of an example, and they should never be potholed. However, we never made a rule about alphabetizing examples on trope pages and that should not be considered desirable.

However, let's keep things civil, okay? Your thread title was unnecessarily inflammatory.

If you want to see what was added we have this handy tool called history at the top of the page.

Looking at the history there does not seem to be any one particular culprit.

As far as I recall having an example goes like this.

• Work Name Here: Example of trope in work.

Ninjad because I forgot to hit send.

edited 20th Aug '11 9:12:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Work title first in alphabetical order is great. Use history to see what's new.

I have to agree Tuefel and Eddie on this one. Not only can history show new information but when you want to find info on a specific series, it's much easier in alphabetical order.

Word from the man himself.

Disagree always putting the title first makes things bland and limits creativity, not potholing it and making it within the first half a line though should be a must.

And order of being added is really the best for trope pages.

edited 20th Aug '11 10:06:54 PM by Raso

Okay, I tried to reverse some of this stuff. It's impossible to really do it, though; the best I could do was go through the history and find cases where items had not yet scrolled off the bottom of the history and put things in the same order. I didn't just cut and paste, so anything which has been edited since then is still edited. And since it's not very alphabetical now (even if not precisely in the original order), people won't be tempted to put new entries in the middle to keep the alphabetical order.

YMMV I suppose.

Argh. I see Eddie said it should be alphabetical. So I guess I need to change it back again...

Changed back, *sigh*.

I still think it's stupid, though.

And I thought that if you want to find info on a particular series, you use ^F.

Maybe we need a poll, but if Eddie's spoken this may not help. And it's still true that 98% of pages on the wiki are not like this, so it's really jarring.

edited 20th Aug '11 11:11:19 PM by arromdee

Modified for my purposes.

Really? We have people so creatively bankrupt they can't come up with ways to write examples with the name first?

Wow. Thats... Hopeless.

I like that alphabetical ordering. Seems practical without being particularly intrusive. Having the work name near the start is an informal standard. I think that guideline is more important. When a reader doesn't know a work well the title provides a helpful starting point, whereas a character name or other details in isolation might not provide the needed context.

edited 21st Aug '11 12:44:08 AM by Camacan

Disagree with the history being an acceptable means of seeing which example was added last. The history is sometimes purged, and many edits aren't actually adding examples but modifying them, and of course each folder has its own alphabetical list, making trawling through it an inconvenience that many simply won't bother with.

I really think that "most recent at the bottom" makes far more sense here.

This page can't be an exception either way though, so either it needs to be put back the way it was, or we need to reopen the debate about alphabetisation (which ended with "don't do that" I believe).

edited 21st Aug '11 4:43:48 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

I don't think it's... particularly likely that this will screw anybody over, unless they're obsessively stalking pages for new examples.

Alphabetical requires curators though, because even if you can convince old editors to do it (good luck with that), new ones won't know any better. Considering it's going to end up out of order anyway, I really don't see the point in bothering. Not to mention that many series have multiple titles, so where does that leave the alphabetization? (I actually know where that leaves it, but its another problem editors will have)

What time it was when the examples are added has no meaning to the reader. It appears happenstance and random to them. Ordering it by the show title lets people find things.

It is the same logic that applies when adding trope examples to a work's write-up. People can find the trope and it cuts down on duplicates.

Quite simple. Enforce it the same way we enforce getting rid of Natter.

And new ones will- they'll already have an example set. They'll see how it's done, and if they're good editors they'll follow that example. If not, they'd need to be corrected anyway to be made into better editors.

Ah, laziness. Truly the best reason to not get anything done.

What time it was when the examples are added has no meaning to the reader. It appears happenstance and random to them.

No it doesn't. Having new examples at the bottom is useful because the reader has a good reason to want to distinguish between new examples and old ones. By definition, this means it's meaningful.

Because it's not meaningful in the particular way you're thinking of (that you can tell where something is from its first letter) doesn't mean it's not meaningful at all.

And expecting the user to use history to look at the most recent items is stupid. History is another page, and shows edits as well as new items.

Would you also suggest that forum posts be sorted alphabetically by user name, with a "forum history" button you can click if you wanted to know what forum post was added most recently?

edited 21st Aug '11 9:48:40 AM by arromdee

That's not a valid example, as a forum thread has a flow of conversation.

Here's a question: Why are people searching trope lists like this? :|

Completely agree with "Work name should be in the clear near the start of the example," but "Alphabetize examples" is a 180-degree turn-around from the way that has been done up to now, and contrary to every page we have stating how to order examples. Saying "use the history to find new entries" runs counter to the whole idea of having a main page that's easy to read for the non-editors and casual readers.

How many trope pages are ordered alphabetically? I'd venture somewhere under 1%.

edited 21st Aug '11 9:53:24 AM by Madrugada