User talk:N00w

Welcome!

Hello, N00w, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Resequencing Arthur Penn

Thanks for making the lists match each other, but shouldn't they be in ascending order to match the text? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The question you're raising seems not to have any official and authoritative answer provided by Wikipedia. In Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies#Chronological_ordering and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#order_of_works various opinions are debated. Beyond the fact that reverse chronology seems more natural to some including myself, and natural chronology appeals to others, I would like to offer arguments for my choice:

Resumes are commonly ordered in reverse chronology. The most recent experience is placed first because it's generally considered the most appealing for a potential recruiter. Although there is no recruiter here, a list of recent works remains similar to a resume. Cinema is a modern art, and modern means recent.
The underlying concept is that we usually remember best the most recent works. In a way, it is also similar to journalistic narration, which starts from the most actual facts, then goes back in the past for history and more sources.
The most detailed and most successful online encyclopedia (or database) about cinema is the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Beyond that niche, some might consider it different in its goals compared to Wikipedia, and it probably is, but its authority remains a fact when it comes to inventorying the seventh art. All filmographies on IMDb are listed according to reverse chronology. I must add that I'm a frequent user of this website. --N00w (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it makes the whole article less usuable to have the tabular version of events be the opposite of the prosaic version. IMDb offers no text, only a tabular list. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When reading the text of biographies, I'm not reading the list simultaneously and vice versa, so as far as I am concerned this argument makes no point. Secondly I more often check director's biographies just to see these lists, and I don't always take the time to read the full text. I'm probably not the only one around who's doing this.

On the other hand, as said in my previous reply, it's up to everyone's habits and own preferences. In the first discussion page I've referenced, someone suggests a developer makes an add-on to Wikipedia that would allow to sort these lists automatically. This probably would be the ideal solution.

Finally I've tried to provide the most objective arguments I could - although I admit the IMDb one is a bit less relevant - but if it's definitely your intent to change the order because you want it to fit your own preferences, I won't even try to revert it to its former state. For me older → newer is less natural, but I can get with it. --N00w (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my intent to change it at all. I'm glad you standardized them, and I thank you for it! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]