This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerning the chronilogical ordering of past winners, I would refer you to the following message which I posted on your talk page on 14 April 2011. I would appreciate a reply.
With reference to your recent edits on Chronological ordering, whilst accepting that there is a guideline for earliest to latest chronological ordering, the default ordering for all Australian, American and Canadian past race winners is the reverse order. In my opinion this has developed because the most recent results are the more likely to be the subject of a query from the general public. This is illustrated by the method used in British races, which takes the most recent 30 - 40 years results and puts them at the top of the list but in earliest to latest order. The overall result is complete mishmash, and also does not follow the guideline. To get another perspective on this please take a look at What "Ignore all rules" means and in particular the following points: Don't follow written instructions mindlessly; Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors; and To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... Could I appeal to you to not change the order for Australian races. I do not see how it improves the articles and could develop into a controversial issue on the Thorougbred Project. Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerning the chronilogical ordering of past winners, I would refer you to the following message which I posted on your talk page on 14 April 2011. I would appreciate a reply.
With reference to your recent edits on Chronological ordering, whilst accepting that there is a guideline for earliest to latest chronological ordering, the default ordering for all Australian, American and Canadian past race winners is the reverse order. In my opinion this has developed because the most recent results are the more likely to be the subject of a query from the general public. This is illustrated by the method used in British races, which takes the most recent 30 - 40 years results and puts them at the top of the list but in earliest to latest order. The overall result is complete mishmash, and also does not follow the guideline. To get another perspective on this please take a look at What "Ignore all rules" means and in particular the following points: Don't follow written instructions mindlessly; Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors; and To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... Could I appeal to you to not change the order for Australian races. I do not see how it improves the articles and could develop into a controversial issue on the Thorougbred Project. Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)