From Wikipedia:Village pump:
Why are certain people (JtDirl-Zoe) insisting that it is proper to list names alphabetically by first name. How is this acceptable? Why should I look for Hitler after Adolf? Why should I look for Chamberlain after Neville? Why should I look for Bogart after Humphery? Hmmm, let me now look for Rommel after Erwin. After that I shall look for Clinton after Bill. Perhaps later I shall look for Eisenhower after Dwight. After tea I plan to look for Gary Gygax after Gary. Around dinnertime Ill be looking for Dickens after Charles. Before bed Ill hunt up Copperfield after David. Overnight Ill have my computer try and find Gates after Bill. When I wake up maybe it will have found Truman after Harry. For breakfast Ill look up Peet after Bill. For brunch Ill be examing a list in search of Wayne after John. I think by lunch I will have found Ford after Harrsion (and Henry!). Susan Mason
- I agree this is a bad idea, and goes against all conventions. Apart from anything else, almost anyone looking up "Newton" would look under N, not I for Isaac. I don't even know the first names of Aristotle, Voltaire or Goethe! -- Chris Q 07:31 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
There is one convention it doesnt go against, thats the "wikiway" where if I suggest it, its wrong. Did you know that Im just like DW, Lir, ,172, Vera, 142, and basically all the other bad users because all I do is harass poor innocent users and try to vandalize and subterfuge their articles by changing them without getting permission from the high cabal. Last week I was crusading for my NPOV POV, now Im crusading for my own bias towards last-name alphabetization, where will it end? If RK is right, by next week Ill probably be insisting that it's ok for Chinese people to use their Chinese names on the ENGLISH wikipedia. I'd like to complain more but hold on cuz Im trying to find Vonnegut, I think its listed after Kurt somewhere... Susan Mason
- Susan, I agree this this first names nusiness is unconventional, but it seems too firmly entrenched to try to change now. One advantage that it does have is that it makes links easier to set up.
- For instance, in a sentence like "Charles Babbage, Clark Gable and Winston Churchill were seen at the Exchange Hotel in Kalgoorlie together last night", it's easier to create links by placing ]] and [['s around the names of Charles Babbage, Clark Gable and Winston Churchill. Under the surname first system, you'll need to add a |Babbage, Charles, |Gable, Clark and |Churchill, Winston as well for the links to work. Arno
- Arno, I don't think Susan Mason's talking about article titles. I think she's saying that in, for instance, List of English people, the people should be listed in alphabetical order by surname, not by first name. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but with a certain amount of puzzlement: I know of no list in the Wikipedia that is listed by first name. Perhaps Susan Mason could supply some examples? --Paul A
- Well, perhaps those particular pages could be redone. Just add |'s at the end of the links concerned - eg a link that reads Gomez Addams becomes Gomez Addams|Addams, Gomez. Arno 08:21 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Right thats the unacceptable course of action upon which I embarked. Susan Mason
- When somebody is scanning down a list looking for names, their eye needs to focus on a vertical column. That vertical column needs to be alphabetized which is why the last name has to be listed first. Look at a phone book, there is a reason they did it that way. Susan Mason
Couple points here:
- 1:We dont need to change article titles to be last name first, we are not a paper encyclopedia.
- 2:We dont need to change all lists all at once. The way Ive been changing them is that everytime I add a name to a list, I change the 5 times on either side. Overtime they will all be changed.
- 3:We don't need to use last name first when writing text within the article itself.
Also:
or
or
Lists should be in second-name order but titles should not. If this means having complex links in lists then I think that is the best option. An alternative would be to (slowly) add redirects for all names, making both titles accessible.
- Susan, could you direct me to the discussion you have been having on this? Thanks.
- I understood that the arrangement on, for example, List of Swiss people is the usual. Names are listed as "first name, second name" but in alphabetical order of last name. This doesn't lead to a problem in finding a name (search alphabetically by last name) but makes the list easier to read and easier to link. -- sannse 08:10 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
The list is harder to read if you are actually trying to find a specific name, because u don't have a nice neat vertical column of alphabetized letters which u can scan. If you go that list and search for Keller, chances are you are scanning the last names; which is why the last name should be listed first. Susan Mason
- OK, I can see your point on that. With "first name, last name" it's easier to read the individual names but less easy to read the list as a whole. I think you missed my first question, could you give me a link to wherever you have been discussing this? -- sannse 08:27 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump
- Perhaps I can clarify my question. Your first comment on this subject on this page was "Why are certain people (JtDirl-Zoe) insisting that it is proper to list names alphabetically by first name." I would be grateful for a link to the page where JtDirl-Zoe and you had the conversation that led to you posting this comment on this page. Thanks -- sannse 08:35 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links Susan. I think you may have misunderstood Zoe and JtdIrL's position. I think it is clear that all agree names should be listed in alphabetical order of last name. The only question is whether, within that arrangement, they should be written as (last-name, first-name) or (first-name last-name). I can see benefits to both arrangements. -- sannse 15:19 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
I can't. Susan Mason
end of moved text
From Talk:List of polydactyl people:
Susan, on Wiki, lists are placed in the format {first name} {surname} not {surname}, {firstname}, the format you have tried to rearrange this page twice to match. Below is a list of just some of the lists on Wiki, taken at random. Not a single one is in the form {surname}, {firstname}.
- List of agnostics
- List of Astronomers
- List of athiests
- List of chemists
- list of economists
- List of Hungarians
- List of inventors
- List of Jews
- List of mathematicians
- LIst of messiah claimants
- List of pagans
- List of painters
- LIst of physicists
- List of Satanists
- List of Scientologists
- LIst of songwriters
So please leave this page the same way as every other list on wiki. JtdIrL 05:49 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- What about Biographical Listing/A and its siblings? --Paul A 09:10 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Biographical listings because they are dealing with hundreds of entries in index form have to be arranged that way. The other lists aren't because they aren't constructed as indices, but much smaller lists of people. They are usually alphabeticalised by surname but each name is written as {first name} {surname}. But it is typical of Susan/Lir that she's only back on wiki a short time and already the wiki list is jammed with people complaining about her. It seems like she'll never learn. She didn't propose a standard at the start. Instead waited until hundreds of people produced list after list and then decided to do her own thing, doing the reverse of everyone else. (And then wonders why, in her new incarnation she is becoming as unpopular as in her previous ones!)
She didn't raise the issue of 'should we do it this way or that way' on the w-list or talk pages, just unilaterally started doing it her way, leaving a mess of clashing styles. Either she should get everyone's agreement to change the structure of the lists, or follow what has become the consensus approach. When I noticed there was a problem with the rival nomenclatures and structures we were using to describe royals, I contacted people and asked their opinions, put a draft idea on a relevant naming page, pulled together all the suggestions and circulated them on the wiki list. Then, when got a consensus, put it in the naming page and as a result, everyone began doing the same thing, and working back on old pages to make them conform to one style. What I didn't do is unilaterally change some pages to clash with other people's system and then attack people for not doing it my way. Unfortunately that has been Sue's way, just as it was Lir's way, which is why complaints about Lir and Vera Cruz jammed up page after page and why both were banned. Because their approach drove people mad. Susan is doing the exact same again (as her comment below shows), with the exact same results, the exact same annoyance and the exact same complaints appearing on the w-list. JtdIrL 09:37 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Not every list is that way, Ive modified at least a dozen of them. Susan Mason
- Actually, I think the reason the Biographical Listing is the way it is is precisely because the other lists are the other way around. You have to have a way, somewhere, of getting to people by surname. Not that it really bothers me. Deb 18:14 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
So, uh, what is the value in listing things this way? Susan Mason
- That's how the individual articles are headed. Deb 17:14 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
But that is of no concern, let me demonstrate: This will link to the Talk page for the List of polydactyl people. There is no inherent connection between the text displayed and the link. Susan Mason
end of moved text
A good argument for giving people's names in lists the same way as they are given in article titles is that they're much easier to type that way: [[Ludwig van Beethoven]] is no trouble to type, while [[Ludwig van Beethoven|Beethoven, Ludwig van]] is, in my opinion at least, a real pain. Persaonlly, I don't think alignment of surname initials is such a great advantage - I find it quite easy to find my place in lists as they are formatting now. And it should be rememebered as well that not all lists are ordered alphabetically - some are chronological or something else (this isn't an argument against ordering things "Family name, Given name" in alphabetical lists, just a warning that there are some lists this discussion doesn't apply to in any case). --Camembert