Talk:A D Hollindale Stakes

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Queensland / Sports Low‑importance

	Australia portal A D Hollindale Stakes is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Chronological ordering[edit]

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)[reply]

The MOS very clearly states that, and I quote "Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2010, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003." It is quite ridiculous that the chronological order is changed twice in consecutive parts of the A D Hollindale Stakes, as it was. Cgoodwin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)]]==[reply]