Talk:List of order topics
|
|
Comment on Michael Hardy's edit comment. I've been writing quite a number of lists, in what I consider an reasonable logical or pedagogical order of topics. As far as I'm concerned making them alphabetical would be a loss of information. Of course others may disagree. But in any case the chosen order is far from random - it represents an unpacking of my own brain.
Charles Matthews 07:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Upon further cogitation, I tend to agree as long as this list remains short; if it gets really long, that may change. Michael Hardy 01:09, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sure. I prefer, as you can see, the sort of 'web directory' approach that pre-classifies the material. That is going to break down for any really comprehensive list that gets bloated and needs too much scroll-power.
Charles Matthews 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Now Wikipedia has both: a structured list to guide the reader (which still could improve...) and an alphabetic order theory glossary (which is still quite incomplete...). The later is a nice tool to give a centralized definition for all concepts and to interconnect the whole area. It also is useful when printed out as a quick reference. The list of order topics on the other hand can be more of a guide to the reading, not listing every tiny article. So both things are probably helpful.
--Markus Krötzsch 14:30, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)