Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Here's a thread about Obama's Nobel Prize that contains no politics!

So, I propose we start calling Nobel prizes by their full names. Right now, members have been saying:

Nobel Prize (Literature, 1950)
Nobel Prize (Peace, 2009)
Novel Prize (Chemistry, 1973)

The problem is, the part outside the parentheses is the label, with the parentheses just details. That is, you click on it, and you get ALL Nobel Prizes. If we made a page for it, all the Nobels would be together—literature, peace, chemistry, etc.

The problem is acute for the Nobel Peace Prize. It's just different. For starters, it's awarded by a different body. But I think it applies across the board. Winning a Nobel in chemistry or economics is just different than winning it for literature. Most of the time you want to see all the economics winners together, or the literature winners. Seeing all the winners of any novel is less needed.

I propose we use the actual names of the awards, e.g.

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Nobel Prize in Economics
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Nobel Prize in Literature
Nobel Peace Prize
Nobel Prize in Economics (technically the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" but nobody calls it that)

So, agreement?

Makes sense to me.

To my mind that makes sense. The are, after all, individual prizes albeit awarded by the same body.

Works for me.

Good idea.

Stop singing Kumbaya, people. I don't trust it when everyone agrees with me—where's Zoe?

Hey, Zoe agreed with me once. That time was remarkable! I'll go get her... :)

where's Zoe?
I think you might even be safe on that count ... unless you embedded the prize data in the screen real estate under the catalogue icon bar ...

I think it's a fine idea, but what about all the other awards that are similar? Are we just making an exception for the Nobel?

Novel Prize (Chemistry, 1973)

I like novelty, but in chemistry?

*wanders off for more coffee*

>10 PhoenixTerran:

I don't think so. But someone else may know better. Also, this is a author award, not a book-level, so it's never gotten a page.

12> Oh, I hadn't realized that the awards given to authors didn't have pages. That's a pity.

They should. We haven't done any pages for authors yet. We will.

> 11

http://www.librarything.com/tag/chemistry,+fiction

15 > oh, that kind of chemistry!

What Nobel Prize in Economics? No such thing.

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences

Hmmph.

Heh, thanks for the notice, Squeaky!

Klarusu's right, it's pretty hard to find anything objectionable in this. But I guess you should stop wasting your time even thinking about it and get to work on important things like the Date fields ;)

#18 ... I think you're Tim's nemesis ... how cool is that? You get to be a nemesis!

Pretty cool! :D

Does similar logic apply to the Pulitzer Prize? If so, should the example text (when editing the field) be changed from "Pulitzer Prize (History, 1991)" to "Pulitzer Prize for History (1991)"?

(Apparently Nobel Prizes are "in" and Pulitzer Prizes are "for".)

Don't know. What do you think?

Before approximately 5:28pm EST I hadn't realized that there were separate categories for Pulitzer prizes, so I don't exactly have a strong opinion.

That said, and having done a little "research", I've found that while there are currently 21 distinct categories for prizes, they fall into three broad areas: journalism, literature, and music composition. These are rather more closely related than the varying Nobel prizes, and within those areas the awards are much more closely related, so that particular argument doesn't apply as strongly. It might be nice to break the entries up into those three categories, but I can't really see that working well in practice. I'm going to go with lumping them as we have been.

On the subject of Nobel prizes, I agree with the original suggestion, and have updated the CK help page, and started on a few of the entries.

I thought about the Pulitzer when Tim first posted this and wasn't sure either. Came down on the side of leaving it as it is. My reasoning is that most people know the Nobels as individual prizes (you wouldn't confuse the literature winner with the Peace Prize winner) but, at least among the people I've talked to, there is a tendency to refer to simply a Pulitzer prize winner rather than the category, so leaving it together kind of applies the 'best known' form? Plus, the Pulitzers are different derivations of a literary prize whereas the Nobels are entirely different selection criteria. Still not sure though ... If we do Pulitzer that way then we've really got to go back through all the different literary prizes that have individual sections, like the Costa/Whitbread etc and separate for consistency and I just don't think that it's necessary for clarity.