Wikipedia:Requests for comment/List ordering

Should lists of works be listed in chronological order (earliest to latest) or reverse-chronological order (latest to earliest)? Please vote Chronological or Reverse below. No need for comments. 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since this is a request for comment, perhaps we should consider the respective benefits or reasons of both? Of course picking either is pretty much arbitrary - but perhaps most of our lists are already in one form? That would be a good reason for making that a de facto standard. But perhaps we haev a lot of lists in both forms? That would be a good reason for not standardizing, in the same way that we don't standardize American vs. British English.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sort ascending by MD5 hash value? :-)   On a more serious note, I agree with Radiant on this - there needs to be some information and discussion before any hints of a vote.  Chris cheese whine 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Voting is evil Where's the discussion? There are other alternatives - popularity, relevence, alphabetical, all of which have reasonable utility for various artists. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Chrological by first publication or date written? Seriously this is not a simple as a quick poll.  I think there needs to be a little more live and let live in this case.  I would suggest in general following the format of sources which may not even be chronological at all (alphabetical is common for poetry). Articles need not be a cookie cutter copies.  There may be a reason or simply a tradition of using a certain format in certain cases.  And if not so long as they are in some kind of reasonable order; just let it stand--BirgitteSB 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Random Order, generated by saying "Eenie, Meenie, Miney, Mo" - OK, Seriously... Hipocrite is right. There are a number of ways to list works.  Each is as good as the other.  Why is there a need to codify it?  Let the editors of each article figure out which is best for that article. Blueboar 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Chronologic if less than 13 works, otherwise Alphabetic - Cuz I say so. Wjhonson 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Put everything on a slip of paper, toss them up into the air, and then list them in the order you pick them off the ground. But seriously, what is the point of this discussion? One arbitrary system is as good as the other. --Farix (Talk) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * chronological (earliest to latest) (Because 'those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them'. Corny but true.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)