Bibliographic standard for Sfeditors wiki

[netmouse]

I've noticed quite a few editors tend to post their work listings on SF Editors in reverse order, like one might on a resume. I myself tend toward the chronological standard most used in wikipedia. That might be my history degree speaking. I've also see listings with title, author, author --title, etc. many different ways to present this information. Just for kicks, I'd like to know how other people would format entries (feel free to browse SFeditors to get a feel for variation. (Check recent changes to find ones I haven't resorted yet.)

(as an aside, I've already suggested in the template that publisher only be listed where the editor is freelance or the title is not by their primary publisher. for the moment anyway, that keeps listings cleaner and makes it easier for people to add information quickly.)

[Poll #1145257]

Comments

[sethb.livejournal.com]

The most recent year is most important, so should go at the top. Since the years are in reverse order, putting books within a year in forward order is as silly as the typical US date format.

Author is more important than title.

Generally, a single-author collection is obvious from the title ("The Best of X") but it might not be, and editing the works of one author differs from selecting works by many. I'd also be inclined to want to see whether something is a collection of original stories or of reprints (or a combination).