My Wonderfalls DVD box set arrived in today’s mail. Very exciting, having the chance to see those episodes I’ve still managed to miss in repeats on LOGO, but it does give rise to a question. On my DVD shelf, does Wonderfalls get shelved before or after Wonder Woman? W-O-N-D-E-R-F certainly comes before W-O-N-D-E-R-W, but there’s that space…
In most alphabetizing methods I have seen, the space counts as a letter and comes before “A”, so Wonder Woman would go before Wonderfalls.
After. Wonder trumps Wonderf.
I prefer to ignore spaces, so I’d do Wonderfalls, Wonder Woman.
Either system is fine, as long as you do it consistently – I will point out, however, that both the phonebook and Leonard Maltin’s Film Guide are with me on this.
I’d agree with twickster. Anyway, since it’s your collection, do whatever seems logical to you.
NO! You must do whatever seems logical to Leonard Maltin!
The answer, as you might expect around here, is “Yes.”
There are two schools of alphabetizing, both with strong adherents and standard conditions for usage. One goes letter by letter, the other word by word. So “Wonder [Woman]” precedes “Wonderfalls” on the same principle that B precedes Ba’athist. Or “wonderw…” follows “wonderf…” on normal alphabetical usage.
As far as your home DVD library goes, you have complete freedom to do whichever you wish.
Well, I know that space was treated as a letter before A when I shelved books at my junior high school library.
Leonard Maltin is a punk.
I personally ignore spaces and would put Wonderfalls first. However, I’m not about to suggest that my preferences are necessarily the only way.
Hm. Space “comes before A”? That makes no sense to me.
If you have a bunch of titles that have the same first word, you have to move on to the second as a tiebreaker. Like so:
Wonder Bar
Wonder Boys
Wonder Woman
Wonderfalls
The word “Wonderfalls” comes after “Wonder,” alphabetically, so you wouldn’t insert it between “Wonder Boys” and “Wonder Woman.”
Think of a title like a name. You wouldn’t alphabetize like this:
John, Sam
John, S. Bertram
Johns, Harold
John, Shelly
Johnson, Albert
John, Steve
You’d do it like this:
John, S. Bertram
John, Sam
John, Shelly
John, Steve
Johns, Harold
Johnson, Albert
You can use either method, as long as you’re consistent.
Counting the space really only came into play when computers started being used for alphabetizing. Humans can ignore a space, but with a computer, it’s easier not to.
FWIW, the OED ignores spaces (e.g., “Perfect storm” comes after “perfectory.”), as does Leonard Maltin.
I’ve got a detailed Excel database of my CD collection. In Excel, “Wonder” is before “Wonder(space-something)” which is before “Wonder(something).” It makes sense.
OK, well, I’ve decided to shelve Wonderfalls ahead of Wonder Woman. But only because, if I shelved it after, I’d have to put different seasons of Wonder Woman on different shelves, and as much as I love the alphabet I love having multiple DVD seasons, CDs, books and so forth all together on the same shelf more.
My DVDs are not in alphabetical order at all, not even a little bit. I use a genre organisational method - therefore, Wonder Woman would go next to The Flash and Batman, while Wonderfalls would fit in next to Joan of Arcadia and Tru Calling.
Lissener outlines very coherently the word-by-word system of alphabetizing here. But not all lists-to-be-alphabetized fall into this simple system, so the alternative of letter-by-letter system, ignoring spaces and punctuation, is an alternative. For example, is that user’s name Mr Invisible, two words, MrInvisible, one run-on word, or Mr-Invisible or Mr_Invisible, with typography intervening. And does it matter? In such a case, you opt to go letter by letter, putting him after Miss Interpretation and Mr Black and before Mrs Moose and MunkeyShines.
From the perspective of a mathematician or computer scientist, “Wonder Woman” comes before “Wonderfalls”.
Respectfully, Poly, the examples you give are equally esoteric and irrelevant. In your first series, each username is A) a single “unit,” being for all intents and purposes an unbreakdownable name. Let me explain: since there are no realy rules for usernames, and since many of them are one-word constructions (like yours and like mine), the only way to treat them consistently is to treat them ALL like one-word constructions. THus, if I were alphabetizing usernames, and not real first-name/last-name names or books on a shelf, I’d alphabetize exactly as you suggest. In other words, the rules necessitated for the esoteric, exceptional example of usernames cannot be taken to be universally applicable to more standard rules for such as books. And B), in your second series, the “title”–Mr, Mrs, Dr–is universally understood to be outside of the process. Just as you ignore “The” when alphabetizing books, you ignore “Mr” when alphabetizing names. Unless, as in my A), it’s an irreducible like a username.
I neglected to cover all such esoteric eventualities in my response, because we were talking about titles on a shelf.
What gets me is “St.”. Do you assume it is spelled out and alphabetize it like “Saint”? Does St. Elsewhere come after “The Saint”? How about a hyphenated St. like “St.-Smith”? Or St. John, which Brits pronounce as one word?