What is the proper way to alphabatize a list?
For instance if you have books with the titles
The Very Last Book
There Is the Book
The Alpha book
Then There Were None
Do you put all the “The” books first, then start over again with other words such as
The Alpha Book
The Very Last Book
Then There Were None
There Is the Book
Or do you go strictly by alphabetical order as in
The Alpha Book
Then There Were None
There Is The Book
The Very Last Book
As I was taught, (in)definite articles are ignored in alphabetization. Per your examples, I’d alphabetize them as if the titles were thus:
Alpha Book, The
Then There Were None
There Is The Book
Very Last Book, The
Just as “A Time to Remember” would be slotted just before “Very Last Book, The” as if it were titled “Time To Remember, A.”
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
As I was taught, (in)definite articles are ignored in alphabetization. Per your examples, I’d alphabetize them as if the titles were thus:
Alpha Book, The
Then There Were None
There Is The Book
Very Last Book, The
Just as “A Time to Remember” would be slotted just before “Very Last Book, The” as if it were titled “Time To Remember, A.”
[/QUOTE]
This is the way I was taught as well. If you alphabetize without ignoring “The” or “An” at the beginnings of titles, you will annoy people, and they will find it much harder to use your list.
I’ve never understood why “A” and “An” are included in that otherwise sensible rule, because it’s not like there is a disproportionate number of publications whose title starts with the indefinite article. I only see three in the titles of films in the IMDb Top 250, for example. Is it many more than start with, say “In”, or “All”?
[QUOTE=Mmmark]
Do you put all the “The” books first, then start over again with other words such as
The Alpha Book
The Very Last Book
Then There Were None
There Is the Book
Or do you go strictly by alphabetical order as in
The Alpha Book
Then There Were None
There Is The Book
The Very Last Book
[/QUOTE]
If we ignore the issue of shifting the position of an article, the first list is correct. IOW, a space is considered a character with its own sort order - it comes before all other characters.
It doesn’t have to do with how common it is, it has to do with the fact that articles are not significant part of titles. It can be difficult to remember whether it is Bonfire of the Vanities or The Bonfire of the Vanities, American Tragedy or An American Tragedy.
[QUOTE=Xema]
If we ignore the issue of shifting the position of an article, the first list is correct. IOW, a space is considered a character with its own sort order - it comes before all other characters.
[/QUOTE]
That depends on the system you use for alphabetizing. You can use either a letter-by-letter system (ignoring spaces and marks such as hyphens) or a word-by-word system (recognizing spaces, etc). Either is correct as long as it is used consistently.
Cites: Chicago Manual of Style; Alphabetical order - Wikipedia
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
As I was taught, (in)definite articles are ignored in alphabetization. Per your examples, I’d alphabetize them as if the titles were thus:
Alpha Book, The
Then There Were None
There Is The Book
Very Last Book, The
Just as “A Time to Remember” would be slotted just before “Very Last Book, The” as if it were titled “Time To Remember, A.”
[/QUOTE]
This is correct, but it also poses a problem if your list is going to be on a computer and if the computer is going to be expected, at any stage, to sort the list alphabetically. If it is, you need software that will recognize the definite and indefinite articles and ignore them when sorting. Obviously, most library software does this, but if i want to arrange pdf files alphabetically by title in a folder, i leave the article off the front so they will go in proper order.
Computer arrangement has also messed up alphabetization rules when it comes to some names.
In the olden days, before computers, a list of last names would have been ordered thus:
McAdam
Macafee
McDonald
Macmahon
Mason
A computer, however, will arrange them:
Macafee
Macmahon
Mason
McAdam
McDonald
I’m not sure whether we are now supposed to follow computer ordering, or the old system, or if the two systems coexist uneasily side by side. Admittedly, it’s not something that comes up too often for most people, but if your name was McDonald, you’d probably notice.
The other topic, besides the universal rule to ignore initial articles in alphabetizing, is the issue of whether to go word-by-word or letter-by-letter. Should it be:
In Big Trouble
Income Tax Evasion for Dummies
In Durance Vile
Inequalities Made Simple
or
In Big Trouble
In Durance Vile
Income Tax Evasion for Dummies
Inequalities Made Simple
Each system has its proponents. I believe the usual custom is word-by-word but there are circumstances where letter-by-letter is preferable.
Here’s another one:
48 Hours
Does it go ahead of the alphabet because it’s numeric, or do you file it under “F” for “Forty Eight”?
The proper way to alphabetize is so that it is instantly understandable and memorable to the user.
There is no one proper way to alphabetize. There are whole books on the subject and it takes up a lot of time in library school. The more you get into it, the more picky little questions you find to grapple with.
So the question is, who will use the list? What will they use they list for? What education and experience do they have? How much do you care if the list if different than, say, Dewey Decimal rules? How are you going to do the sort? If you use a computer, what rules is it following? Does this mean you have to remember to input The Very Last Book as Very Last Book, The?
Does Far Away Home come before or after Faraway Forever? Does Kurt Vonnegut come before or after Dita von Teese? What about the Mac, Mc, M’ crowd. Before, after, or intermixed with the Ma’s? How do you treat acronyms? Numbers?
There are hundreds if not thousands of these that catalogers have to deal with.
My advice to you is: simpler is better, but consistency is everything. No matter what you decide, follow it exactly, even if it seems to violate a rule. Otherwise you’ll get similar things in different places and when that happens nobody can find anything.
How to you catagorize this:
“A Time To Remember” and Other Books I Hate
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Here’s another one:
48 Hours
Does it go ahead of the alphabet because it’s numeric, or do you file it under “F” for “Forty Eight”?
[/QUOTE]
The numeral gets sorted as a numeral. That was true, in my experience, even before computer sorting altered some of the other rules. (Of course, computers can soret them differently (beginning or end of the alphabet) depending on whether you are using an IBM or Burroughs mainframe (EBCDIC) or the (now) more common ASCII.
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
It doesn’t have to do with how common it is, it has to do with the fact that articles are not significant part of titles.
[/QUOTE]
But basic information theory says that that which occurs less often is more significant, and while very many titles start with “The”, it is not especially common for them to start with “A” or “An”. And indeed those titles which do start with “A” or “An” somehow seem wrong when the article is omitted, compared to “The” titles. “Lord of the Rings” is fine, we all realise that the “The” is implicit. But “Few Good Men”? “Inconvenient Truth”? They sound quite different without the indefinite article. If I were looking up “A Few Good Men” it would not naturally occur to me to look under F.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The numeral gets sorted as a numeral. That was true, in my experience, even before computer sorting altered some of the other rules.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the answer is “it depends.” My Chicago Manual of Style (13th Edition, 1982, section 18.98) says numbers in titles are alphabetized as if spelled out. It doesn’t even recognize the other system.
This sense makes a lot of sense if you are, for instance, alphabetizing movie titles and you don’t want to have to remember if the number is spelled out or not:
12 Angry Men
The Twelve Chairs
12 Days of Terror
Twelve Monkeys
Twelve O’Clock High
12:01 PM
12 to the Moon
Incidentally, a search of IMDB on “12” and “Twelve” produced only partially overlapping lists.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
That depends on the system you use for alphabetizing.
[/QUOTE]
This is the first 100% correct answer. The OP cannot be answered in a vacuum.
Humor hijack
Weiner Dog Art: A Far Side Collection
The index is empty except under “T”. All the entries start with “The one about”.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
I’m not sure whether we are now supposed to follow computer ordering, or the old system, or if the two systems coexist uneasily side by side. Admittedly, it’s not something that comes up too often for most people, but if your name was McDonald, you’d probably notice.
[/QUOTE]
Occasionally you’ll see filing systems that have a separate “letter” for Mc. So it goes L - Mc - M - N. I would guess the Mac’s would go in there too.
The tricky part of doing it straight alphabetically is that a given name may be spelled either Mac or Mc but with the same pronunciation. So looking up someone’s file is kind of a mess.
[QUOTE=ouryL]
How 'bout when titles begin with other characters such as:
!
@
…
+
*
[/QUOTE]
How about some examples?
Computer programs generally have a sort order for such characters.
Otherwise, as usual, the operative principle will be “it depends.” It is going to be a decision by the individual alphabetizer. They will either put them at the beginning, or treat them as if spelled out.
The artists of the song 96 Tears were “? and the Mysterians.” In most books, they would probably be alphabetized as “[Question Mark] and the Mysterians.”
Titles with odd orthography should be alphabetized so that they can be located easily. For example, the movie Se7en is undoubtedly usually alphabetized as “Seven” rather than as “Se(seven)en.”