Halopedia talk:Layout guide

Regarding "List of Appearances" section

I think it's best to list them according to their media category rather than according to their first appearance. Such order makes much more sense given that we now have indicators such as (First appearance) and (First mentioned). This is because when the Layout Guide was first presented, we didn't have such indicators. — subtank 19:23, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I've always been annoyed when I see an article with a list showing the item's first appearance being halfway down the list. It doesn't make sense to me to have The Fall of Reach being listed below other things such as Halo 4 when it has a first appearance tag. In my opinion, it's more professional to list media items in order of release date. For anyone who doesn't know what were talking about, these are the two current formats used on Halopedia.

Release date format

• Halo: The Fall of Reach (First appearance)
• Halo 2
• Halo 3
• Halo 4

Media category

• Halo 2
• Halo 3
• Halo 4
• Halo: The Fall of Reach (First appearance)

Which one looks the best?-- Col. Spartacus ^{Talk Page} _{Contributions} 19:38, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I'd have to agree that sorting it by release chronology looks the best, plus it just makes sense for it to be at the top. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

I prefer the media category format as it looks more organised. The release date format looks messy once the list gets larger and longer. For example, compare UNSC Frigate's List of appearances section which utilises the release date format and Scarab's List of appearances section which utilises the media category format.— subtank 20:08, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I can't really see how it looks messy. Neither of the formats look messy to me. The thing that annoys me is seeing the First Strike halfway down the list with the First appearance tag. Oh well, if we change to a media format, I can get over it.-- Col. Spartacus ^{Talk Page} _{Contributions} 20:15, 11 May 2012 (EDT)