Forum:Multi-game ordering and making it clearer

I'd like to propose amending the current guideline so that items are listed alphabetically, rather than by canonicity. Apart from being counterintuitive, it also looks bad:

All items from games outside the canon would be highlighted in grey, as in the Denver article. Tagaziel (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes

 * Yes Tagaziel (talk)
 * Yes People may be unaware of the canonicity of a weapon and alphabetical order is the easiest way to find a certain section. Greying things out makes it easy to distinguish questionably canonical weapons, while leaving intuitive seaching intact. But if you ask me, weapons should always be canon; there's nothing about the AK-47 from FOT or the plasma cannon from FOBOS that so drastically changes/conflicts the game world (i.e. lore) that should make it be ignored entirely. --Kastera (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Putting all the non-canon and semi-canon weapons at the bottom has always bothered me a bit. This seems much better since we can just gray them out now. Shadowrunner(stuff) 15:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Since we still highlight semi-/non-canon content in grey, there should be no confusion. And ordering articles in alphabetical order makes much more sense for me. veryblackraven 19:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No

 * No Ant2242 (talk)

Discussion
I support the Cannoninity before the Alphabetical order. As an overview page it's job is to be a general explanation of the various types of, in this case, Assault rifles through the Fallout lore. As such it is most likely that someone will look up something in the core games, rather then the semi and/or non cannon games. Ant2242 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The job of the overview page is to provide an overview of all the models throughout the Fallout series, regardless of their canonicity. Anyone looking through the article will automatically start going through it alphabetically, rather than by game. Our job is to make finding the article they need as smooth as possible.
 * Trying to divide them by canon (which is, at best, poorly defined) only makes that harder, since you have a part of the article ordered alphabetically, then the order suddenly restarts for no reason, and then it restarts again. It makes no sense to the casual user, especially since the rule is buried deep within guidelines only a handful of people recall. People browsing the lists will just chalk it up to either incompetence or disorder, neither of which are something we want our brand to be associated with.
 * Hell, despite being here since 2006/2007, I learned about that guideline last week. Tagaziel (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine then. As long as the guideline is rewritten first then I'm all for it. And I wish to put forth the motion of the our current format of graying sections to be made a necessary part of it!--Ant2242 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)