automatically sort images in categories by Foo not Image:Foo
Closed, ResolvedPublic


Author: chris.mckenna

Currently it appears that images in categories are automatically treated as
being named Image:Foo instead of Foo. This means that unless the link from the
images is in the form of [[Category:Foo|{{PAGENAME}}]] the CategoryTOC template
doesn't work, as all the images start with I. They should be sorted
automatically by pagename, needing to explicitly specifit it is (to my mind at
least) counter intuitive. Obviously links that currently specify {{PAGENAME}} as
the sortkey will be unnafected.

I can't see a reason why you would want to sort by the namespace, but if there
is a need this could be done by [[category:Foo|{{NAMESPACE}}]].

This issue is related to [[bug:1502]] and perhaps a precursor to it, but not a

Version: unspecified
Severity: normal


bzimport set Reference to bz4076.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport created this task.Nov 25 2005, 2:38 PM

rowan.collins wrote:

I'm marking this a dupe of bug 450 because that would solve the underlying
problem in a nice clean way. If you think about it, this generalises to every
namespace but the "main" (article) one - why sort templates under
"Template:...", project pages under "Wikipedia:...", etc?

But at the same time, we don't really want to muddle the different kinds of
pages up any more than they already are, which deafaulting the sortkey to
PAGENAME would - i.e. it makes sense for "Wikipedia:Foo" to be sorted under "F",
but do we want it to appear next to "Foo", "Template:Foo", and "Image:Foo.jpeg",
or would we rather keep them separate in some way?

The logical route, IMHO, is to split the display by namespace, and then sort by
(and indeed display) only the pages' titles.

rowan.collins wrote:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 450 ***

Pages from different namespaces should very rarely show up in the same category.
One exception are images on the commons, which are mixed with gallery pages in
categories. But images have a separate section on the category page anyway, so
that would not be a problem.

Add Comment