robchur wrote:

It's a nice explanation but it's lacking in a fairly critical area, namely, you
haven't said what it is you'd like us to change.

As I get it, you should change markup so that double pipe within [[Category: ]]
links would determine under which article name should the article be listed in
the appropriate category.

ingoolemo wrote:

Oh, that's embarassing. Here's what I want to change:

A new feature should be added that allows manipulation of the links on the
Category page. With the double pipe, or whatever syntax is eventually employed,
[[Category:Foo||Bar]] does not just make the article sort as if it were
titled 'Bar', it also changes the title seen on the category page.

ingoolemo wrote:

Please note that I am not proposing that we use the 'uber-piping' described in the
example above. It should '''only''' be used for a relatively specialised group of
category. Thusfar, the only ones I can come up with are multinational aircraft
categories and American aircraft categories that include both civil and military.

emt147 wrote:

That would be extremely useful. Page naming conventions and category sorting
conventions are not always one and the same.

ayg wrote:

It would also be appropriate for all biography articles. Last, First is the
conventional way to order things. Likewise for a vast variety of articles,
really; it's just completely confusing for things to be ordered differently from
how they're written out.

robchur wrote:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 491 ***

ingoolemo wrote:

This bug has been marked resolved, though I haven't seen it in action yet.

One final addendum: my proposal above is slightly flawed, because the name under
which an article should be categorised by is not always the same as the name of
the link displayed. In the example above, the R3Y Tradewind, the category tag
should look like [[Category:Seaplanes and flying boats|Consolidated RY3
Tradewind|Consolidated R3Y Tradewind]]. This will make the link displayed on the
category page appear as 'R3Y', but will alphabetise it as RY3. This is because
of the U.S. Navy designation system, in which the letters 'R3Y' are read as 'the
third (3) cargo plane (R) built for the navy by Consolidated (Y)'. Thus, it
makes more sense to have the planes in the order RD, R2D, R3D, R4D, RY, R2Y, R3Y
than it does to order them RD, RY, R2D, R2Y, R3D, R3Y, R4D.

In general, maximising flexibility in this manner is probably the most prudent
thing to do, because we don't always know that the preferred link title is the
same as the proper title for alphabetisation.

robchur wrote:

(In reply to comment #8)

This bug has been marked resolved, though I haven't seen it in action yet.

It's also been marked as a duplicate of bug 491 which hasn't been resolved.
Hence the reason you haven't seen it yet.