	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted on 3 April 2021 by reviewer Flori4nK (talk · contribs).

RfC: Sortation of redirects in relation to their targets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed. For further discussion please see WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 165#DefaultSort for full name redirects. See you there. DePlume (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How should redirects in general sorted in relation to their targets? Looking forward to replies, DePlume (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation
WP:REDCAT states that, The ((DEFAULTSORT:)) magic word can also be placed on redirects, for example, to ensure that a redirect title that begins with a person's given name will be sorted to their surname: ((DEFAULTSORT:Sprat, Jack)). (emphasis mine) However, it is not a "must" or a "should", leaving the necessity of compliance to above open to interpretation. The same page, under its Example 1 (collapsed by default), also asks that, When the title being redirected is a person's proper name, consensus is to modify the sort key from its default action, (usually sorted by ((PAGENAME)), the redirect title in this case), to instead sort it by surname. The ((DEFAULTSORT:)) behaviour switch is used for this; for example, on the edit page of the George Walker Bush redirect, use ((DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George Walker)), so that the page will appear alphabetized in the B's and not the G's of the various categories. However, the rule is not universally enforced, as evidenced by both Michael John Gambon and Michael John Myers being sorted under the M's for "Michael". It also does not cover non-personal-name situations.

Explanation

WP:REDCAT states that,

The ((DEFAULTSORT:)) magic word can also be placed on redirects, for example, to ensure that a redirect title that begins with a person's given name will be sorted to their surname: ((DEFAULTSORT:Sprat, Jack)). (emphasis mine)

However, it is not a "must" or a "should", leaving the necessity of compliance to above open to interpretation. The same page, under its Example 1 (collapsed by default), also asks that,

When the title being redirected is a person's proper name, consensus is to modify the sort key from its default action, (usually sorted by ((PAGENAME)), the redirect title in this case), to instead sort it by surname. The ((DEFAULTSORT:)) behaviour switch is used for this; for example, on the edit page of the George Walker Bush redirect, use ((DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George Walker)), so that the page will appear alphabetized in the B's and not the G's of the various categories.

However, the rule is not universally enforced, as evidenced by both Michael John Gambon and Michael John Myers being sorted under the M's for "Michael". It also does not cover non-personal-name situations.

Votes[edit]

Comments[edit]

What on earth is all this about? First, this has gone straight to RfC without any observance whatsoever of WP:RFCBEFORE that I can find. Second, if this concerns redirects, plural, why is it on the talk page of a single redirect? If you want to change policy (as implied by the presence of the |policy RfC category), please do so somewhere central, such as Wikipedia talk:Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Categorization or WP:VPP; if you want a clarification to WP:REDCAT do so at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects; if you are asking only about the redirects specific to Mike Soroka, you should discuss at Talk:Mike Soroka. Third, if this RfC concerns a single article's redirects (or a single redirect to one article), only the "Article topics" RfC categories are appropriate; neither the |style nor |policy RfC categories should be used, which are for changing style guidance and policies and guidelines respectively, not for queries about how to apply them to a specific case. Fourth, with six subsections and two sub-subsections, it is far too bureaucratic. I suggest that you end the whole thing, in line with WP:RFCEND, and consider carefully the matter that is to be discussed, what the best place to discuss it might be, and don't reach for the ((rfc)) tag until all other avenues are exhausted. Only then should you start a RfC, observing WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response - DePlume (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC) What on earth is all this about?[reply]

I am confused by how redirects are sorted. Please refrain from dismissing me for lack of experience: I have seen quite a few redirects on WP over my months of lurking, and the sorting of person's name redirects is indeed very inconsistent (see Myers and Gambon example above for non-usage of DefaultSort).

First, this has gone straight to RfC without any observance whatsoever of WP:RFCBEFORE that I can find.

Even if WP:RFCBEFORE states that before "using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties", there is no other parties here. I will indeed try WikiProject, the only one means out of the four bullet points that would apply. I would also ask at [Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment]] over "how best to frame" an RFC should it be necessary.

If you want to change policy (as implied by the presence of the |policy RfC category), please do so somewhere central, such as Wikipedia talk:Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Categorization or WP:VPP;

I do not seek a change of policy, I just wanted to solicit comments on its inconsistent application. As for the three central locations, the last time a human edited the first two was around a week ago, on 26 and 24 March, respectively. As for WP:VPP, I have indeed posted a discussion there, just that no-one responded to it.
Also, this is an in-general request, pertaining to more than Soroka, though he was the one who got me thinking over it.

Fourth, with six subsections and two sub-subsections, it is far too bureaucratic.

Sure. I have re-worded it and use collapse boxes for explanations.

Now what?

I will keep the RfC up, but strictly until a more suitable channel of clarification can be found, unless RfCs are indeed the correct place. Once one of your suggested locations provides feedback I (or you, if I forget) will close it. Would you mind participating in the question if it is well-placed? DePlume (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.