Talk:Daisy Chain Fields

Sorting of line-up

It seems weird to use surnames to alphabetize when some of the "surnames" are part of a stage name (e.g. Chappell Roan) and a good chunk of the names are one-word stage names (e.g. Eli) and band names (e.g. Garbage, Katseye). And what about Quiet Light, which you've treated alphabetized with Q instead of L? That's a single person. Sure, it doesn't "sound" like a real name, but then where do we draw the line, especially considering that Light is a real surname? @Pamzeis (talk · contribs) ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The ordering is consistent with MOS:LISTSORT, which says for people it should be ordered by last name first, and other articles (e.g. List of American musicians of Irish descent and Lilith Fair). I didn't notice Quiet Light, as I thought they were a band, but I went the DEFAULTSORT as a general rule. As for stage names, the surnames of the stage names are still treated as surnames (Roan's article refers to her as Roan). Pamzeis (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LISTSORT does not say that people need to be ordered by surname. It gives that as one of the options, but says you could also order by first name or initials.

Lists may be sorted alphabetically (e.g. for people: by surname, given name, initials)

I'm not trying to be rude, but did you skim over "e.g. for people: by surname, given name [...]" and read that as a single example (like "Smith, John")? Because if that's what it meant, it wouldn't make sense to then list "initials" after. What would surname-given name-initials even mean or look like? "Smith, John, J.S."?

You're saying that you thought Quiet Light was a band and therefore should be Q, but you're justifying your overall choice by giving the Lilith Fair article as an example, and the Lilith Fair article treats the band Indigo Girls as a G rather than I, placing them before Emmylou Harris. Which is a baffling decision in my opinion, but you're using that as an example to back your edit up.

I really don't wanna be rude, but come on man, I really don't wanna be having this discussion right now. The way it was before is so blatantly the best option ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)